Canadians in WW2

[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

[Guest Silesian-jaeger]

I just read yesterday that of the first 40,000 Canadians drafted during WWII, 7000 didn't show up. Ouch! But the ones that did made up for the rest and gave a good account of themselves!

[Wayne]

My reading of history concerning Normandy leads me to believe that the Canadian divisions and independent brigades were as good and sometimes better than the British and American units. The problem they had was that they were under British control and British tactics were formed in the North African Desert which did'nt work to well in the Norman countryside. Alot more trees and such rubbish in France. As a Canadian I think you should be proud of the fighting units in WWII.

------------------

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Henri]

The Canadians in Normandy were somewhat overtrained and so eager for a fight, and those who went into battle were all volunteers (some conscripts were sent overseas, but didn't make it into combat); they are generally considered to be among the best Western troops, but they also had some of the most incompetent high-ranking officers (with a few exceptions).

The most notorious example of poor leadership was when the Black Watch Regiment were sent on an assault over open terrain against entrenched German machineguns; they followed orders without question and marched unflaggingly into the bullets, and were mowed down like chaff -only a few survived, but no one retreated.

For an account of the Normandy battles that also describes the Canadian battles, a good source is the recent book by the British offider Reynolds whose subtitle is "The 2nd SS Panzer Corps in Normandy", but I forgot the title and don't have it here.

Henri

[Degrees of Frost]

I think the Canadians were held in high regard by both their allies and their enemies throughout the war. Well trained and well led - by some of the youngest and most able officers on the allied side.

And perhaps also more flexible, weren't they the first on the allied side to recognise the need for a good APC (Kangaroos and Buffaloes) and rocket artillery (the "Land Matress".

But I understand that Canadian units ran into all sorts of problems replacing losses towards the end of 1944. Replacements were pressed into frontline duties without adequate time for basic training.

[This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 08-22-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Henri, the book you are thinking of is Steel Inferno: The 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. It's a decent read.

Jeff Heidman

[Airborne]

Capt., You may want to check out John Keegan's "Six Armies in Normandy". An excellent read, it dedicates a section to the Canadians.. Welcome aboard....Chris

------------------

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[Kingfish]

I found this a while back. Check it out.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/CHRON/home.htm

------------------

Wow, I've had the **** hit the fan before, but never like this...

[tailz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silesian-jaeger:

I just read yesterday that of the first 40,000 Canadians drafted during WWII, 7000 didn't show up. Ouch! But the ones that did made up for the rest and gave a good account of themselves!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This should be taken in the proper context. The Canadian Army was 'all volunteer' until 1945 (when manpower shortages were becoming critical) At this time limited conscription was introduced among the 'zombies' (A type of 'home guard' that was repsonsible for coastal defense and security at home.) Bureaucratic delays and public resistance hampered the entire effort, and in the end, only a couple of thousand actually made it overseas before the war ended. Canadian debate over conscription went on throughout the war... it was only the dangerous manpower shortages of late '44, early '45 finally forced the government's hand. (There were many instances of airforce/navy volunteers being seconded to the army because the RCAF/RN didn't have any need for new bodies.)

[tailz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost:

I think the Canadians were held in high regard by both their allies and their enemies throughout the war. Well trained and well led - by some of the youngest and most able officers on the allied side.

[This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 08-22-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite the contrary... while the soldiers were respected for their ability, the Canadian army as a whole had to constantly fight for its existence. The British (under the delusions of Empire) were determined to use Canadian troops piecemeal to fill out their own formations. General Crerar once visited Montgomery in Italy... he was denied a complimentary visit to the Field Marshal, as well as being denied permission to visit Canadian troops. Crerar later landed himself in hot water with Monty in France when he decided to attend a parade in Dieppe to honour fallen Canadians instead of attending a Monty staff meeting. Til the end of the war, the British Imperial staff continually wanted Candians employed pieceal to their own formations (and at one point the commander of 30 Corps, assigned to the first Canadian Army, refused to follow Canadian orders 'til Monty told him to get his **** together and do as he was told.) The British government later protested at the press coverage being given to Candians clearing the Scheldte Estuary and the North German plains... saying their own forces weren't being shown in a positive light. There were several examples of US commanders showing up at Canadian Headquarters and asking to meet with "the ranking British officer."

At the field level our troops were well respected... at senior levels, Canadian were barely tolerated in many instances... strategically Canada was a pool of resources to be controlled by Churchill's belief in 'the Empire'.

Canadians At War (Reader's Digest Press) vol.2

[tailz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Canuck:

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By late 1944, the RCN was in charge of the North Atlantic theatre.

[Durruti]

Hi Capt. Canuck,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>hamstrung as we were with the British equipment (well, some of it was bad, anyway...).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just wondering how you think this could have been improved? Yes, the Canadians were equipped the same as the British but this also meant lots of lend-lease US equipment plus the advantage of having Sherman Fireflies and the support of the specialised armour of the 79th Armoured Division in Normandy which was so crucial to the success of the Commonwealth forces in the initial stages. Remember that although Omaha beach was without question the mostly hotly contested beach on D-Day, this was partly due to the fact that only 5 out of 32 amphibious tanks reached the beach, having been launched 5km from the shore. German resistance was almost as strong at Gold Beach (British) but the specialised armour was launched closer and was able to land in sufficient numbers to sway the balance with far less casualties. The only VC awarded by the Brits on D-Day was on Gold. Juno was no cakewalk for the Canadians either (note only the passing reference to Gold and Juno Beaches in the movie version of 'The Longest Day' completely ignoring Cornelius Ryan's book - cheers Hollywood).

As far as I can see the Canadians were equipped no worse than the other Western Allies in Normandy which means, of course, qualitively worse but quantitively better than the Germans. If the Canadians had been equipped solely with your Ram tanks then perhaps you might have found a more extreme definition of 'hamstrung'

[gaffertape]

I read this years ago, so there's no hope in finding the source, but it mentioned that second to the German soldiers, the Canadians seemed to be the best in regards to troop quality. It did mention, however, that the Americans were easily the best at improvising / planning-on-the-fly.

I have no idea how they 'averaged' these opinions (Volkstrumm troops, etc).

Sorry about the lack of detail here, lads.

And thanks for the thread, Canuck.

GAFF

[Formerly Babra]

Opinions, opinions...

In truth they performed neither better nor worse than anyone else.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Little Black Devil]

Well, firstly, the Americans had the hardest beach, but not the hardest beaches. "Bloody Omaha" earned its name as the Americans sustained about 2,000 casualties there - higher than any other beach. Utah, compareably was a walk in the park. I casualties are a guide, then to put it into perspective, casualties at Utah were numbered at about 197, where as casualties at Gold were about 413, Sword with 630 and Juno with 1,204. That obviously places Juno just behind Omaha in terms of casualties and "hardship" on the beach. As was mentioned by Duruti, a great deal of what simplified (In British and Canadian cases) or complicated (In American cases) the success on the beaches was the availability and use of specialiized armor (Funnies).

As one who reads everything he can get his hands on about the Canadians in Normandy, I've come accross a large amount of material concerning the topic, written by Canadians. Yes, I too have seen periodic traces of "doctored" history concerning the Canadians. My own Regiment is guilty in its Official History of doing this in referrance to the Battle of Putot en Besin and the unfounded claim that enemy Armor was invloved in the catastrophe at Putot.

However, as one with a degree in history and who has written on the subject of Canadians in Normandy and the Second World War a number of times I can also tell you that from my own experience what your reading about the Canadians in Normandy - is indeed for the most part, accurate. There is no question, as is the case in all countries that there have been accounts, books, journal entries etc. made which do not reflect the truth for whatever reason or motivation. It can also be attributed to perspective or bias. One simply has to take this into account when reading primary sources, and if you come accross something which really seems fishy, cross referrance it with a list of others sources, obviously by different authors who can coroborate these facts. Or, alternately, talk to a vet while there still are some. Never a more sobering if not educating experience - well, with the exception of rememberance day perhaps.

Overall, while it is prevelent in small quantities, I think for the most part you will find little evidence for large scale propoganda insofar as Canadian contributions to operations in Northwest Europe during the Second World War. At least that has been my experience.

In response to your original post there have been a number of well read, well founded and well articulated responses. I think to sum up my own opinion covers some of what has already been said which is to say that the Canadian soldier and his ability on the battlefield was probably no more questioned than the ability of our Allied counterparts. Leadership however, is a different story.

As a former member of the CF I'm sure you can relate to leadership problems prevelant in todays Army, which you might also see through accounts of our Army's performance in 1944-45. Likewise, Im equaly as sure that you can also see where our Army's leadership has evolved.

Right now I'm half way through the book "Steel Inferno" by Michael Reynolds (also mentioned by Henri and Jeff Heidman) which seems well researched and unbiased insofar as its approach to the battles in Normandy. By that, I mean that it seems to approach the battles themselves and discuss the history, as opposed to getting wrapped up in the glorification of any one nations accomplishments. I personally, find this a fresh and informative approach to Second World War history.

Hopefully this was helpfull.

------------------

COMBAT MISSION CANADIAN HQ cmhq.tzo.com/canada

"Hosti Acie Nominati"

[Guest machineman]

To me 'Steel Inferno' summed up the differences between the command structures of the Canadian and German armies in that the German commanders were AT THE FRONT, and the Canadian commanders were AT THE BACK, usually out of touch with what was going on. A friend of mine who spent some time in the army and trained for an officer himself has always asserted that the whole officer/command system is the weakest part of the Canadian army and it was interesting to see the book back that up historically.

[Formerly Babra]

The leadership failings in the Canadian Army were at the staff level, not below. Note that these weren't bad officers, just improperly trained in essential staff work.

One of the difficulties in appraising Canadian performance is that one has to take into account the very different experiences of the divisions. 1st Infantry Div was battle exhausted by the time it reached NW Europe. 2nd Div had to be rebuilt from scratch after Dieppe, but had never shaken that experience. 3rd Div lacked any experience at all. 4th Armoured was probably the worst div in the army, performing as poorly as the British 7th Armoured, if not worse.

All the divisions were suffering crippling manpower shortages in the rifle companies, seldom mustering more than 40-60% TO&E strength.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Captain Canuck]

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

[Aacooper]

Gen. Bradley apparently had some doubts about the Canadian army - he wonders why during the Falaise Gap "Monty had not reinforced the Canadians with some of his battle-hardened British troops, especially the armor. His unrealistic faith in the Canadians had cost us the golden opportunity." Of course, it was Monty who chose to send green divisions in to close the gap against a army desperate to flee the trap.

Later, the Canadians (and English) had to fight through the last coherent German lines of the Western war in Operation Veritable in the most "appalling conditions of terrain". So, like any other nationality, the Canadians did good & bad.

[Smack]

The Fourth Canadian Armoured Division was a green division and had doubtful leadership, but I will come to its defense. In Normandy it was shot to pieces {as with all other Canadian/British divisions} because of poor command and weaponry. The men within that division though, even after suffering enormous casualties, never faultered. the pressed on with thier "tommy cookers" and did thier job well after the Normandy campaign. You must remember, fighting the SS with superiour tactics and Weapons {emphisis on weapons} as your first battle experiance makes for a rather brutal training ground.

As for the Normandy campaign as a whole, the Brits and Canadians faced 7.5 of all the panzer divisions {1 and 2 SS panzer corps} and half of all the other infantry divisons on thier front and all the heavy tank battalions. No one should ever blame the Brits/Canadians for going slow at Failaise. General Bradly oudviously hadnt realized that after fighting against such numbers of fantatical troops and tanks that thier was nothing left of most of the Canadian and British divisions. The Canadians we shattered taking Capiquet {spelling way off} airfield and Verriers ridge and the intial advance to Falaise showed that no combat Canadian infantry company fielded more than 30 men out of 120! The British armour was shattered trying to take Cean and operation goodwood and Jupiter didnt help them much either. What I am trying to convey is that what choice did monty have other than to use the Freshest divisions possible....The Fourth Canadian armoured division and the 1st polish armoured division. Monty was trying not to take anymore infantry casualties, because he knew that the manpower barrel was getting low. If you read "the guns of Normandy" by Goerge Blackburn {who was an artillery officer for the 2nd infantry division} and read the introduction, in his words he says "It was amazing we got there at all". I think the Failaise gap battle for the Canadians should be and normally is regarded as a victory. The SEVERLY weakened Canadian infantry {who had been fighting SS panzer divisions! And most battalions had been shattered by either attacks or counter attacks with the Germans using King Tiger, Tiger and Panther tanks} and green armoured divisions {with poor equipment.} Managed to pick up thier weapons and finally defeat the SS in Normandy. In my opinion it is amazing that the average soldier who knew that the Germans had better tanks and machine guns didnt desert or run, but made his way to Failaise. The sad thing is that people say that the Canadians went to slow at Falaise, after what they had been through with over-advancing and getting counterattacked with heavy tanks and PZ grenadiers, they had a right to be cautious. General Bradly's remarks were both unfounded and he should have had more respect. For as his forces were breaking out in early Augest '44 the Canadians were still involved fighting the 2 SS panzer divisions in front of Verriers keeping them and the other PZ divisions locked on the British and Canadian front, so the Americans could brake out after the Hedgerow campaign. Monty's "unrealisic faith" had givin the Americans thier brakeout, and tied down the German armour. Canadians died in that campaign in a very un-glamourous role. and at the end of it all one American who was oudviously ignorant to the massive casualties they British and Canadians had been going through says...."well werent they slow".

What im saying is that, since history cant be changed, what happened at Failaise was a victory. It took alot of Mental and Physical courage to go up against better tanks and tactics, which the average Canadian soldier knew was out there. The Canadians couldnt go any faster with the numbers alloted to them.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Little Black Devil:

There is no question, as is the case in all countries that there have been accounts, books, journal entries etc. made which do not reflect the truth for whatever reason or motivation. It can also be attributed to perspective or bias. One simply has to take this into account when reading primary sources, and if you come accross something which really seems fishy, cross referrance it with a list of others sources, obviously by different authors who can coroborate these facts. Or, alternately, talk to a vet while there still are some. Never a more sobering if not educating experience - well, with the exception of rememberance day perhaps.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well stated, sir. In my varied studies of both WW2 and the Amer. Civil War, I've certainly stumbled into quite a few "history" books and articles with a certain "slant" to them. It's as you say --- be prepared to cross-reference and check multiple sources.

Ed

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper:

Gen. Bradley apparently had some doubts about the Canadian army - he wonders why during the Falaise Gap "Monty had not reinforced the Canadians with some of his battle-hardened British troops, especially the armor. His unrealistic faith in the Canadians had cost us the golden opportunity." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anthony, there may have been an issue here with Bradley having to defend his decision to insist on the dividing line between the armies when his commanders (I think it was Patton) wanted to go further north. There were a lot of very nasty discussions about his acceptance of the line later. Always easier to blame somebody else later then.

Having said that, I believe that when they did not care for the dividing line later at the Seine, it caused some major problems to sort things out later. So the care taken was not completely without reason. 20-20 hindsight is obviously the main reason why arm-chair generals always know better.

------------------

Andreas