Dry weather in Flanders during August of 1917

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
As the title say, during the August of 1917, the repeated rainstorms turned the blasted ground into swamp and the overcast skies prevented the ground from drying. This in turn led to much higher British/Commonwealth casualties and offensive had to be halted until the ground dried, restarting with some success in second half of September, until it drowned in October mud.

But what if August remained mostly dry with occasional rain storm and clear skies to dry the ground. With clear skies the British artillery would be much more effective due to aerial observation, infantry would take much fewer casualties as they wouldn't need to cross swamps to assault objectives, artillery could be moved closer as frontline moved...

So how well could the Entente forces do if the momentum of offensive was not hampered by heavy rain?
 

stevep

Well-known member
As the title say, during the August of 1917, the repeated rainstorms turned the blasted ground into swamp and the overcast skies prevented the ground from drying. This in turn led to much higher British/Commonwealth casualties and offensive had to be halted until the ground dried, restarting with some success in second half of September, until it drowned in October mud.

But what if August remained mostly dry with occasional rain storm and clear skies to dry the ground. With clear skies the British artillery would be much more effective due to aerial observation, infantry would take much fewer casualties as they wouldn't need to cross swamps to assault objectives, artillery could be moved closer as frontline moved...

So how well could the Entente forces do if the momentum of offensive was not hampered by heavy rain?

It probably wouldn't make a big difference. For one thing there was concerns about the high water-table which is also thought to be a major factor in the degree of mud generated. Coupled with the very heavy use of artillery too much of the land was torn up.

The other factor was that Haig was still committed to the idea of a deep break-through which really wasn't practical at this point. Britain was developing the tactics, including much better artillery and use of that, especially in the counter-battery role but the German army was still strong and in powerful defences and the tanks hadn't been developed enough in terms of numbers, types and reliability yet. You could still have effective short bit and hold actions like the 1st days of the battle of Arras, which was a much better way of taking the offensive but Haig was unwilling to take that path.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top