Captain Canuck

Maybe it was the Boer War after all. Can't imagine where I got the Ottoman Empire reference...I might be chatting with the person who told me about this sometime today, so maybe I can get it a little straighter. It's been a long time, so I blame my memory first... Capt. Canuck

Eeeep! Before anyone goes ballistic on me, I didn't mean to imply that the purported execution of the Turks was acceptable, by the way! That act was inexcusable, but I kind of assumed people would understand I felt that way. But upon reading it again, even I felt I had trivialized the execution (if it actually did occur). Please don't start up the Crocodiles on my account! Save the flamethrower fuel for something else Captain Canuck

Flaming is the common term for replying to a post (message) in a highly critical, inflammatory manner, hence the expression "flame". Some flames are well written, and enjoyable to read, but many are merely the text equivalent of chest thumping shouting matches, where neither side can back up their posistion with hard facts. Some of the worst flames get down to the level of personal attacks and outright childishness. Ex: (only an EXAMPLE! Do NOT take this personally!) "What is a flame? Dewd, you are such a lame ass feebo! Get yer stoopid ass off this board! You don't belong here until you learn something about the net..." Or: "WTF (What The F*@k) are you talking about?!?! EVERYONE with brains knows that the T-34 kicked ass on anything, and that the Germans didn't have ONE tank to match it. You are such a dumb **** to even THINK, if you can think, that a Panther could even HOPE to take out a T-34!..." blah blah blah, etc. You get the idea. As you can see from these tame (yes, TAME) examples, flames are usually not very informative. Pretty much a textualized version of verbal bullying. The poster gets a 'tude going, and sounds off, since there isn't any immediate reprisal (like a knuckle sandwich ). A series of these flames and counter flames is called a "flame war", or to put it another way, a complete waste of time. Although at times, they can be mildly entertaining, especially if a flamer is getting counter flamed by a person who gets their point across without getting personal. Thankfully, there doesn't seem to be as much flaming going on in these forums as I've seen in others. People seem to act more mature here. Hope this helped. Captain Canuck ------------------ We took Vimy, we fought the Atlantic War almost by ourselves, we were slaughtered at Dieppe so that Normandy would go smoother, and got farthest inland on D-Day

Well, the newbie rises up to pester ye vererable grogs once again. First, a shameless plug for CM. I like it a lot, got to order that puppy ASAP! Now, on to my question. I was trying to remember something the other day, and it was about WW1 (I know, TOTALLY unrelated to CM..forgive me please). I had heard that there was an incident in Africa(?) where Australian troops under British command were ordered to execute Turkish (Ottoman) prisoners of war. Apparently when they attempted to refuse, the Aussies were threatened with execution for failing to follow orders, so they did it, under extreme protest. After the war, charges were laid, and the British officers were not held accountable, but the very Australian officers that had protested this despicable deed were punished and executed. As a result of this, the Australian government, justifiably outraged, passed a law (or maybe they just issued a public statement of intent...not sure) that stated that Australian troops were not allowed to come under direct British command ever again. I may have some of this mixed up, so I apologize in advance for any confusion. Can anyone verify this incident for me and point me in a direction for some more info? This sounds like such a despicable, cowardly deed (the fact of blaming the Aussies instead of the British officers). I guess I'd like to know because of some morbid fascination with the truth (no matter how unsettling) or something Thanks Captain Canuck ------------------ We took Vimy, we fought the Atlantic War almost by ourselves, we were slaughtered at Dieppe so that Normandy would go smoother, and got farthest inland on D-Day

Firstly, thanks to all for the informative replies. Time to harass the bookstore for these books. Now, to reply to one post: Quote: (this is mine)hamstrung as we were with the British equipment (well, some of it was bad, anyway...). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I'm responding to)Just wondering how you think this could have been improved? Well, I was mainly thinking of things like the poor ol' Shermans (although the Firefly was damn fine kit, apparently), the Sten SMG (poor compared to the Schmeisser, but easier to make), and the PIAT anti tank weapon. Oh, and laugh if you will, since some might question the importance of clothing in a combat environment, but I pitied any soldier that had to fight in that ridiculous uniform. I've only had to endure wearing full wool serge battle dress during one summer, and that was only for parades, but it was hellishly hot. And DAMNED uncomfortable. I can't imagine fighting in that stuff. I guess it just "seems" that the "bad guys" always have the better toys Thanks all! Captain Canuck

First post on the forum, and it isn't directly related to CM, but I'd like to solicit the opinions of you folks, as most of you seem well informed and civil. Firstly, I'd like to say that I used to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces in the 8th Canadian Hussars reserves (National Guard to you yanks ) If there was anything more poorly equipped than the regular force, it was us. Now, in my first year, I bought into alot of hype about how great we are and how dumb US Army troops are, but as I learned to think for myself, I realized that it just wasn't so. As with all things, stereotyping just doesn't do any one any justice. Anyway, by the time I resigned, I had learned alot from reading and forming my own conclusions based on a vast number of sources, and my views were quite different from what the typical recce (recon) trooper held. The point of this is that it got me to wondering about something. Everything I've read about the performance of the Canadian military in WW2 leads me to believe that at the time, we fielded well trained, highly disciplined troops that could kick ass and take names, hamstrung as we were with the British equipment (well, some of it was bad, anyway...). What I wanted to ask all you groggies is this: Is this true? Or am I reading a lot of national pride "propaganda"? Were Canucks really that good (I'm not saying the best, or better than nation "A", mind you), or is it all a bunch of hooey? Thought I'd get some perspectives from people who read alot more on the period that I get to, and have a large number of books from a vastly differing array of sources. Before you guys flame me about my sig, I know the US had the hardest beaches on D-Day And yes, I know we didn't do "everything" in the Atlantic War, but we did a great deal of the sub- hunting/escorting for the ships carrying desperately needed materiel to Great Britain. Thanks for any info you can provide, and any book titles/publisher info you can provide would be greatly appreciated. ------------------ We took Vimy, we fought the Atlantic War almost by ourselves, we were slaughtered at Dieppe so that Normandy would go smoother, and got farthest inland on D-Day