Talk:Battle of Pilckem Ridge

Poorly cited, poorly written
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.
 * Thank you very much, why don't you improve it? PS that's superannuated-graduate-pleb to you.Keith-264 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Artillery division
?Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No reall attachement to the inclusion, just that other than the title of the section it did not indicate that they were artillery formations and that the formations themselves are oftne listed as divisional artillery.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the sentence to the appropriate section.Keith-264 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oh that sentence. I have no idea how it migrated down to the artillery section. When I was editing it did seem rather off for it to be there. Good move--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fear I put it there. When I redid the first bits of the main page I amalgamated some of the original material with the stuff I added and moved other bits around in consequence of trying to simplify the structure on the page - that's how I managed to lose the 'note' from the weather section. Keith-264 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Guessed that reflist|3 meant three columns and tried it. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I've checked give the objective lines laterally (Blue line from here to here to here). Sketch 10 in the OH has the lines superimposed on the map so we could measure the distances for each corps. Would that count or would it be OR?Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The first, second, third and fourth objectives of sketch 10 coincide, as far as they go, with the German first, second and third lines, and Flanders I Position.

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 :

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. Fifth Army would attack along a front of about 14000 yd 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, at any one of which a halt could be called if necessary, a distance of up to 3000 - 3500 yd to the green line for consolidation. A possible further advance to the red line by advanced guards as far as Polygon Wood, Broodseinde and Langemarck 1000 - 1500 yd further on, to exploit any collapse of German resistance on parts of the front, was left to the discretion of the division commanders.

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)

Air operations

 * Some items here for convenience.*

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 No search was undertaken of the German backa areas for the advance of German Eingreif divisions before the weather worsened before midday.

18 Div History
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)
 * Go with figure you feel most comfortable with. There is nothing to say you can't state both in the note and allow readers to draw their own interpretation or conclusion. Entirely up to you.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate paragraph
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.

article direction
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 doubt that narrative is difficult to follow but neither am I wedded to leaving it in the article (plus its continuation in the Menin Road page). I've thought about moving the new information and the stuff on the main page about German defensive preparations to a separate one like the one you started about Eingreif divisions with a link. What do you think?Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The readability and layout is an issue. Articles involving single battles (not campaigns) consistently involve 4 main sections: Introduction (the lede), Background/Preclude, Battle and Aftermath. Everything else is subsections of one of those. I thought the previous format worked, and really only required that the battle section be broken into more sizeable subsections. I’ll copy the article into a sandbox and do some edits there and see if I can return the content to a more consistent format.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a root round and think that the page on the Western Front might be a place for the tactical developments material with a link to it on the Pilckem and other battle pages. As regards reviews and the criteria for them, that's another thng I have no experience of so I regret your waiting until now to discuss it. Are there any other parts of the 3rd Ypres you have in mind for the process?Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given this article is already a sub article of Third Battle of Ypres, the summary of the tactical situations should be very limited, likely no more than one subsection and should likely only relate to this specific battle, not the campaign as a whole.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Detail
I have moved lots of detail to the separate page here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_development_on_the_Western_Front_in_1917

and parked the removals here for the moment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox

Now here Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917Keith-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)


 * Added a reference and synchronised with main page.Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added note to lead as no mention of result in Aftermath.Keith-264 (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Items moved from main page
The British Official History 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) for 21–31 July are '30,000 in round numbers' 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. Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Map
Does anyone have a map for this page? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked high and low for a trench map for the battle but nothing has come up. Since the British war diaries are not uploaded online getting one will be difficult, short of actually going archive diving and having the document scanned.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I feared so. Thanks Labatt.Keith-264 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What about this one?

Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this one?

Keith-264 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Put the latter map on in the Afternmath section experimentally (it has a good balance between detail, resolution and size).Keith-264 (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Put the weather in a box and shifted things around to conform to headers, did a bit of prose revision and nowraps too.Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Army
Remedied the omission of operations by the Second Army with two paragraphs.Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719173700/http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm to http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
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)

CE
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)

New Zealand
It's in the article....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)