Hawkins vs. M7 mine

[jgawne]

The M7 was a light mine made by the US Army in the latter part of the war. It looks like a Hawkins, and I would suspect is based on one.

 

I have run into references of US paras jumping into Normandy with M7s. Now I am not sure the M7 was actually in theater at that time, and wonder if they used a Hawkins (as we know they did), but later on got used to the US version and just said "M7" as it was so similar, and that was the nomenclature used by the US Army.

 

So my question is: Has anyone gotten any actual evidence that M7's were available to issue in the UK in June 1944, or that they were in fact carried on the jump by some of the men.

[Allan H.]

Jon,

At the 45th Anniversary of D-Day celebration (?) at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, KS, I had the opportunity to talk to Wally Strobel, who commanded E/502nd PIR. In fact, we spent almost two hours sitting by each other. One of the questions that I asked him was about the Hawkins mine strapped to his left calf. I was crestfallen when Wally said that it wasn't a Hawkins mine at all! Of course it was I thought to myself. He then called it an M7 GAMMON GRENADE. Obviously, it isn't a Gammon grenade, but the fact that he remembered it as an M-7 and not as a Hawkins Mine makes me believe that he had to have had some experience with them.

 

I know this isn't concrete evidence, but I figured that you might appreciate the story.

Allan

 

Edit- A couple of things- the photo with Ike was taken on Wally's 21st birthday. Ike had asked to Kansas, but Wally was from Michigan. Ike then started talking to Wally about fishing. Ike's hand is raised as he was demonstrating how he cast his line while fly fishing.

[Johan Willaert]

Looking at online pictures of the US made M7 and then at what is strapped to Strobel's leg, I would say Strobel had a Hawkins and not an M7...

 

http://www.lexpev.nl/minesandcharges/americas/unitedstates/minem7antitank.html

[Allan H.]

Posted Today, 01:30 PM

Looking at online pictures of the US made M7 and then at what is strapped to Strobel's leg, I would say Strobel had a Hawkins and not an M7...

http://www.lexpev.nl...m7antitank.html

Edited by Johan Willaert, Today, 01:31 PM.

 

Johan,

I evidently didn't do a very good job of explaining things. There is no doubt that what is strapped to Wally Strobel's leg is indeed a Hawkins mine.

 

Allan

[jgawne]

So why do some of the officers write in 1847 that they carried M7 mines? My current theory is that it was just what they had become used ot calling small thin metal mines of that size- but without proof it remains a theory.

[robinb]

I have an M7A2 mine box that was loaded July 1944. I also have a real early box for the T7 mine that's was never loaded but most certainly predates 7-44. So the mine was around pre D-Day for sure.

 

[Johan Willaert]

Johan,

I evidently didn't do a very good job of explaining things. There is no doubt that what is strapped to Wally Strobel's leg is indeed a Hawkins mine.

 

Ooops Allan, it was me who misread your post... Strobel clearly carried a Hawkins to Normandy, but must have worked with an M7 before the end of the war and calling every tin can type mine an M7...

 

That being said I have never come across any battlefield remains of an M7 in the ETO..

[Big Al]

Could it be that M7 was the US designation for the British version mine? The 6-pounder anti-tank gun, for example, had a different designation in US service.

[jgawne]

They were different looking mines. So I don't think it was just a nomenclature change. I would bet good money that the British had theirs, we saw it, went "hmm, that's a good idea" and made out own "lightweight mine." .

 

And while it is interesting your dates (cool boxes), there was a delay in when things were made, and when they arrived in the theater. I can't find an adoption date for the M7, but the time it took for things to get from a warehouse in the states to the UK could be very long. Especially if it was a new issue.

 

With ALL the fuss about paratroopers over the years I am kind of surprised no one has worked on this yet.

[17thairborne]

Here is a case for the M7 dated 4-44, at least 35 days before D-Day (assuming 30 April as the latest date manufactured in April). Given 1 April there is a chance these could have made it to England for issue. I believe the QM supply and transportation system was less than 60 days packing to arrival in ETO. Somewhere I have the QM Green Book that discussed the procurement/packing/transportation data regarding how long it took to get from factory to the hands of soldiers.

 

[17thairborne]

Sorry for the dissertaion, but it is relevant to the discussion.

 

From: Smith, Elberton R. United States Army in World War II: The War Department, The Army and Economic Mobilization. Washington D.C.: USGPO, 1958.

 

"In transit time was the average period of time in months and days for all types of equipment to be physically moved from points of acceptance at the procurement source to the zone of interior point of issue or the theater of operations port of embarkation..."

 

"the 1 August 1943 ASP, which allowed 45 days in-transit times to all theaters..."

 

ASP = Army Supplt Program.

 

The several paragraphs that discuss the in-transit times to the Theaters use the tems theaters and theater of operations interchangeable, and in the first quote use theater of operations ports of embarkation, but do not mention the port of embarkation in the second quote (which i am assuming to be the port in the US where goods are embarked for the theater??). late in the dissertaion them mention:

 

"The approved zone of interior in-transit allowance was 15 days."

 

If it took 15 days for items to get from procurement acceptance to an issue point in the US (ZOI), then it seems feasable that average time of 45 days meant that equipment of all types could get from the procurement point to the ETO (England in the discussion) in 45 days.

 

What remains to be determined is how long did it take to get from the manufacturer to the procurement acceptance point, or was that done at the factory?

 

It makes the discussion more difficult to unravel:

 

1. At what point was the container stamped ie. 4-44? Was it shortly beofre shipping, did it sit in the factory ?

2. How long did it take to get from the point where it was stamped to the procurment source (or are the manufacturer and the procurement source the same in which case the time is 0)

3. Add 45 days to go from procurement source to ( I am assuming) the theater of operation.

 

COuld have been done in as little as 45 days I am figuring.

 

more research needed.

[ccyooper]

Interesting. I have seen pictures of the m7 mines dated 1944 but don't recall a month. I looked in my 1943 mine tM and they are not listed and I either don't have or cannot find a later edition that included it to establish a first reference date. I believe there was a 1944 update to the pub. I know the mine was not developed in 1939 but that is what is listed on the Imp War Museum web site for reference. So we need to find an earlier date than 4-44 to advance the discussion. I did a quick scan of the 1st Army Report of Operations (Neptune/overlord) and could not find a reference to the mine in either the ordnance or engineer sections..did not see any mine for that matter... Since the M7 is only slightly larger than the Hawkins I can see where the M7 may have been confused later if they were not actually used during Normandy. If M7's were jumped in Holland and Germany this could be the reason for confusion. After a while the details get lost in the story as we are all aware. With all the new airborne books out there I suspect someone would have pictures... I won't have to look thru Jonathon's books as I suspect he already has!

 

CC

[17thairborne]

. I know the mine was not developed in 1939 but that is what is listed on the Imp War Museum web site for reference. So we need to find an earlier date than 4-44 to advance the discussion.

 

Agreed, we need to dig earlier, and then need a document or photo.

 

Does anyone have an inert M7 in their collection and would share a photo for us?

[17thairborne]

Nothing listed on M7 in 24 Mar 44 FM 5-35 Corps of Engineers Reference Data

[J_Andrews]

Are those packing cans the BRITISH style? Maybe their contents were made in the UK for U.S. use, with the the cans being painted OD instead of the usual British brown...

 

And, the original Hawkins were made using standard commercial one PINT cans, while the U.S. M-7 was twice as big, one QUART. IIRC the filler was also different/improved. There were some M-7 or was it M-7A1 mines in RVN, as I observed in an ARVN LLDB/CIDG storage bunker.

[17thairborne]

Not sure if British or now, but look like the same style as for the Hawkins mine cans.

[robinb]

Out of FM 5-31 Land Mines and Booby Traps. The page for the T7 (M7) mine is dated 8 March 1944. Roughly 90 days before D-Day. And that's when the manual was printed. The mine would have been developed before that date.

 

[jgawne]

They look different, but then a flat brown or OD can that is a light anti-tank mine is pretty similar. Still, I am thinking if any photos or proof existed that the M7 was used in the Normandy jump, then para guys around the world would be looking for them, and reproductions would have been made.

 

So I think it is reasonably safe to say that, until proven otherwise, the mention of an M7 on D-day is a guy meaning to say "small lightweight flat can mine."

[ccyooper]

Robin, I thought you might have the manual. I believe I have it but I still have about 50 boxes of books/pro gear unpacked. Well that establishes a good date. Note that it is still referenced as a T-7 and expected M7 nomenclature. I wouldn't rule them out. They were probably not common but I would expect that someone was trying to rush them to the field in limited numbers just like they do with new equipment today. Good candidates would have been paratroopers who were trying to delay forces to the beach landings.

 

You now how AB folks have been in the past, once it's identified everyone jumps on the grenade (humor) and then it is gospel and the M7 may have been just overlooked. The Hawkins is british, so who cares (Hawkins mine, check), most of the people are trying to determine which seamstress made that rigger pouch or if the canteen is reinforced and if the 1st aid pouch is pointed. I won't even bring up helmets....

 

Jonathon, in your books you have pictures of green pliofilm bags being used on D-day. Despite dated examples, many "experts" were saying no way until shown differently. I don't believe this to be any different. I expect that folks will be scouring pictures now looking for a slightly larger mine than a Hawkins.. and by the 70th, WPG will have one on every reenactor's wish list. Sort of like sticky bombs in SPR. In the movie it appeared like something out of heaven; however, I believe there was a complete article on them in a 1943 infantry journal. The information is probably out there to prove or disprove it, we just need to find it.

 

Thanks for presenting the question, that's what makes this forum interesting.

CC

[jgawne]

The esteemed Mark Bando told me has no info that the M7 was used. So for me that's about as good as it gets.

[ordnance]

Jon,

 

I think your conclusion is correct. Slightly possible but unlikely any arrived in time. I thought some might like to see a size comparison between a No.75 MkII Hawkins and the M7A1 and M7A2 American mines.

 

 

 

 

[jgawne]

NICE! Thanks! So in reality they are pretty close visually, flat steel can mines chemically ignited. I can easily see where once the M7 was in use guys would just use that term instead of having to explain why they used a British mine others may not have heard of back in Normandy. I don't think you can call it "busted" (as in mythbusters) but I think it is highly probably baring any new data.

[Quartermaster]

Here are pictures of my inert M7 mine that I added to my collection several years ago. It is marked on the bottom side - MINE, AT, INERT, LIGHT, M7. It looks to be about the size of a quart metal paint thinner can. Whatever inert material that it was filled with to give it the approximate actual weight seemed to have some component possibly it was just moisture to cause some rusting like activity from the inside. I had to do some restorative work to save the mine and then repaint the can OD. The markings above are painted over but the outlines are visible - remarking is my next project.

 

You can see the mine along with the pressure strap, the steel wire loop for carrying and/or securing the mine which is attached to the screw in cap protecting the blasting cap well and the cloth bag that was used to protect the manual triggering mechanism from becoming fouled by dirt and debris.

 

 

Next is a photo of the mine with the pressure trigger removed to reveal the pressure fuze with safety clip in place/

 

 

This next photo shows the inert fuze and the inert booster charge which was held below beside the mine revealing the fuze well.

 

 

This photo shows the can which was opened with a key that holds the fuze and booster charge.

 

 

This shows the blasting cap well with the screw cap removed.

 

 

Finally in addition to being able to be detonated by pressure, the M7 mine could be detonated by either a time fuze or electrical blasting cap.

 

 

 

My demonstration/inert M7 is a post war model and the fuze components are marked.

 

The can itself is marked -

 

FUZE MINE EMPTY AT M603

LOT LOP-SP-84A LOADED 9-53

DWG 73-9-55 REV 2-24-53

 

The fuze is marked on top -

 

FUZE,MINE,AT,M603

 

And on the side -

 

LOP-SR-84A 9-53 EMPT

 

The booster is marked -

 

BOOSTER_M120 INERT

LOP-SR-85A 9-53

 

 

Although this in no way helps with the dating of when the M7 mine's use began, at least it shows an example as requested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jgawne]

Very cool.

[Dirt Detective]

Great pictures and info guys.