Mining Activity

[Steve Bramley]

Dear All,

I am currently researching a mine explosion in the Kemmel sector on May 20th 1915 involving the 1/5th Bn. Lincolnshire Regt. According to 'The war Underground' the Germans had the upper hand in mining activities at this time and usual? tactics would be to explode a mine and then rush to consolidate the crater.

However on this occasion the opposing troops raided the same section of trench ten days earlier while held by the 1/4th Leicestershires, bombing the occupants and capturing one prisoner. The trench was 'over manned' during subsequent tours. After the explosion no attempt was made to occupy but rescue attempts were hampered cosiderably.

It would appear that this was a deliberate attempt to get the defenders to employ extra manpower in the area to maximise the mining results? Was this a change in tactics by the Germans? The trench in question was only 30 yards from the enemy so could it just have been an attempt to eliminate a 'troublesome' area? This sector at the time was not particularly 'hot' (although Hooge a bit further North was) The defending division was new to the area and full of the offensive spirit, could this have been a case of the more experienced Germans saying 'keep it quiet, or else'? Or am i way off here? Is anyone aware of any similar incidents?

Any comments would be gratefully received.

Does anyone have or know where i could find a trench map of this area?

Best regards,

Steve

[Geoff Parker]

Steve

Mines were blown for various reasons, both offensively and defensivly.

When a mine was blown forward of the enemy's trench line the attacking

force would rush forwward and try to capture and consolidate the rim of the

crater nearest to the enemy trench line. However the enemy would also leave

their trenches and try to capture the crater rim furthest from their trenches.

whoever capture the rim furthest from the lines would then attempt to include

it in the trench line but digging trenches back to their own lines. On the whole

the Germans were better at achieving this that the Allies. Tunnelling companies

would frequently blown a mine near the German trenches only to have the

enemy capture it before they did. Other time mines were blown under the

enemy trenches with the intention of a massive kill or to remove known machine

gun positions etc.

It is quite possible in the instance you talk about the Germans deliberately

entinced the British into over manning their trenches prior to blowing a mine

under them, and I dare say we did the same. The Germans were very good at

tunnelling but as with other devious ploys, ie gas, the Allies eventually surpassed

them.

Geoff

[Robert Dunlop]

Steve

Also bear in mind that the attitudes of German units towards offensive actions varied, as it did in British and French units. I remember a Prussian German recounting in his memoirs that non-Prussian units lacked the same aggressive spirit. This was all the more understandable when German units included non-Germans, such as men from Alsace and Lorraine (I use the term 'non-German' very loosely in this respect). I doubt that you would find a consistent policy on the sort of things you described.

FWIIW, I have not come across any similar incidents of the Germans enticing the British forward like this, though I would not be at all surprised that it was a deliberate ploy. But I do recall a British unit that, in retaliation for some perceived misdemeanour of the Germans opposite (?a group appeared in No-man's Land indicating they wanted to surrender. When they approached the British frontline, they then started bombing the unfortunate Tommies who were waiting), set in train a regular series of concerts. Once they were sure that the Germans were congregating on a regular basis to hear the music, the Brits then put down a stonk on the area.

[Tim Birch]

It is quite possible in the instance you talk about the Germans deliberately

entinced the British into over manning their trenches prior to blowing a mine

under them, and I dare say we did the same. The Germans were very good at

tunnelling but as with other devious ploys, ie gas, the Allies eventually surpassed

them.

Geoff

Another ploy was to bombard the enemy lies for several hours gradually building up to a crescendo. The enemy would seek refuge in his dug outs. Suddenly the bombardment would lift, and all along the line whistles would blow. Thinking an attack was iminent the enemy would scramble out of his dugouts to man the parapet, where upon the bombardment would recommence with shapnel bursts directly over the packed enemy trenches with no attack actually taking place.

Tim

[AndrewThornton]

This sector at the time was not particularly 'hot' (although Hooge a bit further North was) The defending division was new to the area and full of the offensive spirit, could this have been a case of the more experienced Germans saying 'keep it quiet, or else'? Or am i way off here? Is anyone aware of any similar incidents?

Does anyone have or know where i could find a trench map of this area?

Hi Steve

I am particularly interested in 46th Division's time in this sector, as although it was relatively quiet there were a lot of interesting things happening.

British mining operations had commenced shortly before 46th Division's arrival in the Kemmel/Wulverghem sector in April 1915, where the recently formed 172nd Tunnelling Company of the Royal Engineers were active in front of Kemmel, near Kruisstraat Cabaret and at Boyles Farm The resources of the tunnellers were stretched and therefore reinforcements were urgently required. Therefore, each of the three infantry Brigades, as well as a few Sappers from the Field Companies R.E., formed Brigade Mining Sections. Potential recruits were not difficult to find, as many of the men had been miners before the outbreak of war. For example, one officer and forty-two other ranks of the 1/5th Battalion, The South Staffordshire Regiment are known to have served either with the Brigade Mining Section or on the strength of Tunnelling Companies of the Royal Engineers during the period between April and October 1915. Members of the Brigade Mining Section also seem to have adopted the title “Sapper” in place of their normal infantry rank of Private to reflect their new role, often referring to themselves as such in several letters published in local newspapers during this period.

The Brigade Mining Section was involved in defensive mining operations only, mainly exploding camoflets under German tunnels to cause them to collapse. These subterranean activities were particularly hazardous. On 27th April, while inspecting a gallery following the detonation of a camoflet under a German tunnel near Kruisstraat Cabaret, carbon-monoxide fumes overcame Lieutenant Ernest Daniels and Sergeant Thomas Harper, two members of the 1/6th Battalion, The North Staffordshire Regiment attached to the Staffordshire Brigade Mining Section. A rescue party entered the shaft to try and recover the two men and although Lieutenant Daniels was brought out to the surface and survived, Harper had died as a result of choking on his false teeth while unconscious. Nine members of the rescue party were subsequently awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, six of whom were members of Staffordshire Brigade Mining Section.

There were plenty of other incidents as well, which would probably be referred to in a particular unit's War Diary or History.

The best source on the Mining Operations in this sector at this time would be 172nd Tunnelling Company's War Diary, the reference for which is WO 95/244.

There is also an excellent sketch map of 138th Brigade's sector in Paul Reed's "Walking the Salient" book. The page number escapes me, but I think the original is held at Kew. Perhaps Paul could tell us where he found it?

[Steve Bramley]

Geoff, Tim, Robert, Andrew,

Thanks very much for your interesting and informative replies, but it would seem that i have been concentrating on the events on the day of the mine explosion and have missed certain details in the lead up to it, thus making my first post somewhat misleading.

The trench in question was E.1.Left which was opposite Spanbroekmolen. I have some extracts from the Bn. war diary which does mention troops assisting the R.E. with a new sap from this trench, the extract for the 12th May (almost as an addendum) states;

'Assisted R.E. all day in E.1.L. & new sap & mine'

This was the first mention of a mine although the 'new sap' is mentioned almost everyday during the Lincolns trench tour. As the Germans held the higher ground it is more than likely that they would have noticed this activity so would perhaps have rushed their mine on to get in first, so to speak.

What i don't fully understand is if they were already preparing the mine then why bother with the earlier trench raid. They did take a prisoner. If they were able to extract information from him then perhaps they were able to re-direct their own mine more accurately?

This is the diary extract for the 10th May 1915:

Releived 1/4 Leicester Regt. at 11.30 p.m. While waiting to proced up to trenches, a report was received at 11.45 p.m. that E1L had been captured by the Germans. What really happened was that a German bombing party crept up (mysteriously) to E1L & apparently swarmed up to the parapet & threw bombs into the trench. This seemed to alarm the garrison & undoubtably some of them lost their heads as their officer, platoon seargeant & corporal were killed. The result of all this was that our Battn. at once sent up two companies to reinforce the 1/4 Leicesters. All was quite normal again by 1.am. Moral:- Inaccurate information leads to endless and unnecessary trouble. Casualty 1 O.R. wounded.

I have been to the library this morning to check further in the 5th Bn. history. The 46th division did explode a mine the following day under the German parapet of 13 trench in the German lines and there was also a reference to a R.E. officer Lt. Gosling who was killed helping during the previous day at E1L.

The extra manning of the E1L probably could have been to protect the sapping/mining activity as the 'race was on'?

Once again apologies if i've mislead anyone with my first post and i realise that i have to do more 'homework' before posting, but thanks again for your replies they've enabled me to focus a bit more here! The trench raid seem to have thrown me a bit.

Much appreciated,

Steve.

[Robert Dunlop]

They did take a prisoner. If they were able to extract information from him then perhaps they were able to re-direct their own mine more accurately?

Steve

I doubt the information would have enabled them to significantly change the course of the mine. The raiding soldiers may not even have been aware of where the tunnellers were up to and were not informed of the likely explosion till after the raid.

Robert

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Mining on the western front had many purposes. I have seen accounts of mines being used to simply damage enemy works and cause casualties, used in conjunction with an attack, with a raid, to cause confusion elsewhere during a raid.

Accounts show that some mines were fired and when occupied by enemy forces a second mine was set off to cause losses, etc.

Raids against enemy lines were used to identify suspected mine galleries and to cause damage to them during the raid. In one major German attack against the Granathof outside of La Boisselle in early 1915 the raid was undertaken to destroy the French position and all mine galleries that started under the old ruins. The number of mines fired by both sides eventually required a designation of A, B, C, D, and so on.

Ralph

[Steve Bramley]

Thanks Robert, Ralph,

I've been able to do a little more reading today and it appears the 1/4th Lincolns were also victims of a raid in the same area (trenches G2 and G3) on the 12th, with the aim suspected as the elimination of a new mine shaft.

Raids against enemy lines were used to identify suspected mine galleries and to cause damage to them during the raid.

As the Germans it would seem? had no intention of making a breakthrough in this area, would i be right in assuming that these were instances of attack being the best means of defence?

Regards,

Steve.

[Robert Dunlop]

would i be right in assuming that these were instances of attack being the best means of defence?

Steve

I bet you are spot on. When you read British accounts of soldiers in sectors subjected to mines, you can feel the fear that at any moment one would blow you to smithereens. At least with a shell, there was the sense you could hear it coming. Trench mortar bombs could be seen. But mines....

Yuk