This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gotta love Wikipedia. I cannot trust a single thing it has to say on military history. Best just to draw one's own conclusions from the widely available historiography rather than what some undergraduate pleb has written.
? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
2nd Army
II Anzac: nz div, 3 oz sketch 11 OH 1917 II
IX: 19, 37
X: 41
5 army
II Corps: 24, 30, 8, sk 14 (1 br 18 Div p153)
XIX: 15, 55 sk 13
XVIII: 51, 39
XIV: 38, Gds
1st Fr army : [2]
1 Corps: 1, 51
162nd, 2nd in res Keith-264 ( talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"After conference, the objectives for the main attack were ; a fourth line, along the ridge at Broodseinde, was to be reached by exploitation, if opportunity offered. General Gough now urged28 that only the second objective should be aimed at on the first day-from now on, throughout the offensive, he seems consistently to have advocated shallow, limited objectives ; but General Plumer pressed for the deeper offensive, and his view was approved." P. 697 http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awmohww1/aif/vol4/awmohww1-aif-vol4-ch17.pdf Keith-264 ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Gough intended to use nine divisions and one brigade from the British Fifth Army, plus two divisions from the French First Army and five divisions from the British Second Army. Gough's plan involved a preparatory bombardment starting on 16 July finishing on 25 July, although the attack was delayed until 31 July 1917. The Second Army would create the impression of a more ambitious attack beyond Messines Ridge, by capturing outposts in the Warneton Line east of the ridge. [3] Fifth Army would attack along a front of about 14,000 yards (13,000 m) running from Klein Zillebecke in the south to the Ypres—Staden railway in the north, with the French First Army on its northern flank attacking with two divisions, from the boundary with XIV Corps to the flooded area just beyond Steenstraat. The objective on the first day was an advance in three stages, to the three German trench-systems, roughly, 1,000, 2,000 and 3,500 yards forward, [4] at any one of which a halt could be called if necessary, a distance of up to 3,000–3,500 yards (2,700–3,200 m) to the green line for consolidation. [5] A possible further advance to the red line by advanced guards as far as Polygon Wood, Broodseinde and Langemarck 1,000–1,500 yards (910–1,370 m) further on, to exploit any collapse of German resistance on parts of the front, was left to the discretion of the division commanders. [6]
21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Each British Fifth Army corps placed two additional divisions in reserve. 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Except II corps, 18 & 25 divs were in reserve so only 1 2/3, since 1/3 attached to 30 Div. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
OH sketch, 18 16 Aug has 11, 48 div xviii corps, 36, 16 div xix corps, 8, 56 div ii corps ( Note sketch 17 for 10 Aug has 25, 18, 24 div so 25 & 18 divs the reserve on 31 Jul) so favouring of ii corps continued after 31 July. It adds to the inadequacy of the "Gough impetuous" school of thought so I think the wording re Gheluvelt Plateau ought to use the language of German success more than British failure. Sketch 19 has 29, 20 divs in xiv corps. These are the reserve divs on 31 Jul.
Map between p. 112 and 113 of Sir Douglas Haig's Despatches, Boraston, J. H. (1920) has French 1st and 51st divs (r to l or south to north). 162nd and 2nd divisions also in I Fr corps: Third Ypres and the restoration of confidence in the ranks of the French Army in Passchendaele in Perspective p.92. 36 Corps hq replaced I Corps 15 sep p.98. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
References
The morning of 31 July was dull with cloud at 500-800 feet which remained all day. Rain beginning in the afternoon added to the loss of visibility making it impossible to follow the air plan. Some low flying was done with 58 contact patrols flown. Infantry flares were not lit so the contact aeroplanes flew low enough to distinguish the uniforms of the troops below; 30 aircraft were damaged many by bullets and shells. By this means a picture of the advance was obtained for the army staffs. Beyond the line offensive patrols attacked targets as they were found and German aerodromes were attacked. In conditions usually judged unfit for flying a considerable efort had been improvised at a cost of four aircrew killed, four taken prisoner and eight wounded for eight German aircraft claimed destroyed. German aircraft also managed to make some attacks on British infantry [1] No search was undertaken of the German backa areas for the advance of German Eingreif divisions before the weather worsened before midday. [2]
I'm having second thoughts about the reference to II Corps's quantity of artillery per division because the OH contradicts it."Each infantry division of the II Corps had eight or nine field artillery brigades (including army field artillery units) to support it, while the divisions of the other three Corps each had six." (OH 1917 II, p. 136, fn 1.) 1,000 of 2,299 guns is 43.5% of the Fifth Army artillery which supports the claim that the Gheluvelt plateau wasn't 'neglected' by Gough. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The principal groups were; Group Wytschaete, Group Ypres and Group Dixmude. Group Wytschaete was under the command of IX Reserve Corps, and defended its area of operations with the 16th Division, 18th Reserve Division, 10th Bavarian Division and 6th Bavarian Reserve Division. Group Ypres, under III Bavarian Corps, defended with the 38th Division, 235th Division and 3rd Guard Division. Group Dixmude, under the German XIV Corps, defended with the 111th Division.
I have concerns that the level of detail in this article makes it almost impossible for a non-expert to understand. The article, until a couple days ago looked like it was rather close to being ready for a GA level review, I no longer view that to be the case. It certainly can’t go towards GA review if it’s not stable. The article previous appeared to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on the subject; at 65K it’s getting pretty long winded. Where do you want to go with this article?-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 19:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I have moved lots of detail to the separate page here
/info/en/?search=Tactical_development_on_the_Western_Front_in_1917
and parked the removals here for the moment
/info/en/?search=User:Keith-264/sandbox
Now here Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 Keith-264 ( talk) 06:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I would be grateful if people could review the changes to see if they are satisfactory.Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 07:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The British Official History [1] gives Fifth Army casualties for 31 July to 3 August as 27,001; 3,697 of them killed. Second Army casualties 31 July to 2 August are 4,819; 769 killed. German Fourth Army casualties (3rd Guard, 235th, 38th, 22nd Reserve, 10th Bavarian, 18th Reserve, 16th, 32nd, 2nd Guard Reserve (Eingreif), 12th (Eingrief), 221st, 52nd Reserve (Eingreif), 207th (Eingreif), 50th Reserve (Eingreif), 111th and 23rd Reserve divisions) [2] [3] for 21–31 July are '30,000 in round numbers' [4] excluding 'wounded whose recovery was to be expected in a reasonable time'. The British Official Historian controversially added another 10,000 for this category. The accuracy of Edmonds's casualty statistics for the German army has been questioned ever since. [5] Keith-264 ( talk) 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
References
Does anyone have a map for this page? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 14:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Keith-264 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Keith-264 ( talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Remedied the omission of operations by the Second Army with two paragraphs. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Pilckem Ridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been tidying the page and have found some decent narrative of the French side which I will incorporate. Removed some overlapping and foreshadowing. Keith-264 ( talk) 07:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Cut narrative in the Background and Prelude and replaced with hatnotes to the Passchendaele page to avoid repetition and make room for more material on the French from the FOH. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It's in the article....;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 07:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gotta love Wikipedia. I cannot trust a single thing it has to say on military history. Best just to draw one's own conclusions from the widely available historiography rather than what some undergraduate pleb has written.
? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
2nd Army
II Anzac: nz div, 3 oz sketch 11 OH 1917 II
IX: 19, 37
X: 41
5 army
II Corps: 24, 30, 8, sk 14 (1 br 18 Div p153)
XIX: 15, 55 sk 13
XVIII: 51, 39
XIV: 38, Gds
1st Fr army : [2]
1 Corps: 1, 51
162nd, 2nd in res Keith-264 ( talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"After conference, the objectives for the main attack were ; a fourth line, along the ridge at Broodseinde, was to be reached by exploitation, if opportunity offered. General Gough now urged28 that only the second objective should be aimed at on the first day-from now on, throughout the offensive, he seems consistently to have advocated shallow, limited objectives ; but General Plumer pressed for the deeper offensive, and his view was approved." P. 697 http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awmohww1/aif/vol4/awmohww1-aif-vol4-ch17.pdf Keith-264 ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Gough intended to use nine divisions and one brigade from the British Fifth Army, plus two divisions from the French First Army and five divisions from the British Second Army. Gough's plan involved a preparatory bombardment starting on 16 July finishing on 25 July, although the attack was delayed until 31 July 1917. The Second Army would create the impression of a more ambitious attack beyond Messines Ridge, by capturing outposts in the Warneton Line east of the ridge. [3] Fifth Army would attack along a front of about 14,000 yards (13,000 m) running from Klein Zillebecke in the south to the Ypres—Staden railway in the north, with the French First Army on its northern flank attacking with two divisions, from the boundary with XIV Corps to the flooded area just beyond Steenstraat. The objective on the first day was an advance in three stages, to the three German trench-systems, roughly, 1,000, 2,000 and 3,500 yards forward, [4] at any one of which a halt could be called if necessary, a distance of up to 3,000–3,500 yards (2,700–3,200 m) to the green line for consolidation. [5] A possible further advance to the red line by advanced guards as far as Polygon Wood, Broodseinde and Langemarck 1,000–1,500 yards (910–1,370 m) further on, to exploit any collapse of German resistance on parts of the front, was left to the discretion of the division commanders. [6]
21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Each British Fifth Army corps placed two additional divisions in reserve. 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Except II corps, 18 & 25 divs were in reserve so only 1 2/3, since 1/3 attached to 30 Div. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
OH sketch, 18 16 Aug has 11, 48 div xviii corps, 36, 16 div xix corps, 8, 56 div ii corps ( Note sketch 17 for 10 Aug has 25, 18, 24 div so 25 & 18 divs the reserve on 31 Jul) so favouring of ii corps continued after 31 July. It adds to the inadequacy of the "Gough impetuous" school of thought so I think the wording re Gheluvelt Plateau ought to use the language of German success more than British failure. Sketch 19 has 29, 20 divs in xiv corps. These are the reserve divs on 31 Jul.
Map between p. 112 and 113 of Sir Douglas Haig's Despatches, Boraston, J. H. (1920) has French 1st and 51st divs (r to l or south to north). 162nd and 2nd divisions also in I Fr corps: Third Ypres and the restoration of confidence in the ranks of the French Army in Passchendaele in Perspective p.92. 36 Corps hq replaced I Corps 15 sep p.98. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
References
The morning of 31 July was dull with cloud at 500-800 feet which remained all day. Rain beginning in the afternoon added to the loss of visibility making it impossible to follow the air plan. Some low flying was done with 58 contact patrols flown. Infantry flares were not lit so the contact aeroplanes flew low enough to distinguish the uniforms of the troops below; 30 aircraft were damaged many by bullets and shells. By this means a picture of the advance was obtained for the army staffs. Beyond the line offensive patrols attacked targets as they were found and German aerodromes were attacked. In conditions usually judged unfit for flying a considerable efort had been improvised at a cost of four aircrew killed, four taken prisoner and eight wounded for eight German aircraft claimed destroyed. German aircraft also managed to make some attacks on British infantry [1] No search was undertaken of the German backa areas for the advance of German Eingreif divisions before the weather worsened before midday. [2]
I'm having second thoughts about the reference to II Corps's quantity of artillery per division because the OH contradicts it."Each infantry division of the II Corps had eight or nine field artillery brigades (including army field artillery units) to support it, while the divisions of the other three Corps each had six." (OH 1917 II, p. 136, fn 1.) 1,000 of 2,299 guns is 43.5% of the Fifth Army artillery which supports the claim that the Gheluvelt plateau wasn't 'neglected' by Gough. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The principal groups were; Group Wytschaete, Group Ypres and Group Dixmude. Group Wytschaete was under the command of IX Reserve Corps, and defended its area of operations with the 16th Division, 18th Reserve Division, 10th Bavarian Division and 6th Bavarian Reserve Division. Group Ypres, under III Bavarian Corps, defended with the 38th Division, 235th Division and 3rd Guard Division. Group Dixmude, under the German XIV Corps, defended with the 111th Division.
I have concerns that the level of detail in this article makes it almost impossible for a non-expert to understand. The article, until a couple days ago looked like it was rather close to being ready for a GA level review, I no longer view that to be the case. It certainly can’t go towards GA review if it’s not stable. The article previous appeared to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on the subject; at 65K it’s getting pretty long winded. Where do you want to go with this article?-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 19:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I have moved lots of detail to the separate page here
/info/en/?search=Tactical_development_on_the_Western_Front_in_1917
and parked the removals here for the moment
/info/en/?search=User:Keith-264/sandbox
Now here Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 Keith-264 ( talk) 06:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I would be grateful if people could review the changes to see if they are satisfactory.Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 07:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The British Official History [1] gives Fifth Army casualties for 31 July to 3 August as 27,001; 3,697 of them killed. Second Army casualties 31 July to 2 August are 4,819; 769 killed. German Fourth Army casualties (3rd Guard, 235th, 38th, 22nd Reserve, 10th Bavarian, 18th Reserve, 16th, 32nd, 2nd Guard Reserve (Eingreif), 12th (Eingrief), 221st, 52nd Reserve (Eingreif), 207th (Eingreif), 50th Reserve (Eingreif), 111th and 23rd Reserve divisions) [2] [3] for 21–31 July are '30,000 in round numbers' [4] excluding 'wounded whose recovery was to be expected in a reasonable time'. The British Official Historian controversially added another 10,000 for this category. The accuracy of Edmonds's casualty statistics for the German army has been questioned ever since. [5] Keith-264 ( talk) 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
References
Does anyone have a map for this page? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 14:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Keith-264 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Keith-264 ( talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Remedied the omission of operations by the Second Army with two paragraphs. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Pilckem Ridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been tidying the page and have found some decent narrative of the French side which I will incorporate. Removed some overlapping and foreshadowing. Keith-264 ( talk) 07:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Cut narrative in the Background and Prelude and replaced with hatnotes to the Passchendaele page to avoid repetition and make room for more material on the French from the FOH. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It's in the article....;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 07:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)