The Germans used very effective tactics at Passchendaele. Their defensive strategy, known as “Defence in Depth”, involved using not just trenches, but reinforcing them with concrete and steel. This enabled the Germans to defend their positions with few men, but could still inflict huge casualties with machine gun and rifle fire. The trenches were reinforced with concrete dug-outs, which for the most part survived the numerous mine blasts planned by the British before the first assault. Concrete pillboxes were also built above the ground, which were equipped with mounted machine guns, and were manned by few men. To the rear of this front line of pillboxes and blockhouses were five reserve defence lines. These were so, if the British did capture any pillboxes (which was very difficult anyway), the Germans could launch a quick counter attack to expel the British as fast as possible.
Although the development of tanks was deemed a success by the British leadership, they were little compared to the Panzers, Tigers and Shermans fielded by both sides in World War II. The tanks were slow and travelled at a mere walking pace. Their lack of mobility and agility made them a target for newly developed anti-tank weapons, artillery small arms fire and explosives. The atmosphere inside the tank was disgusting, with choking fumes floating around the cabin. The tanks were meant to be used in support of the infantry, but often they were so slow, they couldn’t keep up. However, the rhomboidal shape of the British Mk I enabled it to climb high obstacles and cross wide trenches. The light and relatively speedy Renault was a favourite amongst American troops, and was armed with either a machine gun or small cannon. On the other hand, the awful weather at Passchendaele meant the tanks were bogged down and destroyed while sinking in the mud. This made it difficult for the British to make any breakthrough with the newly developed machines.
The Germans, by the time of the Passchendaele campaign, no longer tried to make ground, only slow up the allies and inflict as many casualties as possible. Using counter-attacking tactics, the Germans managed to hold there line from June-November 1917, and inflict hundreds of thousands of casualties on the Allies.
Another blow for the British was the lack of French allies. The mutinies of the French due to their loss of more than a million men (dead and wounded) in a population of 20 million had deadened their will to fight. This meant the British received little help at Passchendaele, and had to rely on help from their Australian, New Zealander and Canadian allies.
Perhaps one of the worst difficulties for the British was their initially shocking tactics. The Passchendaele campaign was originally launched over a 15 mile front, and so troop ranks were thinned out and repulsed quite easily by the Germans. General Haig eventually resorted to the tactics set out by General Herbert “Daddy” Plumer, which the latter used at the battle of Messines Ridge. The attack was launched over a much smaller, 4000 yard front, and so more troops could be committed to a single place to breakthrough.
Another factor contributing to the difficulty at Passchendaele, especially the latter half of campaign, was the lie of the land. The whole time the British were advancing, was up an incline towards the German lines. The Germans also used the deep shell holes to hide bunkers and blockhouses beneath earth and grass. They were strong against shell fire and infantry were cut to pieces by machine guns as they advanced.
Although quite a few tactics failed miserably, a few were developed at Passchendaele or just before, such as the ‘creeping barrage’ and the tank.
From the evidence given a conclusion can be drawn that many factors contributed the British having a hard time of it at Passchendaele. Perhaps the main ones were the British tactics and the awful weather at Passchendaele, but it is certain that these were not the only contributions to the 5-month “big-breakthrough” campaign.
