Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Passchendaele


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

First Battle of Passchendaele

 * Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class as I believe it is sufficiently close, even-though there is a lack of German sources on the subject. Feedback would be very much appreciated. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

and: "If Generals Monash and Godley had had experience on the Somme, it is unlikely that they would have agreed to this arrangement. Had Godley really known the conditions of October 9th-the thinness of the barrage, the complete absence of smoke screen, the ineffectiveness of the bombardment, the exhaustion of the troops, how could he have hoped for success with deeper objectives than any since July 31st, shorter preparation, and with the infantry asked to advance at a pace unattempted in the dry weather of September?"
 * Comments
 * Disclaimer: my great uncle Jack Williams served with the 38th Battalion and was one of the men who reached Passchendaele, but did not return.
 * Link 3rd Australian and the New Zealand divisions when they first appear
 * Link Bean. And Chris Pugsly.
 * "Field Marshal Douglas haig" should be "Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig" wot? (And link Field Marshal to Field marshal (United Kingdom))
 * done
 * The final plan for the attack of 12 October, was decided on the evening of 9 October. Delete the comma
 * The division had the nominal support of one-hundred and forty-four 18-pounder field guns and forty-eight 4.5 inch howitzers. Change to digits: 144
 * Done
 * A decline had set in among German troops in Flanders I have no idea what this means
 * Amended to make it clear that it is a paraphrase the paraphrase of Rupprecht diary view in Sheldon.Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I expected the article to note that this was the costliest battle of the war for New Zealand. There has been a couple of books produced over there in recent years, Glyn Harper's Massacre at Passchendaele : the New Zealand story (2000) and Andrew Macdonald's Passchendaele: The Anatomy of a Tragedy (2013).
 * See Casualties and Commemoration section, talk page and the price of the books
 * found a little more in 1917: Tactics...Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In 1941 the Australian Official Historian Charles Bean, attributed the delay to inefficiency by Lieutenant-General Alexander Godley, the II Anzac Corps commander and his staff, as did Pugsley in 1997. Actually, Bean wrote this is in 1933, not 1941. I'm getting annoyed with the 1941 stuff. The War Memorial decided to digitize the 1941 edition. But all the page numbers are the same as the earlier editions, except for the Roman numerals ones in the preface, which contain errata. It should be listed as 1933. not 1941. What did Bean say? "At the moment when this order was given [on 10 October], little was known of the true experiences and results of the recent fight. But, before the coming attack was launched, there was time to ascertain what had happened, and this duty rested in particular on General Godley and the staff of I1 Anzac. Obviously, there was every reason for caution: the advance As the divisions were changed, II Anzac Headquarters was the lowest staff to participate in the two operations projected for the II Anzac divisions was now not 1,500, but from 2,000 to 2,500 yards. The interval between the attacks the time available for bombardment and other preparation of all sorts-was not six or eight days, but three. Presumably the reason for this was the supposed weakening of the enemy’s morale."


 * Bean makes the point that it wasn't just guns being out of action: "The Germans noted that effective counter-battery fire in the intervals between attacks had almost ceased. Actually, in spite of immense efforts by gunners and roadmakers between the 4th and 12th of October, it was found impossible for most batteries to reach by the gth, or even by the 12th, their intended positions. In I1 Anzac, for the artillery in the 3rd Division’s sector, a circuit road had been planned. the engineers to work on the northern half and the 3rd Pioneers on the southern. But the time was too short ; the plank supply almost entirely failed, and the track was impassable. Many batteries, including heavy ones, had to be stopped on the forward slope of Frezenberg ridge in positions in full view of the Germans."

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Change down man and find your neutral space. I realised that the year should be 1933 months after the article was B classed and have been amending the references as I revisit articles. Notice also that the point is made in a note and refers only to the judgement made by Bean on Godley et al., rather than as an analysis of all the problems in preparing the 12th October attack.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The work of the gunners and sappers deserves more attention I think.
 * The logistics of the operation don't get much of a mention either.
 * Any sources? Sadly the deficiencies of the article go further than stylistic infelicities and differences of opinion over details. Even Der Weltkrieg is sketchy on the battle, which I why I thought it was worthy of a B but no more. Others disagree, which has led to some welcome piecemeal improvements but also some retrograde changes. Still, mustn't grumble too much, at least some bugger's read it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the matter of the bibliographic details for Bean, it is my understanding that the citation should refer to the specific version that was consulted. The details should include the edition (if not the first edition) and the year published is the year that the particular edition became available (see Help:Citation Style 1). It is acknowledged that there are (at least potentially) variations between editions as distinct from reprints. If the online version from the AWM was the source then I would suggest these would be the details, though there may be a better choice of fields/formatting.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the 1941 (11th edition) is a version of the first (1933) edition so I've altered them all to be 1933 for the year and 11th edition 1941 for the edition:

* Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at the link Help:Citation Style 1. There are also other links I could find but the date/year is for the publication of the edition. You are not incorrect in saying that every edition is a version of earlier editions however, in citing references, every edition is treated as if it were a discrete work. See Citation about supplying "detail to identify the item uniquely". See Citing sources. If I were actually sourcing from my University of Qld reproduction (I have one) then I should be citing IAW this. Consider the Chicargo Manual of Style. The first edition appeared in 1906 and it is now in its 16th edition. The main point is that the 1933 edition is the first edition and the 1941 edition is the 11th edition and they are not the same. To refer to the 1933 11th edition is incorrect. Also note that the 1941 edition was published by Angus and Robertson Ltd. Please check the title page of the web version.  "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book." (International Standard Book Number) However, ISBNs date from ca 1970 and lack of discrete ISBNs for earlier works is likely an anachronism. In short, if you were refering to the AWM online version, it would be my position that you should be citing the 1941, 11th edition. I hope this is sufficiently convincing. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does the template have a year criterion and an edition criterion? Isn't 11th 1941 enough?Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Short answer - it does. Practice is to give the year and, if not the first edition - the edition. It is possible to have more than one edition in a year. I won't swear to it but I am pretty certain I have seen that. 11th edn 1941 is enough or did I miss something? Cinderella157 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't care who's right but having changed them once, I'll wait until everyone else has made their minds up before doing anything else.Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can understand your frustration but is anybody else quoting material. A lot of wiki stuff lacks clarity but Help:Citation Style 1 is specific: "Year of publication edition being referenced." I suggest perhaps this should be adjudicated Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See Citing sources - "A citation, or reference, uniquely identifies a source of information." [My emphasis]. Mixing identifying details degrades the capacity to uniquely identify the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not frustrated, I'm waiting.Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reprints of older publications see hereKeith-264 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually refered to this.
 * See Citing sources. If I were actually sourcing from my University of Qld reproduction (I have one)[in regard to Bean's Vol IV] then I should be citing IAW this (see http://www.worldcat.org/title/official-history-of-australia-in-the-war-of-1914-1918-vol4-the-australian-imperial-force-in-france-1917/oclc/59249704 My copy states it was reproduced from the 1943 version).
 * It is not at all inconsistent with what I have been saying. The example is for a 1959 reprint of the first edition of On the Origin of Species. Somewhere, I have a penguin version of the first edition, which would be different again. There were six English (printed in England) editions. See On the Origin of Species for the referencing of five of these. They clearly show the relationship between date and edition when giving a reference. Looking at the further reading (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html) There are two separate editions listed for the same year for the American editions. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was actually defending that 1941 was correct and, not wanting to be accused of not carrying my end of the stick, I have made corrections to the reference and the inconsistency caused by the a mismatch in the date. I have also proposed an edit to clarify this on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"By a succession of attacks with objectives of diminishing distance, with increasing numbers of infantry, behind a bigger multi-layered creeping barrage and with standing barrages on the objective lines during consolidation, German counter-attacks would be confronted by a defence in depth, with infantry in communication with its artillery and with much more local support from the Royal Flying Corps, rather than the former practice of looking to exploit success by occupying vacant ground beyond the final objective."
 * Fine. Just adjust the 1941 in the text to 1933. (Who is robbing this coach?) Now, I have a another bit, which should be rewritten completely:


 * First of all, this sentence is ridiculously long
 * Secondly, the belongs here and not in the next section
 * Now we get the the crux of the problem, which is that it is wrong on many points:
 * Step by step merely involved a series of bite and hold attacks. It did not involve "diminishing distance" or "increasing numbers of infantry" or "behind a bigger barrage". The distance was set by the range of the 18-pounders: less than 6,000 m. So if the guns are 2,000 m back, then you can advance up to about 3,000 m. In fact, the way they did it involved moving the guns forward on every other attack. The width of the attack was determined by the number of guns and the amount of ammunition available.
 * The standing barrages were on the objective lines. That would be silly. They were about 100 m beyond it.
 * German counter-attacks were not confronted by a defence in depth, but by the standing barrage and the consolidating infantry
 * The infantry was not in communication with its artillery. In fact, they even dropped the use of signalling flares. Instead, the artillery fire was on a fixed schedule. The infantry had no way of calling the gunners and asking for changes like fire to be directed at a particular position, or the creeping barrage to be held up.
 * While the RFC was involved in spotting, the main burden of locating the enemy batteries was with the sound rangers. It was the job of the heavy artillery to deal with the German guns
 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the above is accurate. The distance was not set by the range of field artillery but the design of the German defensive system. The depth attacked was determined by the quantity of artillery - particularly the 650 extra guns moved into the front during September. The use of leap-frogging meant that each objective was consolidated by the troops which attacked it, creating a series of defended lines and localities intended to create a defence in depth. Every method available was used to communicate with the artillery - signal lamps, flares to show contact-patrol aircraft the position of the infantry (and rockets to signal direct to the artillery), pigeons, messenger dogs, runners, all observed by balloon observers, contact patrol aircraft, separate counter-attack patrol aircraft and reports from fighter pilots who had been ground-strafing. Sound ranging was less effective in Flanders because the the German guns were behind the slight rises in the ground. The air with sounds from the guns often moved westwards and upwards and didn't register. The British used every method they could find to locate German guns - captured records, prisoner interrogation, air reconnaissance, wireless interception and plotting the smoke screens the Germans used when firing, as well as flash spotting and sound ranging. I suggest you add citation needed where you want more links to the sources.Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

PS Standing barrages fell 200-300 yards beyond the objective and sometimes swept back-and-forth.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Made some changes for clarification and added a few citations.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right about the distance to the standing barrage, and about the establishment of a defence in depth, which had been British doctrine since the middle of the year; but this took time to set up. During a battle, the barrage held off the counterattacks. The only point I disagree with you on is the matter of the depth of the attack. The breadth of the attack was set by the number of guns (because you wanted so many per yard), but the depth was due to their range. A bite and hold attack simply could not go beyond the range of the guns.
 * Also, your wording ready to engage German guns which opened fire, with gas and high-explosive shell makes it unclear whether you are talking about British or German guns. (Did the British have mustard at Third Ypres? I can't remember.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 does not mention the British switch to defence in depth in mid-1917. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not after 31 July. Opportunities to take vacant ground had been missed at Arras and Messines because of the standing barrages so the plan had provision for an opportunistic advance to the red line with fresh troops (source of much confusion since, when it was treated as the final objective) decided on locally by divisional and corps commanders. The effectiveness of the German defence led to such arrangements being dropped for subsequent attacks, which was the reason for limiting the depth of the objectives. By advancing only into the relatively thinner defences close to the front line, the British would not present the German counter-attacks with exhausted and depleted infantry out of contact with the rear but consolidated defences with fresh local reserves. At each objective, the troops which reached it would dig in and fresh troops continue the advance to the next objective after a pause so that if the attack went well there would be an outpost line, a rear line and a support line in the captured area, beyond the existing British defences at and behind the original front line. Much of the defence would be in captured pillboxes and blockhouses, which took time to envelop and capture and the rest would be dispersed on reverse slopes so that (if it wasn't foggy etc) it could be seen from the rear by artillery observers.

I think what I've done is fail to make it clear that the defence in depth term I used, was referring to the tactical situation in the battle area, rather than the systematic defences all armies used on the Western Front. (I looked at the Wiki page on infantry tactics for a link but there isn't enough detail in it.) If there's a better term to use it can go. The emphasis after 31 July became the defeat of the German counter-attacks, which had forced the attackers back from captured ground considered the most important by the Germans. (The emphasis isn't great in the tertiary literature, which tends to follow an obsolete line that it was only Plumer who gave up "breakthrough attempts", in the three big successes culminating on 4 Oct. The Germans used a period from 4–12 Oct as the crisis of the campaign, which rather contradicts much British historiography.) The British got into Polygon Wood from 10 – 16 August and were thrown out again each time. British methods changed after 31 July but this is obscured by personalising it, when it was actually continuous and can be cited from the OH and some of the other sources like Simpson.Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Suppressed "defence in depth" after thinking it over; made the counter battery sentence clearer.Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

preliminary comments by auntieruth I'm confused. First, where is the nominator in all of this discussion? The chatter here seems to involve Hawkeye, Cinderella and Keith. I know something about this battle (not a lot, but some), and I'm completely confused by the first three sections and the lead. For example, in the lead ..., based on incorrect information that during the Battle of Poelcappelle (9 October), the attacking troops had captured the first objective line. The front line near Passchendaele had hardly changed after German counter-attacks in the afternoon recaptured most of the lost ground, which meant that the final objective for the attack on 12 October was 2,000–2,500-yard (1,800–2,300 m) forward, instead of the 1,500 yards (1,400 m) expected  Ummm....where should I start? Okay, so Poelcapelle was earlier. And it didn't go as far as it should have? Or So Incorrect intelligence from the Battle of Poelcappele (9 October) placed the objective at 2,000-2,500 yards forward, 1,500 yards more than the Paschendaele battle plan expected? If this is correct, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph anyway. The lead doesn't take me through, it takes me in a circle.

It would help to say what the goal was at Poelcappelle, rather than simply talk about yards of difference. Yes, I know that yards of difference made a difference, a huge one, but....auntieruth (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How about the amendment? Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * HOw about my tweaks? Also, I'm still not sure where the nominator is in all of this?  auntieruth (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the Lead and edits must have been less clear than I thought. ;O) I think Labbatt's out to lunch. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm moving jobs and from one country to another. I have become rather indisposed as of late.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would anyone like to co-nominate this article? - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is going on with this? Perhaps the nom should be withdrawn until  can return to handle it?  auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only here because I put most of the material in the article and feel responsible for errors and omissions. I'd be happy to wait for Labatt to settle his arrangements.Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

On Images
It's always worth checking to see if a higher resolution copy of the image is available. I haven't carefully checked every image, but I can tell you that, of your images, three are from the National Library of New Zealand.

Of these, the copy on Wikipedia is about 500x300px, but, if you sign up for a free login, you can get a really nice image of around 5000x3000 px. This is a much better image to use, and, with not that much work, these are probably featureable, getting your article on the main page - call it twice more, as the funeral image will probably focus on the more relevant articles.

I'll update those images for you this time, but I don't check every A-class review, so this is worth keeping in mind. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Keith-264 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 