Passchendaele - August Weather is typical

Today is the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. Both sides lost over 200,000 men each, and the battle fields were characterised by mud, slowing the Allied advance.

In 1917, August had over 5 inches of rain, while less than an inch was more typical. IN the 4 preceding years, there were 26, 23, 23 and 21 days in the month with no rain whatsoever.

So what-if the weather had been more typical? A dry month with scattered showers with the ground dried quickly with sunshine, as Haig expected?

Would the British have made their objectives? Would it have made possible the amphibious landing proposed for the Belgium coast, and the capture of Bruges?
 
Looking at the period that Plumer was in charge and it was dry might give a good indication of how much better things could have gone. From what historian Nick Lloyd has recently argued the BEF came very close to forcing a major German withdrawal, so better weather might have made a difference.

However IMVHO having Gough in charge at the beginning may end up with a similar result long-term. If, OTOH, Plumer is in charge from the start that might make a significant difference. It's something I've toyed with for a TL I've had in my head for a while.

Small nit-pick today is the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the 3rd Battle of Ypres (to use its Ango-Centric name, the French and Germans have their own names for the battle). 1st Passchendaele did not start until 12th October. Using Passchendaele for the whole battle is like calling the all of the Somme the Battle of Ancre (and yes, I know that Passchendaele is the 'popular' name).

I do think that Operation HUSH had a reasonable chance of success. Under the right circumstances - i.e. if the Germans were in the process of withdrawing. Which was, after all, part of the plan.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting TL with many potential butterflies.

The Germans could abandon their plans for a west front offensive in 1918.
 
Top