Hubbry Logo
Operation HushOperation HushMain
Open search
Operation Hush
Community hub
Operation Hush
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Operation Hush
Operation Hush
from Wikipedia

Operation Hush
Part of The First World War

The Yser front in 1917
DateJune–October 1917
Location
Nieuwpoort, Belgian coast
51°07′N 02°45′E / 51.117°N 2.750°E / 51.117; 2.750
Result Cancelled
Belligerents
 United Kingdom  Germany
Commanders and leaders
Strength
5 Divisions
  • 3 Marine divisions
  • 1 Army division
Casualties and losses
None None
Map

Operation Hush was a British plan for amphibious landings on the Belgian coast in 1917 during the First World War. The landings were to be combined with an attack from Nieuwpoort and the Yser bridgehead, left over since the Battle of the Yser in 1914. Plans were considered in 1915 and 1916, then shelved due to operations elsewhere.

Operation Hush was intended to begin once the Third Battle of Ypres, the main offensive at Ypres, had advanced to Roulers, Koekelare and Thourout, with advances by the French and Belgians in between. On 10 July, Marine-Korps-Flandern conducted Unternehmen Strandfest (Operation Beach Party) a spoiling attack to forestall an Allied coastal operation. The Germans used mustard gas for the first time, captured part of the bridgehead over the Yser and annihilated two British infantry battalions.

Operation Hush was cancelled on 14 October 1917, as the advance at Ypres was too far behind schedule. In April 1918, the Dover Patrol raided Zeebrugge to sink blockships in the canal entrance to trap U-boats, which closed the canal for a short time. From September to October 1918, the Belgian coast was occupied by the Allies during the Fifth Battle of Ypres.

Background

[edit]

Strategic developments

[edit]
Aerial view of Bruges and the Boudewijnkanaal canal (April 2022)

The German occupation of the Belgian coast in 1914 caused the Admiralty swiftly to advocate their removal. On 26 October 1914 the First Lord, Winston Churchill wrote to Sir John French, commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) "We must have him off the Belgian coast".[1] Churchill offered naval fire support for an army operation and French adopted the idea for the main effort of 1915. The army would advance between Dixmude and the sea while the navy provided bombardments and a surprise landing near Zeebrugge. The plan was cancelled by the British government in favour of the Gallipoli Campaign.[2]

In early 1916 the idea of a coastal attack was revived and talks began between Sir Douglas Haig the new BEF commander-in-chief and Rear Admiral Reginald Bacon, commander of the Dover Patrol.[2] Haig appointed Lieutenant-General Aylmer Hunter-Weston, who had commanded the 29th Division and then VIII Corps at Gallipoli, to work with Bacon on the plan. An offensive from Ypres and the landing operation, superseded an offensive on the coast. Bacon proposed to land 9,000 men from six monitors and 100 trawlers in Ostend harbour, with decoys towards Zeebrugge and Middelkirke, as a coastal assault began from Nieuwpoort. Hunter-Weston rejected the plan because the front was too narrow. Ostend harbour was in range of German heavy guns and the harbour exits were easy to block. Bacon began work on a new plan for a landing near Middelkirke, which incorporated Hunter-Weston's recommendations and Haig's desire for tanks to be used in the landings.[3]

The Battle of the Somme in 1916 forced Haig to postpone an offensive in Flanders until 1917 and the coastal attack depended on retaining the Yser bridgehead, because the river was deep, tidal and 100–200 yd (91–183 m) wide. Lieutenant-Colonel Norman MacMullen (GSO I) and a small planning group formed in January 1917 at General Headquarters (GHQ), recommended that the operation should not begin until a general advance from Ypres had reached Roulers, which Haig accepted.[4] A coastal offensive was to be conducted if one of three conditions were met, that the offensive at Ypres had prompted a collapse in the German defence, if the Germans took troops from the coast to replace losses in a long battle in the Ypres area or if the Allied advance at Ypres had reached Passchendaele ridge and the Fifth Army was advancing on Roulers (now Roeselare) and Thourout (now Torhout).[5]

Tactics

[edit]
Yser inundations, 1914–1918

To land troops swiftly, retaining the benefit of surprise, Bacon designed flat-bottomed craft which could land on beaches. The pontoons were 550 ft × 32 ft (167.6 m × 9.8 m), specially-built and lashed between pairs of monitors. Men, guns, wagons, ambulances, boxcars, motor cars, handcarts, bicycles, Stokes mortar carts and sidecars, plus two male tanks and one female tank, were to be embarked on each monitor. HMS General Wolfe and the other monitors would push the pontoons up the beach, the tanks would drive off, pulling sledges full of equipment, climb the sea-walls (an incline of about 30°), surmount a large projecting coping-stone at the top and then haul the rest of their load over the wall.[6]

The Belgian architect who had designed the wall was a refugee in France and supplied his drawings. A replica was built at Merlimont and a detachment of tanks under Major Bingham rehearsed on it, using "shoes" on the tank tracks and special detachable steel ramps carried on the tanks, until they could climb the wall.[7] In experiments on the Thames Estuary, the pontoons performed exceptionally well, riding out very bad weather and being easier to manoeuvre than expected, leading to hopes that they could be used again after the initial assault to land reinforcements.[8] Night landings were also practised, with wire stretched between buoys to guide the pontoons to within 100 yd (91 m) of their landing place.[6]

After Unternehmen Strandfest (Operation Beach Party), a German spoiling attack, 52 Squadron Royal Flying Corps (RFC) and the Fourth Balloon Wing, developed III Wing methods of co-operation during artillery observation, by having balloon observers direct preliminary ranging until shells were landing close to a target, then handing over to the aeroplane observer for the final corrections of aim. When the air observer had ranged the guns, the balloon observer took over again. The new method was economical on aircrew and had the advantage of telephone communication between the ground and the balloon, since aircraft wireless could only transmit.[9]

Example of a Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8 similar to the ones flown by 52 Squadron

Air co-operation with Royal Engineer sound ranging was also practised. A line of microphones was connected to a receiving station further back and activated by a forward observer. Air observers routinely sent "NF" by wireless and a position report when German batteries were seen to be firing; German shelling often cut off the ground observer from contact with the rear and the sound-ranging station was equipped with a wireless receiver and used receipt of "NF", to activate the sound ranging apparatus. The device could also be used to identify the position of German artillery when the air observer was unable accurately to indicate the position of the guns; balloon observers also assisted the ranging section by reporting gun flashes.[9]

Prelude

[edit]

British preparations

[edit]
Mouth of the Yser river

The Third (Corps) Wing of IV Brigade RFC moved north with XV Corps (Lieutenant-General Sir John Du Cane) in June and was temporarily made an independent mixed command, responsible for army co-operation and defence when the line was taken over from the French.[10][a] By 10 July the Fourteenth (Army) Wing of IV Brigade had arrived, the brigade taking responsibility for reconnaissance in the area Keyem (now Keiem), Ichtergem, Bruges, Blankenberghe (now Blankenberge), Oost and Dunkirk Bains until 13 July, then Keyem, Oostcamp, Zeebrugge, Oost and Dunkirk Bains, while Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) units reconnoitred as required. The offensive patrol front was from Stuyvekenskerke (now Stuivekenskerke) to Oost and Dunkirk Bains and by RNAS aircraft north of Nieuwpoort to 3 mi (4.8 km) west of Dunkirk. RNAS aircraft conducted night-bombing sorties in the area Dixmude, Thourout, Ghent, Retranchement and Nieuwpoort Bains. The 9th (Headquarters) Wing acted as a mobile reserve on the Flanders front.[10]

When XV Corps took over from the 29th Division and the 133rd Division of the XXXVI Corps (36 Corps d'Armée) on the coast on 20 June. The British artillery was held back as the French would only allow their infantry to be covered by French guns. The French position had three defensive areas, St Georges on the right (inland) side, almost surrounded by water, at the junction with the Belgian army (which held the line for 13 mi (21 km) southwards to Nordschoote), the Lombartzyde area (now Lombardsijde) in the centre, with inundations on either side and Nieuwpoort Bains on the left to the coast, either side of the Geleide Brook. The sectors were linked across the inundations by bridges and isolated from the rear by the Yser and Dunkirk canals, crossed by floating-barrel bridges called Richmond, Kew and Mortlake near Nieuwpoort Bains and Barnes, Putney and Vauxhall bridges near Nieuwpoort. A permanent roadway crossed lock gates east of Nieuwpoort and another bridge named Crowder was built later near Nieuwpoort. In the centre of the front was a 2,000 yd (1.1 mi; 1.8 km) stretch with no crossing over the Yser; no man's land was 65–80 yd (59–73 m) wide.[12] There was very little cover for artillery in the area and machine-guns were vulnerable to stoppages from wind-blown sand.[13]

The 1st Division (Major-General Peter Strickland) and the 32nd Division (Major-General Cameron Shute) took over and had only limited artillery support for several days, while the British artillery completed the relief. Du Cane ordered that the positions were to be held at all costs but the main French defences had been built in the south bank,the bridgehead, 800 yd (730 m) deep from St Georges to the coast, being held as an outpost. Three breastworks gave some protection from artillery-fire and there were no underground shelters for reserves. Tunnellers began work on dugouts in the sand dunes but few had been completed by early July. A defence plan for the bridgehead was issued on 28 June, relying mainly on artillery but of 583 guns in the Fourth Army, only 176 had arrived by 8 July, the remainder being with the First and Second armies, in support of operations towards Lens and Lille, due to arrive by 15 July.[14] On the night of 6/7 July, German aircraft bombed the main British aerodrome at Bray-Dunes near Dunkirk, causing nine casualties and damage to twelve aircraft. Reconnaissance flights by IV Brigade RFC and the RNAS aircraft were hampered from 7 to 9 July by ground mist and clouds down to 900 ft (270 m). Vague reports of increased activity behind the German front had been received but a special flight early on 8 July found nothing, despite the unusual amount of movement, as the Germans prepared to attack; on 9 July all aircraft were grounded by bad weather.[15]

British plan

[edit]
Pontoon under way

A landing operation would begin at dawn under the command of Rear-Admiral Bacon and an army division in three parties of about 4,500 men each, would disembark on the beaches near Middelkirke, covered by a naval bombardment and a smoke screen generated by eighty small vessels. Trawlers would carry telephone cable ashore and tanks would disembark from the landing pontoons and climb the sea-wall to cover the infantry landing. The infantry would have four 13-pounder guns and two light howitzers and each wing of the landing had a motor machine-gun battery. For mobility, each landing party had more than 200 bicycles and three motorbikes. Three landing sites were chosen, at Westende Bains, 1 mi (1.6 km) behind the German second line; another site 0.75 mi (1.21 km) beyond the German third line and a third landing 1.75 mi (2.82 km) beyond that at Middelkirke Bains, to cut off the line of retreat of the German artillery around Westende, turn the German second and third positions and advance inland as far as possible.[16]

The northern landing brigade was to send a flying column with specialist engineers to Raversyde, to destroy the German artillery battery there and then advance east or south-east, to threaten the German withdrawal route to the south and isolate Ostend. All the landing forces were to rush inland towards Leffinghe and Slype, occupying bridges over the Plasschendaele canal and road junctions nearby. Extra transport would move with the two XV Corps divisions advancing from Nieuwpoort.[17] XV Corps would break out of the Nieuwpoort bridgehead between St Georges and the coast, with a barrage from 300 guns with naval guns in support over a 3,500 yd (2.0 mi; 3.2 km) front. A 1,000 yd (910 m) advance would be followed by a one-hour pause. Four similar advances over six hours would take the land attack to Middelkirke, where it would link with the landing force, keeping three divisions in reserve. The German defence was expected to have two brigades in the first two defence lines as the attack began. The plan was approved by Haig on 18 June and the 1st Division was chosen to make the coastal landing.[18][b]

German preparations

[edit]

On 19 June a patrol from the 3rd Marine Division captured eleven soldiers of the British 32nd Division which, with increased artillery and air activity, was taken by Admiral von Schröder the commander of Gruppe Nord and Marine Korps Flandern, as a sign that the British contemplated a coastal operation.[c] Unternehmen Strandfest (Operation Beach Party) a spoiling attack by the reinforced 3rd Marine Division with the 199th Division in reserve, was planned to capture ground east of the Yser, from Lombartzijde creek to the sea, led by the Guard Corps commander General Ferdinand von Quast, who took over Gruppe Nord on 30 June. Parts of the 3rd Marine Division were withdrawn during the second half of June to rehearse an attack by frontal assault, with covering fire from eleven torpedo boats off the coast; artillery reinforcements with 300,000 rounds of ammunition were moved to the coast.[20][d]

Batterie Pommern

[edit]
38 cm Lange Max at Koekelare (Leugenboom) the largest gun in the world in 1917

In June 1917 Krupp completed the construction of Batterie Pommern at Koekelare with Langer Max, the biggest gun of the world, an adaptation of its 38 cm type. The gun played an important part in the German defence of Flanders and was used to bombard Dunkirk 31 mi (50 km) distant, to stop the unloading of supplies and was sometimes used for diversionary operations. The gun fired its first shell at Dunkirk on 27 June; during the Third Battle of Ypres the gun was also used to shell Ypres.[22]

Unternehmen Strandfest

[edit]

Unternehmen Strandfest (Operation Beach Party, also the Battle of the Dunes) began with a German artillery bombardment on 6 July, though not of an intensity sufficient to suggest an attack. The dawn of 9 July was wet and stormy; Strandfest was postponed for 24 hours at 6:10 a.m., about two hours before zero hour. The next day was overcast, with a strong wind and the bombardment increased at 5:30 a.m. The British floating bridges near the coast were destroyed and near Nieuwpoort, only one bridge and the lock-bridge remained intact. By 10:15 a.m., telephone and wireless contact with the British front was lost. The shelling was heaviest from the Geleide Brook to the coast, held by the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Division. By 11:00 a.m., the two British battalions had been cut off. Before noon all the German artillery and mortars began firing, except for twenty-minute periods at 2:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. for observation. The breastworks on the British side were only 7 ft (2.1 m) high and 3 ft (0.91 m) thick and collapsed immediately. Sand clogged the defenders' small-arms and the Germans used Yellow Cross (mustard gas) and Blue Cross gas shells for the first time, mainly for counter-battery fire, which reduced the British artillery to a "feeble" reply.[23]

German spoiling attack on the Yser, 10 July 1917

German aircraft made low-altitude strafing attacks and by late afternoon, the British troops on the west bank of the Yser were pinned down. The British artillery defence plan was implemented, with one-hour bombardments of German trench lines at 9:30 a.m., 11:25 a.m. and 2:10 p.m., which were ineffective against German concrete shelters. The German artillery had a 3:1 advantage in numbers and to conceal their presence, many British guns had not registered, only 153 coming into action.[24] At 8:00 p.m., Marine regiments 1 and 2 of the 3rd Marine Division, with the 199th Division in support, attacked on a front of 2,000 yd (1.1 mi; 1.8 km) between Lombartzyde and the sea, with an outflanking attack along the sea shore.[25]

The main attack advanced in five waves, close behind a creeping barrage. Groups of the specialist Marine Korps Sturmabteilung (assault detachment) made up the first wave and advanced to the third breastwork, overwhelmed the defenders and moved forward to the Yser bank after a short pause. The second wave overran the British troops at the second breastwork and then dug in at the third breastwork; the third wave advanced to the Yser bank to reinforce the first wave and set up machine-gun nests. The fourth wave carried engineer stores for consolidation and moppers-up with flame-throwers dealt with the British survivors in the first breastwork, then advanced to the third breastwork, as the fifth wave took over the second breastwork.[25]

In twenty minutes German troops reached the river bank and isolated the British parties still resisting, 70–80 per cent having already been killed or wounded by the artillery bombardment,

...the enemy was using a new gas shell freely. Shell bursts like a small H.E. Gas makes you sneeze and run at the nose and eyes. Smell is like cayenne pepper. This actually was the "Blue-Cross" shell, a different type from the mustard ("Yellow-Cross") shell. Both new shells were used in this action.[26]

— Charles Bean Australian official historian

and at 8:30 a.m., British observers on the far bank saw troops holding out near the Northamptonshire battalion headquarters. A counter-attack was attempted by troops of the Rifle Corps battalion before the troops opposite were overrun. By 8:45 a.m. the captured position was consolidated and some of the blocked British dugouts were excavated by the Germans to rescue the occupants. All of the British garrison in the bridgehead was lost and more than 1,284 prisoners were taken; about forty British troops managed to swim the Yser where they were caught in the German bombardment.[25] German casualties were about 700 men.[19] Overnight 64 men from the two infantry battalions and four from the 2nd Australian Tunnelling Company swam the river, having hid in tunnels until dark. Further inland in the 32nd Division area from the Geleide Brook to St. Georges, the 97th Brigade was attacked. The German advance stopped at the second breastwork, which had been made the objective as the ground behind could be easily flooded; a counter-attack overnight by the garrison and some reinforcements regained the position, except for 500 yd (460 m) near Geleide Brook.[27] On 10 July, German smoke-screens, low cloud and fighter attacks made air observation very difficult but some new German battery positions were detected. The front line was plotted from the air late on 10 July and early on 11 July. An extra flight was transferred to 52 Squadron for artillery observation of the great concentration of German guns but when British aircraft began to direct artillery-fire, they found that the Germans had put smoke generators around the main batteries to conceal them.[15]

Aftermath

[edit]

Analysis

[edit]
Nieuwepoort, the north end of the Western Front

Admiral Roger Keyes thought that the operation was doomed to fail and Admiral John Jellicoe expected a great success. Despite the demands of the battles at Ypres, Haig kept XV Corps on the coast throughout, ready to exploit a general withdrawal by the 4th Army. Haig resisted suggestions to launch the operation independently, wanting it to be synchronised with the advance on Roulers, which loomed in early October but did not occur until a year later.[28] In 1936, J. F. C. Fuller, a former staff officer of the Heavy Branch Machine Gun Corps, called the scheme "a crack-brained one, a kind of mechanical Gallipoli affair". When in the area in 1933, Fuller had found that the sea-walls were partially covered in a fine green seaweed, which the tanks might not have been able to scale.[29]

In 1996, Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson wrote that the amphibious part of the plan was extremely risky, given the slow speed of the monitors and the pontoons having no armour. A German mobile force was on hand as a precaution and the area could be flooded.[30] In 1997, Andrew Wiest called the plan an imaginative way to return to a war of movement, foreshadowing the amphibious warfare of the Second World War and a credit to Haig but that his refusal to agree to a landing independent of events at Ypres, showed that he had overestimated the possibility of a German collapse.[31] In 2008, J. P. Harris wrote that the German spoiling attack demonstrated that the decline of the German armies in France had been exaggerated and that the War Cabinet neglected to question Haig more rigorously, after he had assured them that the reverse was due to local factors.[32]

Subsequent operations

[edit]
Climbing tank with track spuds, tilts forward atop the sea-wall.

On 11 July Rawlinson ordered that lost ground be recovered by outflanking the new German line along the canal in the Dunes sector. Du Cane noted that instant counter-attacks made on local initiative usually succeeded, while those ordered later by higher authority were too late to exploit disorganisation among the attackers; adequate preparation and a methodical attack was necessary. The remainder of the bridgehead was constricted, the German artillery reinforcements were still present and after a successful counter-attack, British troops would be vulnerable to another German operation.[33]

Du Cane wanted to wait until the rest of the British artillery arrived and the main offensive at Ypres had begun. Rawlinson accepted Du Cane's views and counter-attacks planned for 12 July by the 32nd Division were cancelled.[33] The 33rd Division was moved to the coast in August and took over from Nieuwpoort to Lombartsyde, spending three weeks in the line, under night bombing and gas shelling. Two of the 33rd Division battalions were kilted Scottish and suffered severely from mustard gas burns, until equipped with undergarments.[34]

To keep British preparations secret, crews from 52 Squadron RFC and the 1st Division were segregated on 16 July, at Le Clipon, a camp enclosed by barbed wire and a story was put about that it was in quarantine. The 1st Division artillery was reduced to three 18-pounder batteries and nine tanks, two cyclist battalions, a motor machine-gun battery and a machine-gun company. It was planned to create three brigade columns, each of which would embark on two monitors, 2,500 men being carried by the pontoon lashed between the monitors.[8] Special fighter patrols were arranged to keep German reconnaissance aircraft away from training areas and arrangements were made for early warning of German aircraft approaching Dunkirk, fighters standing by to intercept them.[35]

Operation Hush was revised to incorporate the cancelled counter-attack plan; the attack on Lombartzyde would begin from the ground still held north of the Yser, by the 66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division and a flank attack shortly after from the Geleide Brook to the coast. The attack up the coast and the landings were left unchanged. Haig accepted the plan on 18 July, to go ahead on 8 August (the operation was postponed several times before it was cancelled).[36] On 24 August, the 33rd Division raided German outposts on the Geleide Brook, killed "many" Germans and took nine prisoners, for a loss of one killed and sixteen wounded. Next day the Germans retaliated by recapturing the easternmost post and on 26 August, fired fifteen super-heavy shells into Nieuwpoort, demolishing the 19th Brigade headquarters. The division was withdrawn from the coastal sector in early September.[37]

The presence of two British divisions in the coastal sector convinced the German commanders that the danger of a British coastal offensive remained.[19] The best tidal conditions for a landing would occur again on 18 August and the Fifth Army made its second general attack at Ypres on 16 August at the Battle of Langemarck, partly to meet the postponed landing date but failed to advance far in the most vital sector, leading to another postponement to 6 September. At a meeting on 22 August, Haig, Rawlinson and Bacon discussed three alternatives, another postponement of the coastal operation, conducting the operation independently or moving the divisions from XV Corps to the Fifth Army.[38]

Rawlinson favoured an independent operation, which he thought would get as far as Middelkirke, bringing Ostend into artillery-range, which would make the Germans counter-attack, despite the pressure being exerted on them at Ypres. Bacon wanted the area between Westende and Middelkirke to be occupied so that 15-inch naval guns would be within range of Bruges 31,000 yd (18 mi; 28 km) away and Zeebrugge 34,000 yd (19 mi; 31 km) distant. The Zeebrugge–Bruges canal would also be in range and its locks could be destroyed. Haig rejected the proposal and the September operation was postponed, this time for a night landing under a full moon in the first week of October, unless the situation at Ypres changed sooner.[38]

Example of a Gotha RG bomber

In September, Rawlinson and Bacon became pessimistic and Haig postponed the operation again but told them to be ready for the second week of October. The 42nd (East Lancashire) Division moved from Ypres, relieved the 66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division in late September and found that the area was under frequent German artillery-fire, bombing and gas attacks. The coastal sector was also beneath the flight path of German Gotha bombers attacking Dunkirk, which was attacked on twenty-three nights in September.[39] Hopes rose after the Battle of Broodseinde (4 October) and again after the Battle of Poelcappelle (9 October), although the coastal operation could not start before the end of the month.[31]

After the First Battle of Passchendaele (12 October), Hush was cancelled; on 14 October, Rawlinson wrote, "...things have not been running at all smoothly – it is now clear that we shall do nothing on the coast here".[31] The 1st Division left the camp at Le Clipon on 21 October and the rest of the Fourth Army followed on 3 November. On 23 April 1918, the Dover Patrol conducted the Zeebrugge Raid and sank block ships in the canal entrance to stop U-boats leaving port.[40] The Belgian Army and the British Second Army began the Fifth Battle of Ypres on 28 September 1918 and on 17 October, Ostend was captured.[41]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Operation Hush was a British military plan for an amphibious assault on the German-occupied Belgian coast during the First World War, intended as a supporting operation to the Third Battle of Ypres in 1917. The operation, conceived by Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon of the Dover Patrol as early as 1915 and refined under General Sir Henry Rawlinson by 1917 as part of Sir Douglas Haig's broader strategy, aimed to land approximately 10,000–13,750 troops from the 1st Division between Nieuwpoort and Ostend to seize coastal ports such as Ostend, Zeebrugge, and Middelkerke. Its primary objectives were to neutralize German U-boat bases that threatened Allied shipping, deny the Imperial German Navy access to these strategic harbors, and outflank the German lines on the Western Front by linking up with advancing forces from Ypres. Preparations for Operation Hush were extensive and innovative, involving secret training exercises near and Merlimont, where replicas of the Belgian sea wall were constructed for practice. The assault would have utilized 90 trawlers for troop transport, six monitors armed with 12-inch guns for naval support, and 550-foot-long portable pontoons to bridge the beach to the 30-foot sea wall, which tanks would scale using wedge-shaped ramps and steel track spuds. Notably, it marked the first planned use of tanks in an amphibious operation, with nine Mark IV tanks—six and three variants—allocated to support the landing and exploit the breach. Two variants of the plan were considered: an initial focus on , later abandoned due to heavy German coastal batteries, and the preferred Middelkerke supported by and flanking advances from . Despite these preparations, Operation Hush was repeatedly postponed and ultimately cancelled on 14 October 1917, primarily because British forces failed to achieve the necessary advances during the , leaving the coastal sector isolated. A critical setback occurred on 10 July 1917, when the Germans launched Operation Strandfest, a pre-emptive assault using that destroyed the British Yser at Nieuwpoort and inflicted 3,126 casualties, severely disrupting preparations. By late 1917, the reduced effectiveness of German operations following Allied anti-submarine measures further diminished the strategic urgency of the landings. Although never executed, Operation Hush represented an ambitious early attempt at and influenced later Allied coastal operations, such as the in April 1918, which sought similar objectives with more limited means.

Background

Strategic context

The concept of amphibious operations on the Belgian coast originated from proposals by in autumn 1915, when he, as , advocated for such landings to outflank entrenched German positions on the Western Front and relieve pressure on Allied land forces. Operation Hush was specifically developed by Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon in early 1917. This concept emerged amid the stalemate following the Battle of and the German advance to the sea, positioning naval landings as a means to exploit the Royal Navy's superiority and bypass the static trench lines. The plan gained renewed attention in 1916 after the failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, highlighting the need for alternative strategies to capture key coastal ports such as and , which served as vital bases for German operations threatening Allied shipping. With intensifying, British military leaders saw amphibious assaults as essential to securing supply lines and mitigating the economic strangulation posed by German naval raiders. By 1917, Operation Hush was formally integrated into the broader Allied offensive during the Third Battle of Ypres (also known as Passchendaele), where ground advances from the were intended to link up with seaborne landings in a against German coastal defenses. The strategic objectives included reopening vital sea routes to ports like , denying control of the Belgian coastline for submarine deployments, and potentially compelling a broader German withdrawal from to weaken their overall position on the Western Front. Key endorsements came from prominent figures, including General Sir Douglas Haig, of the British Expeditionary Force, who viewed the operation as complementary to his offensive, and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, First Sea Lord, who supported the naval feasibility despite resource constraints.

Tactical innovations

Operation Hush represented a pioneering effort in during , introducing several novel techniques tailored to the challenging tidal flats and sea walls of the Belgian coast near Nieuwpoort. Central to the plan was the development of specialized flat-bottomed pontoons, often referred to as "Hush Boats," designed to transport troops, vehicles, and supplies across the shallow, mudflats-dominated beaches. These massive structures, each approximately 550 to 700 feet long and capable of supporting up to 13,750 men, were constructed with timber walls and adjustable rafts to adapt to tidal fluctuations, allowing monitors from the Dover Patrol to push them ashore for rapid debarkation. A key innovation was the intended first employment of tanks in an amphibious assault, utilizing nine Mark IV tanks—six male and three variants—modified for the operation. These tanks were equipped with oversized steel track spuds featuring sharp teeth to grip slippery seaweed-covered surfaces, wedge-shaped ramps for scaling the 30-foot sea walls, and winches on tanks to haul other vehicles over obstacles, including canal crossings. Rehearsals occurred at Merlimont beach in , where a concrete replica of the sea wall was built, enabling the tanks to practice beach landings and maneuvers under simulated combat conditions. Naval integration played a crucial role, with the Dover Patrol providing monitors armed with 12-inch guns for pre-landing bombardment of coastal defenses, alongside smaller vessels generating smoke screens using 50 tons of to obscure the approaching force from German artillery spotters. Each pontoon was to carry a motor machine-gun battery for immediate upon landing, enhancing the assault's while minimizing exposure on the vulnerable beaches. This approach emphasized surprise and speed, aiming to secure a within 48 hours at high tide during dawn hours to exploit minimal moonlight and overwhelm defenses before reinforcements could arrive. The operation's doctrinal innovation extended to coordinating the amphibious landing with an inland advance from the sector, where infantry and cavalry units would push toward Middelkerke to link up with the landed forces, creating a unified coastal thrust as part of the broader Third Ypres offensive. Secrecy was paramount, with isolated training sites and coded communications ensuring the Germans remained unaware of the scale and specifics of the assault.

Preparations

British preparations

In June 1917, the British XV Corps, under Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Rawlinson, relocated from the Somme sector to the near to prepare for amphibious operations, taking over from French forces; the corps initially comprised the 1st, 32nd, and 66th Divisions, with initial support limited to 189 heavy guns due to the marshy terrain and limited road infrastructure in the area. Preparations included the construction of specialized landing equipment at secret sites along the French coast, such as and Merlimont; three large pontoons, each around 550 to 700 feet long, were assembled to serve as floating piers for disembarking troops, , and vehicles, with hulls designed based on intelligence from aerial photographs and to navigate the shallow beaches and seawalls. Tanks were modified with steel ramps and special track shoes (spuds) to scale the 30-foot seawalls, and these were tested on replicas of the Belgian coastal defenses. Over 100 small vessels and barges were also gathered and tested for ferrying assault waves, with monitors from the Dover Patrol practicing the towing and deployment of pontoons. Training emphasized amphibious tactics, conducted in isolated camps to simulate the operation; exercises focused on night landings, with and tanks practicing coordinated assaults on replica seawalls under artificial fire conditions, including the use of ramps to overcome obstacles like seaweed and wall lips. For the assault, five divisions were allocated under XV Corps, with the 1st Division designated as the primary landing force (approximately 13,750 men), supported by 189 heavy guns, nine Mark IV tanks, and elements of the Royal Flying Corps and for reconnaissance and bombing; the Royal Navy's Dover Patrol provided monitors for coastal bombardment of German batteries and pontoon deployment. Secrecy was maintained through compartmentalized planning and isolated training sites, with disinformation efforts to divert German intelligence toward other sectors; operations were screened by smoke from 80 vessels using 50 tons of phosphorus to obscure movements from aerial observation.

German preparations

In anticipation of a potential Allied amphibious on the Belgian , German forces under the MarinesKorps Flandern fortified the sector extensively throughout 1917. The coastal defenses included a network of trenches and obstacles stretching from the Dutch border to the River, supplemented by 33 concrete machine-gun nests positioned at approximately 1,000-meter intervals along the dunes and shoreline. These measures were designed to channel attackers into kill zones while leveraging the natural barriers of the dunes and the partially inundated polders near the , where floodable areas complicated any inland advance. A key element of these fortifications was the completion of in June 1917, located at Leugenboom approximately 3 km north of Koekelare. This battery housed the 38 cm SK L/45 "Lange Max" gun, a heavy piece with a maximum range of 47 km, capable of targeting sites and support vessels far offshore. Complementing this were 24 coastal batteries in total, including eight large-caliber naval gun emplacements effective up to 30 km at sea, which enhanced the overall artillery coverage against naval threats. Troop deployments emphasized rapid response capabilities, with the MarinesKorps Flandern expanding to three divisions by early July 1917, comprising over 30,000 men including a of stormtroopers, supported by one army division from the 4th Army for mobile reserves. These units were stationed along the 60 km coastal strip, with headquarters in and forward positions in and , allowing for quick reinforcement of vulnerable sectors. Chemical defenses were also prepared, including stockpiles of for use in artillery barrages to deny beachheads to invaders. German intelligence efforts focused on monitoring British movements, particularly the handover of the bridgehead to British forces on 20-21 June 1917, which prompted heightened alerts and simulations of amphibious invasion scenarios through . This reconnaissance, aided by patrols and aerial spotters, informed preemptive counterattack planning, ensuring defenses could adapt to observed threats like troop concentrations near .

Unternehmen Strandfest

Planning

In late June 1917, the German Fourth Army under General Friedrich Bertram Sixt von initiated Unternehmen Strandfest as a spoiling attack aimed at eliminating the British Yser bridgehead at , thereby disrupting Allied coastal operations. The operation was directly coordinated by Admiral Ludwig von Schröder, commander of the Marine Korps Flandern, following intelligence reports of British troop concentrations and the construction of pontoon bridges in the sector, which had been handed over from Belgian to British control on 20 June. These observations, gathered through patrols and , indicated an imminent British buildup for an amphibious , prompting a preemptive response to neutralize forward positions before they could be fully fortified. The primary objectives were to capture the bridgehead, destroy British forward defenses along the coast, and compel the relocation of assault preparations inland, thereby delaying or derailing Operation Hush. To achieve surprise, the plan emphasized a sudden barrage followed by assault, supported by chemical weapons including shells to demoralize and incapacitate defenders. The operation was scheduled for early July to exploit high that could aid in masking movements and coincide with the observed intensification of British activities in the area. Forces allocated for the attack included primarily the and elements of the Marine Korps Flandern, with the 199th Infantry Division in reserve, bolstered by approximately 58 artillery batteries and gas projection units. This composition allowed for a concentrated strike on the narrow coastal salient, with stormtrooper detachments tasked for rapid penetration of British lines amid the dunes and flooded terrain.

Execution

Unternehmen Strandfest launched on 10 July 1917 with a massive bombardment beginning at 5:30 a.m., marking the first large-scale use of against British troops as part of the Marine-Korps Flandern's effort to seize the Nieuport bridgehead over the River. The barrage, involving approximately 58 batteries, devastated British positions in the dunes, destroying bridges across the and isolating forward units while causing widespread casualties from gas and high-explosive shells. By late morning, the German assault had severely disrupted British defenses, setting the stage for the infantry advance. At around 8:00 p.m., German stormtroopers from the Marine-Korps initiated the main infantry assault, infiltrating and outflanking British lines along the coast with support from teams and regular . Heavy fighting ensued as the attackers overran the bridgehead, annihilating the 1st Battalion and 2nd Battalion after intense close-quarters combat in the isolated sector. The destruction of the Yser bridges trapped surviving British forces, preventing reinforcement or and leading to their near-total capture or destruction. British casualties totaled 3,126, including 1,284 taken prisoner, while German losses were around 700 men. By evening, the Germans had consolidated their gains across the captured positions, securing the bridgehead against initial British counterattacks from the 32nd Division. This rapid success forced a British withdrawal from the area, severely disrupting forward staging areas essential for .

Aftermath

Cancellation

The delays in the Third Battle of Ypres, exacerbated by persistent heavy rain and resolute German resistance, prevented British forces from achieving the inland advances necessary to link up with planned coastal landings by the autumn of 1917. These setbacks shifted strategic priorities toward sustaining the main offensive at Passchendaele, rendering the amphibious operation increasingly untenable. The German pre-emptive attack known as Unternehmen Strandfest on 10 July 1917 further disrupted preparations by destroying the British bridgehead at on the River and inflicting approximately 3,126 casualties, primarily on the 32nd Division. This loss forced a reevaluation of potential staging areas along the coast and heightened German vigilance in the sector, complicating any subsequent assault. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig formally cancelled Operation Hush on 14 October 1917, citing the unsustainable timelines for coordination with the offensive and the diversion of critical resources from the primary push. Troops and equipment, including specialized landing craft and monitors from the Dover Patrol, were redirected to bolster the Passchendaele effort, with preparations such as pontoon assemblies dismantled to free up . Compounding these issues, the terrain had been transformed into a quagmire by relentless autumn rains, which not only stalled ground advances but also posed severe tidal and logistical challenges for any delayed coastal operation. High suitable for landings had passed without viable support from the inland offensive, leaving the plan unfeasible amid the deteriorating conditions.

Analysis

Operation Hush faced significant feasibility challenges due to its reliance on largely untested amphibious tactics in heavily contested coastal waters, where British forces would have been exposed to intense German defensive fire from the outset. The plan called for landings using innovative but experimental methods, such as extending long pontoons from monitors to the shore under , yet these approaches had not been proven in combat against a prepared enemy. Moreover, the operation's success hinged on suppressing formidable German coastal artillery, including batteries like with its 38 cm "Lange Max" gun capable of firing over 40 kilometers inland and seaward, which posed a direct threat to approaching and support vessels. This vulnerability was compounded by the narrow frontage of the proposed landing sites near , limiting maneuverability and increasing the risk of enfilading fire from entrenched positions. If executed, Operation Hush held the potential to capture key ports such as and , thereby disrupting German operations in the and bolstering Allied naval dominance by closing off submarine bases at . Such gains could have outflanked the German lines along the Western Front, potentially accelerating the Allied advance and pressuring economically through intensified blockade effects. However, the operation carried substantial risks, including high British casualties from the combination of artillery barrages, machine-gun nests, and the challenges of sustaining logistics across exposed beaches without secure footholds. The planning and partial execution of contributed to the evolution of advanced amphibious doctrine, influencing later operations like the by demonstrating the complexities of assaults on fortified coasts. Key lessons emphasized the critical need for air superiority to neutralize enemy artillery and , as well as improved intelligence on coastal defenses to mitigate surprises during landings. These insights underscored the importance of integrated naval, ground, and air coordination in , principles refined in subsequent conflicts. Historians have debated the operation's broader implications, highlighting the tension between bold strategic gambles and the practical constraints of warfare, where ambitious plans often faltered against entrenched defenses. A notable gap in British preparations was the underestimation of German capabilities, vividly illustrated during the pre-emptive Unternehmen Strandfest on 10 July , when the debut of inflicted heavy casualties on unprepared troops holding the bridgehead. The attack, involving over 3,000 gas shells, overwhelmed British gas masks and defenses, annihilating two battalions and exposing vulnerabilities in protective measures and rapid response protocols that could have jeopardized a full-scale Hush landing.

Subsequent operations

Following the cancellation of Operation Hush, Allied efforts shifted to targeted naval raids on key German-held ports along the Belgian coast, drawing on the amphibious planning and naval coordination developed during Hush's preparations. The Zeebrugge Raid, launched on the night of 22–23 April 1918, represented a direct evolution of these concepts as a blockship operation aimed at sealing the Zeebrugge-Bruges Canal to disrupt U-boat and destroyer sorties into the North Sea. Under Rear Admiral Roger Keyes of the Dover Patrol, the raid employed obsolete cruisers filled with concrete as blockships, supported by an amphibious assault involving 200 sailors and 600 Royal Marines landing on the harbor mole to neutralize shore defenses and gun batteries. Despite heavy resistance, including machine-gun fire and a failed smokescreen, two of the three blockships were successfully scuttled across the canal entrance, temporarily impeding German naval traffic and sinking eleven U-boats and two destroyers in the ensuing disruption. The operation incurred 170 British fatalities, 400 wounded, and 45 missing, but its partial success in highlighting vulnerabilities in German coastal infrastructure boosted Allied morale and informed subsequent tactics. Parallel to Zeebrugge, operations at Ostend in April and May 1918 extended the amphibious approach with similar elements, focusing on blocking the port's canal link to Bruges using additional blockships and supporting fire from monitors. The initial 23 April attempt failed when navigational buoys were repositioned by the Germans, causing the blockships to ground prematurely and leaving the channel open; two follow-up raids on 9–10 May, involving commando-style landings and bombardment from shallow-draft monitors like HMS Sirius, also fell short due to adverse weather and defensive fire, resulting in the loss of both vessels without achieving blockage. These efforts, which cost over 100 British lives across the attempts, nonetheless tested integrated naval-infantry coordination under fire, refining techniques for close-shore assaults that echoed Hush's envisioned landings. The strategic objectives of Operation Hush were ultimately realized inland during the , from 28 September to 2 October 1918, when British, Belgian, and French forces advanced northward through , capturing the Belgian coast including on 17 October. Launching as part of the broader Allied , the battle involved ten British divisions, twelve Belgian divisions, and supporting French units pushing back German lines over 29 kilometers, with Belgian troops entering and securing the ports of and Knocke amid collapsing enemy resistance. This inland maneuver achieved the territorial goals of coastal liberation without amphibious landings, resulting in approximately 5,000 British and 2,000 Belgian casualties while forcing German withdrawal to the Dutch border by the . Hush's innovative use of pontoon bridges and tank modifications for sea-wall assaults influenced interwar amphibious doctrine, providing early models for operations that shaped Allied planning for large-scale landings in , such as the development of specialized and ramp-equipped vehicles. From the German perspective, coastal defenses remained robust until the final weeks, with —a massive 38 cm SK L/45 rail at Leugenboom—firing roughly 500 rounds at Allied positions like from June 1917 through October 1918, before its capture by advancing Belgian forces during the offensive.
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.