The Battle of Passchendaele

Haig also needed a major breakthrough as part as the war of movement. The Germans were well dug in and it would need a major offensive to take this land.

In Haig's eyes this needed to be a battle crucial to the end of the war for the army as well as Britain. He needed another important victory on the way to the coast that would lift the morale of both the army and the government and civilians back in Britain.

Passchendaele was in effect what Haig saw as another Somme or Verdun to drive back the Germans in victory.

The army had had a good victory at Messines ridge under Plumer by using mines. These were impossible to dig at Passchendaele due to the weather conditions, which had previously brought extreme winters with heavy rain and very low temperatures. Another obstacle was a band of wet sand and blue clay, which would make digging a tunnel impossible. Haig had to come up with new tactics. He decided to bleed the Germans to death with a long, hard and big campaign.

Plumer had perfected a new tactic at Messines, the creeping barrage. The troops would advance under cover of shells landing just in front of them. One problem Haig had with this tactic was that the land was very difficult to navigate.

The battle began with a 10-day preliminary bombardment, with 3,000 guns firing 4.25 million shells, destroying the element of surprise from the campaign. Another problem this created was that the shelling destroyed the drainage system making it extremely hard to cross even with slimy 'duck boards'.

Haig used massed tanks at the beginning of the battle at Pilcken but due to the poor weather conditions he could not continue with this tactic, as the tanks were useless. This was because of the amount of mud and water filled shell holes.

Haig was a very aggressive General who wanted to see something finished once started and even after advised by Gough to stop the battle as the casualties were very high and they weren't really getting anywhere. This was one of Haig's tactics that was costly in terms of the amount of casualties but in doing so may have contributed to the end of the war. This tactic was shown up later by Plumer's step-by-step progress to successfully take the ridge.

2) Why was it difficult for the British forces to achieve success in the Battle of Passchendaele?

The winter had brought the worst rains for many years and freezing conditions. The shells destroyed the drainage system. This made the land a large swamp with miniature lakes created by shell holes filling up with water. The use of tanks became impossible.

The ground made it impossible to tunnel mineshafts into because it was only a few metres above sea level and the deep tunnels would just fill with water. The geology of the land made it difficult as well because there was a band of wet sand and blue clay.

It made it difficult to succeed because Haig didn't have much knowledge of the conditions he was sending the men to fight in.

The thick dense mass of barbed wire that was protecting the German troops in their trenches was almost impossible to get through. It slowed down the attack allowing the machine gun cross fire to mow down the troops stuck in the wire. Haig firmly believed in using cavalry charges and the horses were just as stuck and larger targets. When the wire was bombarded with shells it barely cut the wire and just tangled it up more and more. The allied shells were unreliable and often didn't explode.

The men's morale was very low and they were reluctant to attack.

The ten-day bombardment previous to attack had taken away the surprise of the attack. Haig was very ambitious and had lots of self-belief. He didn't change his tactics when things were going wrong. He also believed in older methods of communication and the runners taking the messages could be shot at and it was very slow. After the Battle Haig was severely criticised for continuing with the attacks long after the operation had lost any real strategic value.

Success was to achieve the aims. This was a quick breakthrough and the bad conditions really ruled out this aim altogether.

In the weather one soldier wrote, "Every man was soaked through and was standing or sleeping in a marsh. It was a work of energy to keep a rifle in a state fit to use."

The men often had to go along slimy duckboards on which it was hard to keep a footing, especially at night when the battalions were moved under cover of darkness.

Their new positions were a defence in depth of three

lines, the third being beyond the range of the British guns. Between these

lines were barbed wire, scattered concrete pillboxes and machine gun nests.

The barbed wire funnelled the attackers into killing zones swept by machine

guns and carefully registered by the artillery so that the attackers could

be annihilated by a crippling concentration of shells.

3) 'The Passchendaele campaign was a failure' explain how far you agree with this statement

To say whether the campaign was a failure or not you need to look at the objectives of the campaign and see in what ways these were or weren't achieved. I covered many of these in question 1 where I discussed Haig's objectives. You can also see why these objectives were or weren't achieved in question 2.

The main objective was to capture Passchendaele ridge as a base for further attacks towards the naval ports. The first attack was a failure as the German Fourth Army held off the main British attacks and restricted the British to only small gains further down the line to the left. The attacks were called off and not resumed until September and October when they failed again to make a breakthrough.

Finally in November they managed to take control of the ridge. This was a success in that it gave the British the vantage point and it lifted the moral of the British troops who hadn't seen a major win since Messines. It was also a success as it led towards the end of the war. It was a failure in that Haig was very intent on a quick major breakthrough in view of the how the Russian front was concerned.

They gained more experience in the tactics of modern warfare, which put them in good stead for any following attack. This was a success in relation to the wider war and indeed the British Army for the future.

It killed a lot of well-trained German Storm Troops. This was a success as part of the war of attrition and the quick breakthrough needed to win the war. It was also important for grinding down and the 'bleeding' of the German Army.

It lifted the pressure on the front at places like Verdun further south down the line. This was important as with the Americans pouring into Ypres it would have been silly if there had then been a German attack breaking up to Paris. If this had happened the Germans would close to fighting on British soil which was what Lloyd George was in fear of.

It was fought in very difficult conditions so we cannot expect anything to have been accomplished quickly. This made Haig's plan for a quick breakthrough a failure before he even started. Haig's plan for using cavalry would have been effective if the Germans didn't start using such defensive tactics such as barbed wire.

It was very difficult to sustain a war of movement and quick breakthroughs when the Germans were using such defensive tactics.

The attck didn't surprise the Germans in any way and so it was difficult for Haig to carry out many of his objectives.

The land gained was lost again although I don't think that this really mattered because the British Army was doing enough just holding up the line there. They had enough reserves and if they just piled them in at the right time then the Germans would eventually be worn down.

The battle of attrition worked both ways and the morale of the British was as low as the Germans. This wasn't too much of a failure because as previously stated the Americans were piling in and the demoralised troops could easily be replaced. There was only one problem with this and that was if this happened the British would soon run out of battle hardened and experienced troops.

It failed to capture the railway. This would have been a major failure if the war had lasted a lot longer as Germany would have been able to sustain her Army longer during which they could have made a crucial blow to the British by getting through to Paris and capturing France.

The British were fairly lucky in the spring when the Germans made a breakthrough but the supplies did not catch up with them and they lost many men. This was a success as the British had reserve troops to counterattack.

Haig was a very successful leader; there was no mutiny of the British troops and he was not forced out of his job. Therefore Haig must have been a success as far as Lloyd George was concerned.

There are many successes and failures of the Battle and I think that the successes outweigh the failures. I think this because in relation to the wider war Haig had provided a firm base at Ypres, which all that was required of it, was to grind down the German war effort and win the war as quickly as possible. I think that Haig knew Germany was facing starvation and on the verge of collapse so even though he didn't fulfil his objectives I think that the campaign was a success.