Varying Quality

[The_Capt]

Ya know I was finding this amusing but now you are just ticking me off.

So let me get this straight, you have no idea nor see the value in demonstrating that or how any given Operation/Battle could have been done better BUT you speak authoritively that the performance of these troops was "poor"

Based on what..exactly, cas rates..hmm I guess the American did a pretty piss poor job at Ohmaha by those standards.

My position is simply this, Canadian troops in Normandy performed well..WELL..not perfect or flawlessly (ie yes there will always be room for improvement). Yours is that they did poorly, yet you refuse to give us any indication on how to do it better.

I have started my trips to the library and have already a fair amount of ammo. Spanking you pubicly is going to be much easier than I had hoped.

I think I am reading you just fine..I see a "wanna be" REMF sitting on his ample behind in the sweet dry comfort of his facts and figures.

Critizing things you hardly understand..yes you do seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of the minutia but just how do you describe the challenge fo commanding a unit filled with complete strangers. And still somehow advance against a determined enemy with more experience, in ground of his choosing, with superior kit and fanatical devotion...but not fast enough for General Dorosh..ya sounds pretty "poor" to me.

You contend we didn't go up the learning curve fast enough..based on what? Compared to who? Do you seriously think another Army would have done much better or in the case of poor vs well very much better. What possible basis do you have to make that judgement?!

This would be pretty much laughable, and personally I woudln't care if you hadn't convinced a lot of people on this board that you do know what your talking about and who now think that the "Canadians sucked in Normandy cause Dorosh is a Grog and said so".

It wasn't just the Allies that prevailed..the Canadians prevailed..we still took Caen..we still close the Falaise. I am sure the 18000 cas feel real sorry that they didn't do it fast enough for you and a few soft civis who have never even seen a trench let alone been shot at.

Now let's combine this with the fact that somehow demonstrating HOW this could have been done faster is BENEATH you just further shows just what kind of idle mess bitching is going on here.

I do not for a second contend that the planning and Operations were perfect BUT if I do decide to comment,you can be damn sure I will explain HOW I think it could have been done better and even that sounds pretentious to my ears but it is a hell of a lot better that what you are doing.

As to the modern Army you can rest assured I have forgotten more about the shortcomings and strengths of where we are at then you will ever know but you will get a lot farther with solutions and showing some leadership rather than sitting and whining about what is broken.

[JonS]

Best you be careful, Warren, lest the ravening horde descend and mock your discussion.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

Best you be careful, Warren, lest the ravening horde descend and mock your discussion.

Was there a discussion in there? My apologies. All I saw was the assertion that the Canadian Army did well in Normandy, that it was a fact because Warren Says, and then an eruption when he was asked to defend his position.

I was hoping to generate a discussion/analysis of the campaign and the part that Canadians played. Anyone else willing to contribute something besides ranting and raving is free to.

What about you, Jon, how would you compare the various Allied troops in Normandy, either against each other or on a whole? Did Allied troops perform well/poorly overall? I know they won, but why? Was it really due to their tactical prowess and skill at arms, or were other factors involved?

I know your main interest is artillery so if you want to limit your discussion to that, it would still be of interest. I suspect your knowledge is broader based than that, having read your posts on the board for some time now.

[Hubert Cater]

Okay guys, I think everyone has had their fun with this topic, maybe we can agree to disagree before it really does get out of hand

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Okay guys, I think everyone has had their fun with this topic, maybe we can agree to disagree before it really does get out of hand http://community.battlefront.com/uploads/emoticons/default_wink.png' alt=';)'>

You're the boss. Anyone intersted in discussing it further, we can do so at my forum at www.canadiansoldiers.com if you prefer.

[ May 08, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by JonS:

Best you be careful, Warren, lest the ravening horde descend and mock your discussion.

Bring it on..so far all I have seen in the way of deep discussion is a bunch of posturing.

Hey Michael,

Well so far you have only given a couple specific incidents and personalities to paint the entire Canadian effort with a broad brush..then you run like a scared doe when you are called up to give "the solution". Why do you have to give a solution?..well my friend, how else can you prove you are qualified to point out the "problem".

Since we have no benchmark by which to establish performance (ie no one else went through the exact same thing so it is impossible to compare) you need to present a theory on how it could have been done better and demonstrate it.

Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. I can say..the Falaise was closed as fast as humanly possible at the time. And unless you can prove otherwise how on earth can you make a performance judgement..just cause you SAY SO?

Unless you can show how things could have been done better we have no starting point for discussion.

If your answer is "because a lot of guys died" well I think you may find that the majority of military organizations then performed poorly in WWII.

Now if you want to go run to your Grog buddies and discuss the number of rifling grooves in a Lee Enfield..go right ahead but the bottom line is that you have bitten way off more than you can chew on this one and shot your mouth off.

You could have clarified you position by explaining that Bn down the troops performed very well as your friend Russ alluded to. That indiv training and junior leadership were quite good.

That the General staff made mistakes..costly ones and a few were definitely not "the right stuff".

You could have pointed out the poor collective training which preceded the action (even Blackburn mentions this)

You could even have pointed out even though the Logistical system was outstanding our troops were under equiped to take on the German hardware.

You could have mentioned that 12 SS was one hell of a unit. Hitler youth led by East Front vets and they took the Canadians on in what was pretty much a battle of attrition Jun-Aug 44. In the end the Allies were still standing (despite the Canadians having the highest cas rates of any allied force in theater but then again that has to do with us being screw ups) and that Normandy was a resounding victory which saw Canadians play a pivitol role in securing the North shoulder of a pocket which in the end took 400,000 Axis troops out of the war, not to mention most of their equipment.

You could have mentioned that success was achieved in light of facing 600 Panthers and Tigers while the Americans faced 110..none of them Tigers.

Or that the 14 Canadian and Brit Divs were facing off 14 German Div including elite SS Divs while at the same time 19 American Divs were opposed by only 9 Divs and some of them of questionable value.

You could have mentioned a lot but no you spouted off and will now try and bluster through by trying to drag us down to the "minutia battlefield" where you feel best equipped.

I am not a Grog and I am not a historian, amateur or otherwise but I am a professional military officer and have been my entire adult life. And I can tell you, I know a hard go when I read about one and the Canadians had a very hard go in Normandy. And I don't think you are even near enough qualified to comment on their performance Michael other than to say "thank you for a job well done".

Fortunately for us they did their job and won so you can spout off whenever you like. Now if any Grogs out there want to spout off too..well they are welcome to but until one of you armchair generals can show me how any of you could have possibly done better..well let's just say I'll sit back and watch the smoke rings.

[Hubert Cater]

OK on that note I think I will lock this thread up as many similar points have been made for both positions