Famous Canadian battles of World War One

[geo]

When you consider the battles of Gallipoli & Beaumont Hamel and the way the Newfs got decimated in em..... it starts to explain the situation that existed on the Rock back in 48 and continues today.
The flower of their youth was mowed down pretty much to the last man. Considering the size of the Colony, the islanders never recovered - they never had a chance.
The men of Newfoundland never had a chance of developing industry.

 

[Danjanou]

When you consider the battles of Gallipoli & Beaumont Hamel and the way the Newfs got decimated in em..... it starts to explain the situation that existed on the Rock back in 48 and continues today.
The flower of their youth was mowed down pretty much to the last man. Considering the size of the Colony, the islanders never recovered - they never had a chance. The men of Newfoundland never had a chance of developing industry.

Interesting point Geo and probably deserving of an essay/paper in its own right. However mush as I loathe the

Rather than reading about Newfoundlanders getting machinegunned in droves,

quote, MD may have something in a study of the innovations of such WW1 figures as Brutinel or General H.D.G. Crerar among others.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I get goosebumps every time I read about Beaumont Hamel, don't get me wrong, and think about poor Newfoundland - I've yet to meet a girl - not the most avid of military historians - from NF that didn't know what "July Drive" meant.  I have no doubt the repurcussions are still being felt to this day.

I just don't see it as particuarly relevant to "Canadian" history in the context it was presented in the first post.  If the instructor does, then fill yer boots, but we have so many virtually untold success stories it seems fatuous to dwell on the disasters.

Canada's army in the field in 1918 was the best in the world and doing stuff the Germans would later get credit for "inventing" in 1939.

 

[Infanteer]

Canada's army in the field in 1918 was the best in the world and doing stuff the Germans would later get credit for "inventing" in 1939.

That's because the Germans did in large part (although not in 1939) - I'll have to look for a few citations, but I got the impression from multiple works that a good portion of the infiltration and combined arms tactics the Canadian Corps used was derived from German successes with it in their Stosstruppen units.

 

[Danjanou]

That's because the Germans did in large part (although not in 1939) - I'll have to look for a few citations, but I got the impression from multiple works that a good portion of the infiltration and combined arms tactics the Canadian Corps used was derived from German successes with it in their Stosstruppen units.

Actually if I remember most of the main usage of the Stosstruppen (Stormtroopers) and their tactics (infiltration, fire and movement and combined arms) first came to prominence during the final German push in 1918 after the Canadian Corps took Vimy Ridge.

 

[Old Sweat]

D.

That is my understanding as well, but I could be wrong. I believe Curry brought back the framework for the revised "smal unit" tactics after Byng sent him to visit the French.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yup; my understanding is the German stosstrupp tactics didn't really take off until the Spring Offensive of 1918; about a year after the Canadians took Vimy.

I think they did develop small unit tactics of sorts earlier; one source suggests at Verdun in 1916, but I'd have to look it up.

 

[Infanteer]

Michael is correct on the Verdun point.   A quick scan of Gudmundsson's Stormtroop Tactics mentions Hauptmann Rohr (an essential figure in the evolution) and his assault detachments in 1915.   There is an entire chapter dedicated to the lessons and genesis at Verdun.   The Eastern Front is also an important place to look at the taking of the "infiltration" method up from the tactical level to the operational one; I believe that the offensive on Riga in 1917 was a "trial run" of the offensives we would see in 1918 on the Western Front.

I have no doubt that much of the innovation of the Canadian Corps is ours and ours alone, and I am not attempting to lessen that.   However, I do remember a specific passage which detailed how the Canadians derived a chunk of their tactics pertaining to infiltration from the German experience with the Stosstruppen (I'm trying to remember where I read it, perhaps in English's On Infantry) - I'll have to keep thinking about it.   A visit to the French by Currie seems to ring some bells for a few things as well.

Whatever the case, the German evolution started early - St Michael was only the finished product (and an unfinished one at that; it would be completed in France in 1940).  It was precisely that, an evolution - and so was the Canadian experience.  It should be interesting to break it down and see who derived what from where and how many crosslinks there are in the evolution of Trench Warfare for the Canadians and their Teutonic opponents across the wire.

Has anybody read LCol Shane Shreiber's Shock Army of the British Empire?   I'd be interested to see his take on it.

Anyways, this has the makings of an interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[54/102 CEF]

Whew! Everyone`s and expert! Back to basic trg all of you rascals! As in Internet Searching - See the Cdn Army reading List http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/Reading_list/ARL_v1_sept2001_e.pdf

Among others - one of the few that is endlessly educational

Bill Rawling - Surviving Trench Warfare -- you get solid research on what was and wasn`t happening in the Canadian context and where it came from

Surviving Trench Warfare: Technology and the Canadian Corps, 1914 â “ 1918. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. ISBN 0-8020-6002-1.

The First World War is often painted as one wherein little tactical innovation occurred. In this study of technology and the Canadian Corps, the author argues that technology itself was not a decisive military factor, but that the response to it was. Rawling describes how the Canadian Corps (and to a certain degree the British Army it belonged to) changed tactics and procedures in a coordinated, deliberate fashion that produced one of the best formations on the western front.

Also - a very good look at WW1 for those on the way to their next elevator meeting with their boss

Check out UNENDING SIEGE HERE CHAPTER 4 on the left column  http://www.cmhg.forces.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_603.asp

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Just to add another wrinkle, the Russian General Brusilov used rather innovative tactics as early as 1916.  He realized that massive artillery bombardments lasting several days only served to mangle the terrain and warn the enemy.  He employed short "hurricane" bombarbments to suppress the enemy and then relied on small teams to neutralize enemy strongpoints using infiltration.  He used these to great effect against the Austrians, although his offensive eventually stalled.

Supporting what others here have written, I believe that both the French and Germans were also studying ways to break the trench stalemate using small unit tactics as early as 1916.

The study of WW I offers many examples of how militaries adapt (or fail to adapt) in a time of great technological and social change (new weapons of the industial age matched with the ability of the modern nation-state to moblilize for war).

Cheers,

2B

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

there are various books on  World War 1 , and Canadian efforts.
Pick a branch of the service.
Airforce.....or Aircorp  we had Billy  Bishop there and his VC
Navy, started with nothing and built a fleet from former british ships and new ships
Army, a whole pile of VC s won,
pick a  battle a Canadian unit was more then likely there.
first suggestion is go check out a book on great battles of ww 1,  read it, or at least skim thru it.
then get a book that  centers on one of the mnay  major battles in WW 1
and go from there

the facts are from the web site not sure how accurrate they are .

from the web site

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-canada

The Great War


On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated, setting off a chain of events leading to World War I. By August 4, Britain had declared war on Germany and, as part of the Empire, Canada was automatically entered in the fray.

At first the war brought Canadians together. Canada was suffering from an economic downturn and the war effort helped to revitalize the economy. The unemployed gladly volunteered for the war, expecting it to be a quick and exciting adventure. However, the soldiers were poorly equipped and the war lasted for four years.

Important events with regard to Canadian history and World War I include: Second Battle of Ypres, Battle of Somme, Vimy Ridge, and Passchendaele.

The Parliament of Canada passed several important pieces of legislation during World War I: War Measures Act (1914), Income Tax (1917), Military Service Act (1917), Military Voters Act (1917), and the Wartime Elections Act (1917).

On November 11, 1918, Germany surrendered, and as of June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles formally ended the war. At Borden's insistence, Canada signed the treaty, an important symbolic recognition of Canadian sovereignty.

More than 620,000 Canadians served in the war. Of these, more than 60,000 died and more than 155,000 were wounded.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Gentelman I suggest you refrain from arguing with  54/102 CEF because I have helped with some of his research in regards to the 54 Bt. in WW I.

I do suggest you go to his web sites and read and learn.
He has spent a few years researching both Battalions actions in WW I.
He has even gone as far as getting GPS Loc. Sites of certain small actions and even the trench lines in some cases.

54/102 CEF is a cornucopia of knowledge when it comes to Canada in WW I.
He has spent many hours and I know not how much money but has been helped by freinds and contacts like my self.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Gentelman I suggest you refrain from arguing with  54/102 CEF because I have helped with some of his research in regards to the 54 Bt. in WW I.

And which books have you published, Earl?  Just curious.  So you're saying his knowledge stems from your assistance?  What exactly would your credentials be?  Again, just curious.

I do suggest you go to his web sites and read and learn.
He has spent a few years researching both Battalions actions in WW I.

And this qualifies him to recommend reading for a high school level essay how exactly?  The stuff he suggested seemed like overkill for a guy who just wanted a list of battles we fought in.

Unless he was really talking down to the rest of us; wasn't really paying attention if that was the case.  I lost interest when he said "most people think no innovation" occured in the First World War - pretty odd, really, since I was explicitly stating just the opposite, as was Danjanou.  *shrugs*

 

[54/102 CEF]

Len Deighton the famous British Spy novelist onbce said - the politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.

To do otherwise follows in the path of the Gen George McLellan - Lincoln`s Saviour at Antietum 

As for books - its not what you publish - its who reads them - isn't it?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

There is always a danger of going too far into the weeds when starting out.  My own advice is to start with the "lens" at wide angle before focusing in on details.

My own credentials are rather thin.  I would, however, recommend the following book to both high school students and just plain old Army folk who want to know about World War 1:

    a.  A Short History of World War 1.  James L. Stokesbury, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, 1981

At just over 300 pages it is easily digestible while still giving an excellent overview of the war.  I read it over a weekend for a basic level history course and I have gone back to it several times.  He covers all theatres, and while focusing on the national/ strategic level he also delves into the operational and tactical to give the reader an idea of what was going on at the soldier's level.  I found that it gave me a broad understanding of the war and brought my attention to some theatres I had neglected.  It also gives some context within which to study Canada's participation in the war.  There are tons of other books, of course, but page for page I find this one to be an excellent investment of time and money. 

Desmond Morton's A Military History of Canada would also be a good start point.  Follow up with Vimy by Pierre Berton to gain a detailed, yet human, understanding of one key Canadian battle.

Cheers,

2B 

 

[reccecrewman]

I think they did develop small unit tactics of sorts earlier; one source suggests at Verdun in 1916, but I'd have to look it up.

The Germans did use small unit tactics at Verdun in 1916.  This was how they took Ft. Douamont (a key fort in the ring of forts surrounding Verdun)