# Canadian Special Forces and Light Infantry in World War Two`



## Bfalcon.cf (24 Jan 2005)

Hi
I'm, doing a major paper (not for skewl) on Canadian Special Forces and light infantry in World War Two. Its kinda tricky topic to research however. I have a couple of questions. First of all : a)the only two special forces type units i have found were the 1st canadian special service brigade  (the devils brigade), and the 1st Canadian parachute battalion. Can you tell me more about these units?  b) where there any other special forces units? c) what is the difference between, regiment, brigade, battalion, corps, army, etc in world war 2? like wut is the unit structure? d) what were the light infantry groups, or were they all light infantry (like also wuz canada have the most elite troops). e) if they were all light infantry, which groups would have been the best (like name the top 3). Does any1 know any good resources for this Anyhow, if you have any ww2 questions, for me i can help you out! its my pastime. 
Bfalcon


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Jan 2005)

The Pacific Coast Militia Rangers were also light infantry, though perhaps not "elite".

There is some info on the SSF at my website at www.canadiansoldiers.com - a google will find you a lot of info on the Devil's Brigade, many good websites.

Even better, invest in a few books.  Supercommandos is supposed to be good.  The Force history by Burhans is not bad either.

There are notes on organization at my site also, ie regiment, brigade, etc.  You are best advised to look at some books - Jean Bouchery's THE CANADIAN SOLDIER would be a great place to start as far as organization - or search some of the older posts here.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2005)

If you use Google I am sure you can find much of what you have asked.

The First Canadian Parachute Battalion was Canada's first Airborne unit, who fought as part of 3 Parachute Brigade under Brigadier James Hill, which was part of 6th UK Airborne Division of the British Army.  They ended their advance into Germany at Wismar.  Cpl Topham, whose VC and medals were just purchased from the family, was a medic in 1 Can Para.

The First Special Service Force was a joint Canada/US force.  It was originally planned by the British and was to be a combined Canada/US/UK Force, but the British pulled out before it was formed.  Most of the original personnel were also Airborne qualified. They were formed to attack the Heavy Water plants in Norway, but that plan got cancelled.  They were sent instead to attack the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands as part of a larger force.  When they arrived there, the Japanese had just left.  They were almost disbanded after that, but landed up going to fight in Sicily and Italy.  They fought at Anzio and the Canadian Bn was the first ones into liberate Rome.  When they moved on to fight in Southern France, the Canadian Bn was disbanded at Menton.

When you talk of Military Units, you will find that the smallest is the Section, of which three will add up to make a Platoon.  Three Platoons make a Company.  Three Companies will make a Battalion.  Then you take three Battalions to make a Regiment in the Infantry.  Armour, Engineer, and Artillery Units are divided up slightly different and in most cases the size of an Infantry Battalion is the same size or larger than any of the others' Regiments.  A Brigade is made up of two or three Infantry Battalions, and usually an Armour Regiment, an Artillery Regiment, an Engineer Regiment, a Service Battalion and numerous smaller support Units, such as MPs and Field Ambulances.  From here you will find that two or three Brigades will add up to make a Division, again two or three Divisions make a Corps and then the largest will be an Army.

There are lots of sources on line and at your local library that can help you in your quest.  

1 Can Para history was written under the title "Out of the Clouds"

Bernd Horn and Michel Wyczynski are writting a series of books on Canada's Airborne Forces being published by Vanwell Publishing Limited of St. Catharines, Ontario.  Their first book "In Search of Pegasus: the Canadian Airborne experience 1942 -1999" has ISBN 1-55125-039-X

GW


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Jan 2005)

FSSF was never in Sicily - their first major action was in December 1943.  Other than that, good synopsis - "Sicily and Italy" tends to roll off the tongue so I imagine that was unintentional on your part.


----------



## Art Johnson (25 Jan 2005)

"When you talk of Military Units, you will find that the smallest is the Section, of which three will add up to make a Platoon.  Three Platoons make a Company.  Three Companies will make a Battalion.  Then you take three Battalions to make a Regiment in the Infantry."

George I think you are a bit off on your calculations for WW II. There was a period during 1943 when at least some of the Infantry Bns were reduced to three Rifle Coys. The establishment was changed back to four Rifle Coys just prior to sailing for the invasion of Sicily plus there was a Headquarters Coy and a Support Coy. 

A Regiment can have any number of Bns maybe what you meant to say was that three Bns make a Brigade.

Aye Dileas


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2005)

Art

I was just trying to keep it relatively simple, with the minimums.  Of course we know that those numbers tended to grow.

As for three (Inf) Bn making a (Inf) Reg't that would be the case.  For instance, the Regimental HQ for the RCR is in London, with 1st and 3rd Bns in Pet and 2nd Bn in Gagetown, and then 4 RCR,which is a Reserve Unit, all making up the "Regiment".  1,2, and 3 RCR are part of 2CMBG (Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group--the "Group" meaning that it is really a "Brigade Plus" or "Heavy Brigade" in NATO terms) I also went on to state that two or more (Inf) Bn would be in a Bde along with the Armd, Arty, Engr and other support Units.  

It is sometimes hard to over simplify it much more, and sometimes comes out clear as mud.

GW


----------



## MCpl Burtoo (27 Jan 2005)

Here are some good links for you.............

http://army.ca/forums/threads/24284.0/all.html

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/canadawar/army_e.html

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Params=J1ARTJ0000307

http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/units.html

http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/newpage11.htm

http://regiments.org/default.htm

http://seconddivision.freehosting.net/second_canadian_division.htm

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar

http://members.aol.com/Custermen85/Units/BritishOrg.htm


Hope this helps some and maybe clear things up. They way we are organized now is not how we were organized during the 1st or 2nd World Wars.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Jan 2005)

Forlorn Hope said:
			
		

> Here are some good links for you.............
> 
> http://seconddivision.freehosting.net/second_canadian_division.htm



This one is mine - it is actually located at my www.canadiansoldiers.com site now - I went ahead and paid for web space - that page is from the bad old days when I needed to rely on freeserver space (which stopped being free long ago...)

Weird that it is still up and running!


----------



## BetterThanTheBest (27 Jan 2005)

I would suggest "Victory From Above", a documentary movie anoout 1 Can Para Battalion in World War II.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2005)

Could we merge this with your other IDENTICAL topic?

http://army.ca/forums/threads/25880.0.html

GW


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (28 Jan 2005)

how would i do that?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Jan 2005)

Merged.


----------



## Art Johnson (29 Jan 2005)

When speaking of Canadian Special Forces does the RCN's Underwater Demolition Teams count?


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (29 Jan 2005)

Well, i'm not sure, see I'm tryin to find out which units were spec forces. wut did the demo team do? if they activiely fought the enemy and were highly trained, then i would suppose so


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Jan 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> Well, i'm not sure, see I'm tryin to find out which units were spec forces. wut did the demo team do? if they activiely fought the enemy and were highly trained, then i would suppose so



Define "highly trained".  Just about every unit that went into combat in Sicily, Italy or NW Europe was "highly trained".

Perhaps you need to come up with a working definition first.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (30 Jan 2005)

highly trained as in over and above the training of the regular soldiers. -longer durational training, -harder training, -better calibre soldiers, -generally volunteer units


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Jan 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> highly trained as in over and above the training of the regular soldiers. -longer durational training, -harder training, -better calibre soldiers, -generally volunteer units



The entire Canadian Army overseas was volunteer til about February 1945 (excepting those that went to Kiska).

As for longer duration of training, the First Division trained in the UK from December 1939 to July 1943...does it get longer than that?  

I would suggest that the Canadian Army had nothing of the type of thing you're thinking of, outside 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion - and even then, I wouldn't classify them above the rest of the army.  They simply specialized in parachute training; once they were on the ground, I've not read anything to suggest they were any better or worse than standard infantry units in the field.

I would stack the Calgary Highlanders, Hasty P's, Highland Light Infantry, Queen's Own Rifles, the Perths, or the Algonquin Regiment up against 1 Can Para any day of the week.


----------



## Art Johnson (31 Jan 2005)

Actually Michael the 1st Canadian Division was clear of the UK before the end of June 1943.

"On June 28th the Derbyshire weighed anchor and sailed down the Clyde for the open sea."

Other units had been sailing from the UK since about the middle of June. There were two convoys, one dubbed SLOW, the other FAST. Infantry Anti-Tank units along with Artillery and Transport had been loading and sailing from ports like Hamilton, Liverpool etc since the 16th of June.

And while I'm at it I would stack the 48th up against any unit any time anywhere.

Aye Dileas


----------



## Art Johnson (31 Jan 2005)

A longer and more detailed version of the 1st Division's departure from the UK, it is to be the next page on my web site:

http://dileas.mapleleafup.org/



Journey to Battle


When the assault ships left the Clyde, they moved the over near the coast of Ireland, where the fast Assault Convoy was forming up. Meanwhile, the Slow Assault convoy which had left about a week before carrying the divisional transport and guns was preceding ahead of the Fast Convoy.

The loading of the transport, carriers and new 6pdr anti-tank guns had been taking place since the first week in June at various ports along the Clyde. Most of the 1st Battalion's equipment was on the S.S. City of Venice which sailed on the 19th of June. There were four Canadian Convoys totalling 125 transports and escorts. Two of the convoys were bound for Sicily the other two to Algeria.

On board the Derbyshire Col. Johnston closed down all the Men's Canteens and Officer's Bars. As well as the 48th there were two Groups of Royal Marine Commandos, a platoon of the R.C.R., and a company of Hasty Ps. It was crowded so the watches were doubled and some of the men slept on deck to allieve the overcrowding in the holds below.July 1st came and the announcement of their destination quenched all rumours of Burma or North Africa. The secret battle orders that the C.O. had prepared earlier were retrieved from the ship's safe and the officers were briefed on their tasks during the assault. The officers in turn briefed their sub units. Everyone was issued British tropical uniforms, some had been made in Britain and some in India.

The Fast and Slow convoys made their way towards the Mediterranean with the expectation of joining up just past Gibralter. Disaster stuck the Slow convoy and three ships were sunk. One the City of Venice carried all of the 48th's transport, carriers and their drivers.
 â Å“Bill Stag and me were just standing around the rear deck in our shorts getting some fresh air, it was just coming on evening when all of a sudden there was one hell of a bang and the mast fell down. Bill said â Å“Christ we've been torpedoedâ ?. Men started coming up from below and Bill said, â Å“We had better get that raft over the sideâ ?, and with that he tried to cut the line with his issue knife. It had been painted so often that he couldn't make a dent in it. â Å“Somebody get a bloody fire axe,â ? he shouted, and someone did. With the axe we were able to chop through the rope and the raft slid free and landed in the water upside down. We all jumped overboard and gathered around the raft. With the raft upside down we couldn't get at the paddles so Bill said â Å“I'll dive under and get themâ ? he did and that is the last that we saw of him. I think he got sucked through the hole that the torpedoe made. (Albert Wilson)

 â Å“Yeah, well we watched it, we were in the Durwent Hall ahead of you, but we kept going. Then we hit a mine, the paravane hit the mine, they left a Corvette or some other kind of escort going around us. Well they sent a couple of the ship's crew down into the bow to see what the extent of the damage was, and it was leaking. The plates were leaking but the crew said the pumps could keep up to it. It was alright we could land. So we did and we caught up to the convoy it was the Slow convoy which left Liverpool...Birkenhead, the same as you guys eh, but we went ahead of time and we were going slower, and you guys past us I think just after we went through the Straights of Gibralter.â ? (Bill Elms)

â Å“Yeah that's where we got it. Yep I can still see those poor devils they didn't rescue. You know going along with their Mae Wests on, with the lights on...way in the distance. I can still see those lights, it still bothers me sometimes ......all those years it still bothers me to see all those in the water.â ? (Albert Wilson)

â Å“Seeing that first ship go down during the day (S.S. St. Essylt) ....Jimmy Felstead and I had just come up from lunch, leaning over the rail and looking at the blinking convoy and there was a huge explosion and the bloody ship stopped dead and started to fill up. It was gone in seventeen minutes. We could see the guys jumping off, the convoy sped up to get out of the way. That ship was torpedoed from inside the convoy, It's just my thought but the convoy was in three columns and that ship was in the middle column. So how did he pick the middle ship unless he was inside the convoy.â ? (Bill Elms)(The preceeding was extracted from a conversation that took place in 1986. Cpl. William Stagg is remembered by a plaque at the Commonwealth Cemetary at Cassino)

Dick Kenzie was at the Bow of the City of Venice and had much the same experience. "We came up on deck and no one was fully dressed except Sergeant Vic Jackson. One of the escort ships pulled it's bow along the Port bow of our ship and men started jumping down on to it." "One of the men, Harry Dockerty fell in the water and swam under the City of Venice to get to the starboard side where the rafts and boats were being lowered. We couldn't cut the rope to release the Carley raft and were about to jump in the water when a British sailor came along and cut it with one swipe of his knife. We then went down a scamble net and got on the raft and started to paddle away from the sinking ship. Next day an escort ship threw us a rope the end of which had been braided into five tails so that a number of men could take hold of it and pull the raft along side. The sea was rough with swells about ten feet and we were only able to get off the raft two at a time when the swell brought the raft up near the deck of the escort". "When we landed in Algeria the only one in uniform was Sergeant Jackson, a British Sergeant on the dock asked him "What have we got here Sergeant Jerries or Eities"". (Dick Kenzie)

One officer and fifty six other ranks were lost in the sinking of the City of Venice, plus five hundred vehicles and forty guns. The survivors were taken to Algiers and lock up in a POW cage for security purposes. Across the road in another cage were Jerry POWs.   â Å“They guarded us tighter than they guarded the Germansâ ? After the assault had gone in the survivors were released and used to ferry vehicles from the British 8th Army depot in Africa to Sicily. (Bud Lloyd)

The Assault convoys in the meantime joined a vast Armada of 2760 ships forming up south of the Island of Malta. Ships had come from Britain, the U.S.A. and various ports in North Africa. The landing zones covered a distance of 69 miles from the British divisions on the east side to the American divisions on the west side. 400 transport aircraft and 137 gliders carried the British and American Airborne divisions from Kairouan Tunisia to their drop zones. The 1st Canadian Division was assigned to land at Roger Beach with the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment and the Royal Canadian Regiment leading with the 48th Highlanders following.

Anchors of the Canadian Flotila were let go about midnight of the 9/10 July. The British submarine Unrivaled was waiting at sea to mark the position for the Command ship Hilary about seven miles off shore, the troopers moved in to about four miles off shore. The 48th were called to their emergency stations at 2353 hrs. The Commando units were loaded into their assault boats ready to go and the Warships began their Fire Tasks. At 0110hrs the Commando LCAs were lowered into a rough sea and off they went. "A" Coy of the Hasty Ps were next and they were away from the Derbyshire before word of a postponment reached the ship. They ended up three miles west of their intended position. 
Problems arose with the loading of the R.C.R. the seas were too rough for the assault boats and LCTs had to be brought in to take them off. The first wave moved off at 0400, 2-1/2 hours behind schedule.

"0430 hours: Action at last! The watched and debated LCI, which had been hovering around for two hours but refusing to come within hailing range, suddenly headed purposefully toward the Derbyshire. Her skipper had either received orders to start taking off the 48th Highlanders, or the coming of daylight had convinced him he could delay no longer. With hoarse bellowings, and much trouble getting a line fast, the two craft were finally brought close. Colonel Johnston ordered the first scramble net heaved over on the LCI's next roll-the moment its low rails were close enough. It was a good heave by the crew, and he was first down, with steadying hands on the top of the net, but not at the bottom where it mattered. Leaping to those steel decks in steel-heeled and steel-toed boots was not a feat for the timid, but the lithe Colonel went down in a scrambling slide, and a l0 foot jump. As he steadied the net below for Lt. Johnny Clarkson, who followed him down, he heard a voice casually suggesting: "Shall we go to my cabin, Colonel?" It was the Skipper of the LCI. They shook hands a bit stiffly. With commendable patience after the strain and irritations of the night, the Colonel understood that the amenities of the sea and the Silent Service were going to be observed at all cost. He went along with it. It was an odd meeting-at-sea of sailor and soldier. "Can I offer you a drink of Scotch, Colonel?" The Skipper asked The C.O. knew by the clanging and shouts on deck, that the Battalion was now coming down the nets in a swarm, with enough men below to hold the nets tight to the rail for others, so he accepted the invitation."   (Dileas by Kim Beattie)
The LCI struck an unmarked sandbar before getting to shore and the men had to be off loaded into DUKWs and ferried ashore. Once ashore they got into a hassle with the Beachmaster who they promptly told to go to Hell. The 48th were fed up with the series of SNAFUs they had been put through and just wanted to get off the beach.
Meanwhile back in Algiers the survivors of the City of Venice were loaded on to an American built Landing Ship crewed by the Royal navy;

"They loaded us on to this old tub it had twelve engine but only three of them worked. The RN types didn't know how to repair the engines so we set off creeping along the coast looking for a US base that could repair the engines. We finally came to the port of Sfax in Tunisia where we left the ship. In Sfax we picked up some beat up old British Army carriers drove them on to an LST and were ferried across to Sicily." (Dick Kenzie)


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (1 Feb 2005)

The trainin of the 1 para and the 1st spec service force (black devils) was far more intense however than any other canadian regiment (from what I have read). certainly more intense and tougher, not that Canada's regular and militias weren't tough-they were obviously so, probably much more than the british and yank units. What would u say that canada's army role was-shock troops and light infantry?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> What would u say that canada's army role was-shock troops and light infantry?



Neither.


----------



## B.McTeer (1 Feb 2005)

But wasn't there a few regiments that acquired or claimed elite status during the course of the war. exp: Blackwatch, C-Scot-R, Queens own, RWR and R de Chaud just to name a few


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Feb 2005)

B.McTeer said:
			
		

> But wasn't there a few regiments that acquired or claimed elite status during the course of the war. exp: Blackwatch, C-Scot-R, Queens own, RWR and R de Chaud just to name a few



Yeah - all of them.  Just read their regimental histories, they'll be the first to tell you.

The Black Watch specialized in getting itself wiped out - Verrieres Ridge, Black Friday (13 Oct 1944), etc. They had the highest casualty rates of any battalion in theatre according to Jeffery Williams (THE LONG LEFT FLANK).   Not sure what makes them any more "elite" than anyone else.  After Black Friday, the CO complained in the war diary that reinforcements had virtually no infantry training.  Not sure what your definition of elite is.

I'd ask you to defend your statement of how any of the units you named could claim to be "elite" - all regiments claim that for themselves, I'm not aware of a single battalion that "acquired" the status, not from military historians at any rate.  Don't confuse regimental mystique for an actual assessment of abilities.  Canada fielded very good infantry battalions.  Not one had to be disbanded in the field (this was not the case in WW I, incidentally, though for the majority they were very good also, probably better man for man than the WW II battalions).  Check out OVERLORD by Max Hastings and read the comments about at least one British battalion being broken up for reinforcements because discipline went to pieces.  It would have been easy for any of the Canadian regiments you named to have done the same thing - all the ones you mention suffered frightfully in Normandy.  Just staying in one piece was tough enough, never mind being "elite" in the process.


----------



## Love793 (1 Feb 2005)

As for regular regiments of the line, I'd have to say 2 Div probably received the most "commando" training (Op Rutter/Jubilee),and was intended to spearhead the breakout from the Beach head following "Overlord". However 3 Div made they landing at Juno, so I'd venture that they where probably evenly matched.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Feb 2005)

Love793 said:
			
		

> As for regular regiments of the line, I'd have to say 2 Div probably received the most "commando" training (Op Rutter/Jubilee),and was intended to spearhead the breakout from the Beach head following "Overlord". However 3 Div made they landing at Juno, so I'd venture that they where probably evenly matched.



That's fair.  2 Div actually trained additionally for an assault crossing of the Seine - their anticipated role after D+90, when the Seine was supposed to reached.  The invasion was actually ahead of schedule, as the Seine was crossed - relatively peacefully - in advance of D+90.  (I think I remembered that correctly - the approach to the Seine was bloody - Foret de la Londe, etc.)  

By the Scheldt, I get the impression that few of the 2nd Div troops who had taken the assault boat training were still alive and serving with their units.


----------



## B.McTeer (2 Feb 2005)

check out the Book "Fields Of Fire The Canadians In Normandy" By Terry Copp. Cause i go the impresion after reading this book and many other books about the Normandy Campaign that the Canadians were over all the best infantry men in the allied army. in some cases, there are historians claiming the Canadians to be as good as the German S.S. and airborne troops both of which where insanely good airborne and infantry men

B.McTeer


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Feb 2005)

B.McTeer said:
			
		

> check out the Book "Fields Of Fire The Canadians In Normandy" By Terry Copp. Cause i go the impresion after reading this book and many other books about the Normandy Campaign that the Canadians were over all the best infantry men in the allied army. in some cases, there are historians claiming the Canadians to be as good as the German S.S. and airborne troops both of which where insanely good airborne and infantry men
> 
> B.McTeer



Terry Copp comes out and says this?  I'd like to see a quote from him that gives you that impression.

Canadian infantrymen in Normandy were good - and immeasurably aided by the best artillery system in the world.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (2 Feb 2005)

I agree with you there bout the artillery. However, none of you have offered argument to the statement that the 1st paras and the 1st spec serv. force were the best canadians. Y do i say this, from reading about 8 different books. 1st of all, the 1st spec service force NEVER lost a battle, not once in the war. Second of all, They seem to have had a much more intense trainin than the other activie duty militia and regulars of Canada. Btw, where were canada's regulars at this time (eg, ppcli)?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> I agree with you there bout the artillery. However, none of you have offered argument to the statement that the 1st paras and the 1st spec serv. force were the best canadians. Y do i say this, from reading about 8 different books. 1st of all, the 1st spec service force NEVER lost a battle, not once in the war. Second of all, They seem to have had a much more intense trainin than the other activie duty militia and regulars of Canada. Btw, where were canada's regulars at this time (eg, ppcli)?



All three of Canada's regular force battalions went overseas in 1939 as part of the First Division - composed almost entirely of men off the streets or from the Militia. - many veteran pre-war regulars stayed in Canada as instructors.


----------



## B.McTeer (2 Feb 2005)

there isnt one spacific Quote that comes to mind i but ill go over the book again tonight and see if i can find one. but the way he brings out everything down to the section level is just amazing. and the way he makes it seem that the Canadians were used as "front line dogs" to hold the fronts and piece meal attack so that the British and Americans could rest there troops for the big pushs which in the Normandy Campiagn ment if desaster. But i must say one thing, the Germans for the most part put up one hell of a fight in Normandy.

B.McTeer


----------



## Love793 (2 Feb 2005)

Don't tell any gunner I said this, but I feel that the guns (specifically the 25 pdrs of the field regiments) saved the day both in France and Italy.  If it wasn't for the guns and the Brit/Canadian Survey system tying all the guns in the theatre on line so quickly, the Germans would probably have been succesful in their counter attacks within the Brit and Canadian AoRs.  Not trying to take away from the heroic infantry's actions, but I'm sure the vets of 2 and 3 Div would attest to this.


----------



## B.McTeer (2 Feb 2005)

yeah those guns were right on the money all the time. i wish we could say the same thing about the bombers (no offence to any airforce personal) who on some days killed more allied troops then axis


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (2 Feb 2005)

Yes I agree w. u bout the guns. However, w. the bombers, a) they had no choice, b) they couldn't really prevent it @ that time, and c) they generally didnt do that much damage to the canadians. A) accordin to ross munro, the bombers had yet to provide close fire support, especcially the heavies. Its extremely difficult to do pinpoint accuracy in those days. b) they still hadn't the experience. after normandy, they were able to organize it and structure it better so events like that never occured again


----------



## B.McTeer (3 Feb 2005)

yeah true


----------



## Love793 (3 Feb 2005)

The first actual use of "Strategic" Bombers in the Tactical Support role (in Europe)was during Op Totalize, which came pretty close to resulting in both the 8th Airforce and 6 Grp RCAF, blowing 3 Div off the map.  As the war progressed though, the use of Lancaster, Halifax and to some degree the B-17 Flying Fortresses as tactical bombers did improve greatly.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Feb 2005)

Love793 said:
			
		

> The first actual use of "Strategic" Bombers in the Tactical Support role (in Europe)was during Op Totalize, which came pretty close to resulting in both the 8th Airforce and 6 Grp RCAF, blowing 3 Div off the map.  As the war progressed though, the use of Lancaster, Halifax and to some degree the B-17 Flying Fortresses as tactical bombers did improve greatly.



But look what over reliance on heavy bombers did at Walcheren - I think Jeffery Williams was the one who suggested that First Canadian Army was "drugged with bombs" - ie they relied too much on heavy fire support for jobs better suited to infantry work.


----------



## Love793 (3 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> But look what over reliance on heavy bombers did at Walcheren - I think Jeffery Williams was the one who suggested that First Canadian Army was "drugged with bombs" - ie they relied too much on heavy fire support for jobs better suited to infantry work.



I agree, but as with most new "toys", some one has to try them out. ;D


----------



## B.McTeer (3 Feb 2005)

god i love new "toys" hehehe ;D


----------



## baboon6 (4 Feb 2005)

While I would never denigrate the British Commonwealth infantryman of WW2, all the Allied armies came increasingly to rely on massive artillery and air bombardment as the war progressed. Talking specifically about Canadians, remember most of the senior generals by this stage were gunners (Crerar, Simonds, Matthews), so it's not surprising they had faith in artillery. The artillery was the best-trained and best equipped arm (in all the Allied armies). I'm going to make myself unpopular by saying this, but the fact is the best of the German infantry and armour were better than anything the Allies could muster. Of course there were German units who were no great shakes and Allied ones which were superb (including some infantry and armour but especially paratroopers Dorosh- to say they weren't better trained is just silly)- but on average it was clear who was superior at small-unit tactics and all arms fighting.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Feb 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> While I would never denigrate the British Commonwealth infantryman of WW2, all the Allied armies came increasingly to rely on massive artillery and air bombardment as the war progressed. Talking specifically about Canadians, remember most of the senior generals by this stage were gunners (Crerar, Simonds, Matthews), so it's not surprising they had faith in artillery. The artillery was the best-trained and best equipped arm (in all the Allied armies). I'm going to make myself unpopular by saying this, but the fact is the best of the German infantry and armour were better than anything the Allies could muster. Of course there were German units who were no great shakes and Allied ones which were superb (including some infantry and armour but especially paratroopers Dorosh- to say they weren't better trained is just silly)- but on average it was clear who was superior at small-unit tactics and all arms fighting.



You're talking in a vacuum - by the autumn of 1944 German infantrymen received 7 or 8 weeks of basic and trades training and a huge number of veteran NCOs and officers were buried in Normandy, Africa, Italy or Russia.  Canadian soldiers at that time had generally been in training for years (though many of them trained in the "wrong" trade and got remustered quite rudely to the infantry).  While German training and tactics may have been superior in some senses, I wouldn't overstate the case.  

Good point about Gunner officers, but the reason they hemmed and hawed over appointing Matthews was precisely because they didn't want to make it look like the Army overseas was a freemasonry of St. Barbara's advocates.  As it turned out, Matthews was a good man for the job because of his pedigree - a happy situation for all involved.

What training did Canadian paratroopers receive, aside from parachute jumping, that any other Canadian battalion didn't receive in the normal course of their training?  You'll need to prove your assertion, or at the least prove that mine is "silly".


----------



## baboon6 (4 Feb 2005)

I was talking about those veteran German officers and NCOs who were still around. Yes many of their units were sub-standard by this time, made up of either raw recruits (though some of them weren't too bad) or unwilling Eastern Europeans, but some of them were still bloody good (1st SS Panzer Div, Panzer Lehr etc). How come were they able to regenerate formations that were virtually destroyed in battle several times over? How were they able to hold on for so long, with almost no air cover, very little fuel and, as said above, facing massive Allied artillery and air bombardment? As regards armour, everyone knows the German tanks were better- no matter how brave the Sherman crews, they were at a serious disadvantage (especially attacking when the Germans were defending). 

Regarding paratroopers- I wasn't referring to the Canadians specifically, but if you read Peter Harclerode's books Para! and Go to It!: The Illustrated History of the 6th Airborne Division, the PT standards were higher, the weapons proficiency was higher ( paratroopers had to be able to use all British and German weapons, not just their own). The Allies, particularly the Americans, also had a high percentage of raw recruits in their infantry by this stage.Canada, a smaller, mostly volunteerarmy, didn't have as big a problem with quality of infantry ( and had so many good young junior officers they were able, like my country, South Africa, to lend quite a few to the British Army- several hundred in fact).   How many other British or American formations would have fought as well as the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem or the 101st Airborne at Bastogne? Some would have, but not many( Compare the 101st to the 106th Infantry Div who fought a few miles away a few days earlier). How many German as well as the 1st Parachute Division at Cassino?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Feb 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> I was talking about those veteran German officers and NCOs who were still around. Yes many of their units were sub-standard by this time, made up of either raw recruits (though some of them weren't too bad) or unwilling Eastern Europeans, but some of them were still bloody good (1st SS Panzer Div, Panzer Lehr etc). How come were they able to regenerate formations that were virtually destroyed in battle several times over? How were they able to hold on for so long, with almost no air cover, very little fuel and, as said above, facing massive Allied artillery and air bombardment?



Hold on to what?  The German Army steadily retreated from July 1944 to May 1945 and any counter-attacks they launched were always defeated.  They did manage to retain some of the channel ports.  Other than that, I don't see that they really held on to much.



> As regards armour, everyone knows the German tanks were better- no matter how brave the Sherman crews, they were at a serious disadvantage (especially attacking when the Germans were defending).



Tell that to Joe Ekins. 



> Regarding paratroopers- I wasn't referring to the Canadians specifically,



I was.



> but if you read Peter Harclerode's books Para! and Go to It!: The Illustrated History of the 6th Airborne Division, the PT standards were higher,



How so?   To what degree?  Why did that matter?



> the weapons proficiency was higher ( paratroopers had to be able to use all British and German weapons, not just their own).



So what?



> The Allies, particularly the Americans, also had a high percentage of raw recruits in their infantry by this stage.



EVERYONE did by late 1944.



> Canada, a smaller, mostly volunteerarmy, didn't have as big a problem with quality of infantry ( and had so many good young junior officers they were able, like my country, South Africa, to lend quite a few to the British Army- several hundred in fact).



By October 1944, they did, actually - not enough reinforcements in the infantry corps, way too many in the ordnance, artillery, and other corps.



> How many other British or American formations would have fought as well as the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem or the 101st Airborne at Bastogne?



What reason do you have to believe that any of the Canadian divisions wouldn't have done just as well?  An airborne tab on a sleeve does not a soldier make.  I think any Canadian division would have done just as well in those situations.  Again, I ask you, what training did the airborne have, that you feel other "leg" infantry divisions didn't (all other things like length of training being equal).



> Some would have, but not many( Compare the 101st to the 106th Infantry Div who fought a few miles away a few days earlier).



How may months were the 106th in theatre?   One?  Two?  101 fought in Normandy and Market Garden, two major campaigns.  Big difference.



> How many German as well as the 1st Parachute Division at Cassino?



Didn't they lose there, too?


----------



## baboon6 (4 Feb 2005)

I concede the day,sir


----------



## B.McTeer (4 Feb 2005)

you win


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Feb 2005)

Well, that's too bad, I thought maybe babs would have some arguments to back up what he was saying; instead it looks like he was simply someone who believes in all that "elite unit" stuff.  I don't doubt that 1 Can Para had higher recruiting standards, but even the argument that they "had better PT" falls flat.  Read Farley Mowat's description of a Battle Drill course, or any regimental history that talks about it.  At the peak of their training, any infantry battalion in First Canadian Army was enduring rigorous physical conditioning.  Throwing out unsubstantiated claims about differing standards will do little to convince me that the paras were any tougher than those who were enduring commando training in Scotland (which many of the "regular" infantry battalions did in preparation for movement to Sicily, or the D-Day landings in Normandy) and constant battle drill training, hardening training, etc.

I also fail to see the relevance of training with German weapons - the MG42, for example, was so distinctive sounding that you would be almost suicidal to use one on a battlefield, and certainly at night, as friendly firepower would likely be brought to bear on you rather quickly.

Other than that, I've seen no discussion of what syllabus the parachute troops trained to, and no compare/contrast with regular soldiers.  So the assessment of my assertions as "silly" don't seem so silly after all.  My own Regiment spent four weeks in front line positions in the Nijmegen Salient - longer than the siege of Bastogne - doing endless patrolling; they crossed a 1600 metre causeway barely 40 metres wide, and created a bridgehead at the far end, in the face of heavy enemy fire, they fought house to house, and even room to room, in at least two major city engagements - as Nimitz said about the Marines "uncommon valour was a common virtue."  

It is well and good to grant "elite" units extra consideration, and I would certainly hold 1 Can Para in very high regard, as individual motivations had to be better due to the nature of their employment.  Scattering all over Normandy in the dark requires a certain kind of perspective and if anyone had guts, those guys did.  But selling everyone else short in the process makes little sense.  Just as I'm pretty sure the Second Canadian Division would have performed well at Bastogne, I don't doubt a battalion of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment would have done equally well at Walcheren Causeway, Hoogerheide, or Groningen.  They were all good - that's why we won.


----------



## Art Johnson (4 Feb 2005)

Just a couple of comments. The following two paras concern the massive artillery support comments and are extracted from Dileas by Kim Beattie.
   
1-                        "The artillery representatives with the infantry-O.C.'s Rep at Tac
                             H.Q. and F.O.Os. with the companies-were now having a tough
                             time with their infantry hosts. They were being called shell-scrooges.
                             One night, Capt. Jim Counsell urgently asked the 25-pounder for help
                             -to knock-out a new Spandau position. A single shell finally went
                             overhead to burst with a puny plop in the mud. ("Good cripes! Some
                             fire support--one little shell!") Lt. Court Benson became urgent next,
                             about German movement on the Tollo road; again, one shell from a
                             single 25-pounder answered the 48th call on the guns. They began
                             to realize shells were precious; to hoard them was law. The ration
                             went as low as 1 shell per gun per day.
                              Capt. Con Harrington, 2nd Field Regiment, who was destined to
                             work with the 48th Highlanders more frequently than any other
                             artillery officer, was living the life of a pariah. He could stand being
                             a social outcast, but protested taking the blame for top-level artillery
                           policy.
                              "Hell," he said, "the men of the 2nd Field are stealing shells and
                           hiding them in barns just in case you footsloggers get into real trouble."
                              The Highlanders let up on him the day he recklessly ordered 5
                           (five) rounds fired for Capt. Beal, which resulted in Capt. Harrington
                           suffering a stern lecture from the rear for wasting shells."


2-           " To the left of Charlie's area, Able Company was under even closer
              observation from Kestrel. They had found the going very rough after
              the barrage by the mediums and 25-pounders had been shot-out, and
              ceased to hold German heads down. Their objective was a position
              on a ridge 800 yards northeast of the road junction (the now familiar
              Henley). They had the same open slope to cross, to line-up with
              Charlie's position, and their ridge was in the heart of a landscape      
              that felt naked."

When the the 1st Canadian Div in Italy came into the front line the 1st German Parachute Div would usually show up opposite them within a few days. If it wasn't the Parachutist it was often the Herman Goring Division. It would appear that the Germans held the Canadians in high regard, all the more amazing when you consider that the Infantry units were at half strength.

Regarding the German retreat I believe it started sometime in 1942.

Recently I heard that a Canadian Forestry Corps unit was involved in the fighting in the Bastogne are. It seems they were doing their thing, cutting down trees, when they came under attack from German troops. They dropped their tools grabbed their weapons got into their slits and drove the German unit off.


----------



## baboon6 (8 Feb 2005)

I don't think only "elite" units were very good- the combat performance of plenty of Canadian, British, American (and South African) line units proves this and I would never deny it. I admit maybe my argument wasn't thought out properly. It's probably more applicable to the US Army than the Canadian. All the US airborne units performed well in combat, while some "leg" infantry divisions never did- mainly the ones which had been leveed for replacements several times and sent to Europe inadequately trained.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Feb 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> I don't think only "elite" units were very good- the combat performance of plenty of Canadian, British, American (and South African) line units proves this and I would never deny it. I admit maybe my argument wasn't thought out properly. It's probably more applicable to the US Army than the Canadian. All the US airborne units performed well in combat, while some "leg" infantry divisions never did- mainly the ones which had been leveed for replacements several times and sent to Europe inadequately trained.



I will certainly agree with you on these points.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (8 Feb 2005)

However, you certainly cannot deny that the elite units like the 1st ssf trained much more intensely than pretty much any other units in england at the time. They had very few leaves, everything was done at the double, they had better weapons training, and a much more difficult pt regime/ I'm sure that the instructors also would have been much better for the special unit


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> However, you certainly cannot deny that the elite units like the 1st ssf trained much more intensely than pretty much any other units in england at the time. They had very few leaves, everything was done at the double, they had better weapons training, and a much more difficult pt regime/ I'm sure that the instructors also would have been much better for the special unit



What are you basing these statements on?  Which time period are you referring to?  The SSF trained in skiing, which units in England did not do, mountain climbing, which units in England did not do though I believe it formed part of "commando" training for units sent to Scotland, parachute jumping, which units in England did not do.   Do you realize that of these skills, the only ones actually used in combat was mountain clmbing?  Ask the Hasty P's how they got to Assoro and you may be surprised at the answer.  ;-)

So how much of the training the SSF received was actually applicable to conditions in theatre?  The regular units in England also conducted battle drill courses and were probably in good shape physically - though without specific details or references, one finds it difficult to compare.  

The SSF had espirit de corps and benefited from having hand picked volunteers, at least initially.  The fact they held such a large part of the line in Anzio is often touted, however, how much of that frontage was laced with canals or else wide open ground?  That point was made to me quite rudely when I proudly pointed it out on another forum.  The fact that they were opposed by Hermann Goering notwithstanding.

You'd need to present some specific understanding of the training syllabus of a regular infantry battalion in the UK, and the "regular" aspects of the SSF training to really compare.  I've read Adleman's history as well as Burhans - they were worthy of a great deal of respect, but I don't agree that their training was all that different from what anyone else in the Army was enduring.  Check out Exercise TIGER and see how far all the troops marched, and in how long.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> However, you certainly cannot deny that the elite units like the 1st ssf trained much more intensely than pretty much any other units in england at the time. They had very few leaves, everything was done at the double, they had better weapons training, and a much more difficult pt regime/ I'm sure that the instructors also would have been much better for the special unit



This is true at the beginning, but as the war progressed and they lost people in Combat, their replacements had lower/fewer qualifications.   The father of my RSM was one such person, and went on to be Force RSM in Petawawa.   Although, he had been 1 SSF, as RSM of the SSF, he refused to wear a Maroon Beret, as he was not Jump Qualified.   

In the end 1 SSF was a rather short lived Force, existing for only a couple of years.   It's memories and traditions live on longer.

GW

Hot topic, I see I have to wait while others post.....


----------



## strat0 (8 Feb 2005)

I think the subject is being missed. What you are refering to are Commando Units. The 1st SSF were volunteers from various regiments they were trained soldiers, Infantry, etc and trained as Commando's, i.e. extra specialised training. The Parachute Battalion could be put into this category as they again were trained volunteers and received extra specialised training(not sure about hand to hand cbt, etc but probably) 

The Canadian Army did supply volunteers to British Army Commando units as well, I don't know of any "Canadian" Commando organisations/units that existed, I may be wrong on this. My father was commando trained in WW2 but as he never spoke much about it I don't know what unit he served with other than his parent regiment(I have his pay book and discharge papers). Anyway, I hope this helps.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (9 Feb 2005)

strat0 said:
			
		

> I think the subject is being missed. What you are refering to are Commando Units. The 1st SSF were volunteers from various regiments they were trained soldiers, Infantry, etc and trained as Commando's, i.e. extra specialised training. The Parachute Battalion could be put into this category as they again were trained volunteers and received extra specialised training(not sure about hand to hand cbt, etc but probably)


This is exactly wut i have been trying to discuss-from  the books i have read, the commandos, and elit spec forces units did have special roles to play. And in response to you comment, michael, about them only using mountain climbing, they also did other special things the "d-day amphibious landing" groups in england did not do: ie, mastering of ALL battlefield weapons (bazookas, flamethrowoers, enemy weapons, rifles, the various machine guns, AND luger and colt pistols, etc) they learned stealthy tactics, espec. the paras who had to sneak up on guards and knife them, etc, which the main troops did not learn. they also WERE in better shape (not that the regulars weren't, i think that the people in england were in stupendous shape, just these ones, were, perhaps, more). All of them, also, had to learn explosives and demo skills. they had to learn cold weather operating and fighting procedures, etc, which was invaluable in  sum of the winters in europe and italy. Eg, of how they were different from regulars (at least americans)At two mountains in Italy where German troops were entrenched in two mountains, inflicting heavy casualties on the 5th US Army  The first regiment- 600 men, scaled a 1000-foot cliff by night to surprise the enemy. Planned as a 3 to 4 day assault, the battle was won in just 2 hours. The force remained for 3 days, packing in supplies for defensive positions and fighting frostbite, then moved on to the second mountain, which was soon overtaken. In the end, 1SSF suffered 511 casualties including 73 dead and 116 exhaustion cases. The commander, Col. Robert Frederick, was wounded twice himself. Also, are you insinuating that anzio was easy because it was flat and easy to defend? uring Operation Shingle at Anzio, Italy, 1944, the Special Force were brought ashore on February 1st, after the decimation of the U.S. Rangers, to hold and raid from the right-hand flank of the beachhead marked by the Mussolini Canal/Pontine Marshes, which they did quite effectively. If the rangers were decimated, it must have not been easy. Finally, i have a couple more questions-1st what would you have to say about the german army over the latter half of the war (you can go into great detail). and how would you say that all canadian infantry differed from yanks and brits (like were they better shock troops, etc) Thank you all for participating in this discussion, it is most enjoyable, i would like to keep it up.  for those of you in WW2, I thank you with all my heart...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> This is exactly wut i have been trying to discuss-from  the books i have read, the commandos, and elit spec forces units did have special roles to play



Of course they did, hence the specialized training.  



> . And in response to you comment, michael, about them only using mountain climbing, they also did other special things the "d-day amphibious landing" groups in england did not do: ie, mastering of ALL battlefield weapons (bazookas, flamethrowoers, enemy weapons, rifles, the various machine guns, AND luger and colt pistols, etc)



Before D-Day, all troops in the Canadian Army went to displays by Demonstration units, who wore German uniforms, used German weapons, and did mock attacks using German tactics, in order to familiarize the Canadians with what they would look like in action.  I'm not sure how much hands-on training was done, but really, how often did that become useful?  For either the Paras, SSF, or regular units?



> they learned stealthy tactics, espec. the paras who had to sneak up on guards and knife them, etc, which the main troops did not learn.



What is your source for this?



> they also WERE in better shape (not that the regulars weren't, i think that the people in england were in stupendous shape, just these ones, were, perhaps, more).



Ummm....what is more than stupendous, exactly?



> All of them, also, had to learn explosives and demo skills.



How often were they issued with explosives?  Every Canadian infantry battalion had a pioneer platoon, and each division had Field Squadrons of the RCE available to use demolitions.



> they had to learn cold weather operating and fighting procedures, etc, which was invaluable in  sum of the winters in europe and italy. Eg, of how they were different from regulars (at least americans)



There was snow on the Canadian front in NW Europe for about 4 weeks in the winter of 44-45 if I remember correctly, and the winter stalemate lasted from November to the beginning of February - patrolling was the main activity during this time.  It was the same in Italy - operations tended to slow down in the winter months.



> At two mountains in Italy where German troops were entrenched in two mountains, inflicting heavy casualties on the 5th US Army  The first regiment- 600 men, scaled a 1000-foot cliff by night to surprise the enemy. Planned as a 3 to 4 day assault, the battle was won in just 2 hours. The force remained for 3 days, packing in supplies for defensive positions and fighting frostbite, then moved on to the second mountain, which was soon overtaken. In the end, 1SSF suffered 511 casualties including 73 dead and 116 exhaustion cases. The commander, Col. Robert Frederick, was wounded twice himself.



Remetanea and la Difensa.  Admirable feats of arms.  The Hasty P's performed a similar feat at Assoro, on a smaller scale.  I would agree that this operation, however, probably necessitated specially trained troops.  I'd also say the mission was a rarity - why do you think the Force was disbanded in December 1944?



> Also, are you insinuating that anzio was easy because it was flat and easy to defend?



No, I'm insinuating that you didn't need ski, mountain, amphibious, parachute trained specialists to hold the perimeter there - just aggressive soldiers like the SSF.  I think they also outperformed "regular" Canadian units in this instance, as Canadian units were not known for being aggressive in their patrolwork - though they were certainly competent enough.



> Finally, i have a couple more questions-1st what would you have to say about the german army over the latter half of the war (you can go into great detail). and how would you say that all canadian infantry differed from yanks and brits (like were they better shock troops, etc) Thank you all for participating in this discussion, it is most enjoyable, i would like to keep it up.  for those of you in WW2, I thank you with all my heart...



My point was, and is, that Canadian troops were no better or no worse than British and American troops.  All had their strengths and weaknesses, and I think all learned to use well the tools they had - artillery especially.  Canadian troops were criticized postwar for lack of aggressiveness, but US and British divisions were also war weary by late 1944.  I think my main point is I don't see the point of pitting them against each other - they were all good enough to get the job done, with some notable exceptions.

As for the German Army, all I can say is I'm very glad they lost.


----------



## Art Johnson (9 Feb 2005)

Commandos mastered BAZOOKAS hmmm???. One of the problems at Anzio was at the beginning the Americans had more vehicles ashore than men.
More comments to come.


----------



## Art Johnson (9 Feb 2005)

"they learned stealthy tactics, espec. the paras who had to sneak up on guards and knife them, etc, which the main troops did not learn."

The following is a story about stealth it took place against the German Parachutist in broad daylight.

Extracted from Dileas by Kim Beattie:

" Capt. Wallace's patrol of 10 men confirmed the presence of tanks a
         little later, when they went up the terraced ridge to the north. The
         Captain had 2 snipers out on the flanks, both with telescopic sights.
         Cpl. Charlie Male and Pte. Tom Evenden were beside the Company
         Commander. They climbed the escarpment without being spotted,
         and on reaching the rim found themselves looking at a group of Ger-
         man panzermen playing cards beside a hull-down Mark IV. In the
         dragging moments, while Capt. Wallace debated whether to withdraw
         quietly or to give the order to let go with everything they had, and
         thus jeopardize their return down the cliff face, a German officer
         strolled into view, and began using his binoculars, lined up just above
         the Highlanders' heads at the rim of the last terrace wall. He was
         dressed in Luftwaffe blue, and not German feld grau.
            The peacefulness of the scene was emphasized when the German
	       officer snapped something to a reclining private, who jumped up and
                    ran behind the tank. "Probably wants a cigarette," muttered Cpl. Male,
                    beside Capt. Wallace.
                       His scouting party was not a fighting patrol, but they were well
                    armed. To Capt. Wallace, the opportunity seemed too good to miss;
                    their scout was certainly over. He whispered the order to his 10 men
                    to get ready, and then to let everything loose. The two snipers were
                    first to fire; they. each drilled a German; a Tommy gunner smacked
                    a long burst of shots into the group; well-hurled grenades exploded in
                    the midst of the scrambling card players, and Capt. Wallace took dead
                    aim at the officer in Luftwaffe blue.
                       There was such a wild scatteration they could not clean out the
                    group, but the confusion was insurance for their safe return down the
                    exposed face of the cliff. They had thrown such a scare into the
                    Germans they were slow to react; the patrol was down and away
                    before bombs and machine-gun fire could catch them.
                       Capt. Wallace brought back the second excited patrol, also without
                    casualties, and the Highlanders now knew the high ground behind
                    Nissoria was loaded with Germans-and with tanks.  He reported
                    a modest 4 Germans killed and others wounded. Cpl. Male swore the
                    toll was at least 10 Germans, with 6 dead.
                       That blue uniform with yellow facings was important news; it meant
                    that observers, or an advance party of the 1st Parachute Division were
                    on the Adrano Road. Two regiments of the 1st Paras, one of Hitler's
                    best divisions, composed of fanatical Nazi youths, had been flown to
                    Sicily from France, one jumping near Lentini, the other northwest of
                    Catania.

I would say that our guys were pretty damn good.


----------



## Art Johnson (9 Feb 2005)

From Dileas by Kim Beattie:

As for the superb fitness of the new 48th Highlander, go with him
         on a 1942 assault run: in smoke, explosions and rattling machine-guns,
         he crawls tunnels, swims or wades rivers, leaps trenches, vaults barb-
         wire by using planks, corrugated iron or another Highlander for a mat,
         negotiates trestles, walks wire, hand-climbs cables, scales 20-foot walls
         without rope or 100-foot cliffs with one and, when the unfit would be
         shaking with exhaustion fires 5-rounds rapid with remarkable steadi-
         ness.
          He had also gone through The Bloody-Minded Course-knew how
         and where to disable by a kick, a gouge, a slash or a blunt blow; how
         to pierce the mastoid, slice the spinal cord, or scrape an Opponent's 
    shin-bone from knee to ankle, and then to stamp till the arch cracks.
         He could take out a sentry without a sound. He could handle a
         revolver like an expert at the Calgary Stampede, a Tommy-gun like a
         Chicago gangster, and could clean out an enemy-occupied house like
         a killing terrier. He seemed to enjoy tank-stalking and stealth patrols.
          Such was the 48th Highlander of 1942. His social graces had not
         been polished lately, but it would be wiser to have him on your
         side in a quarrel than against you. He had been intent for months
         on learning to fight, and kill, and to take care of himself in a grim war
         where his life would be at stake. He was ready for the supreme
         test now."


And they got tougher as the as time progressed.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (9 Feb 2005)

Alright Michael, i would now like to use a common debating cliche. Your argument had more holes than swiss cheese, and i will now refute,


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Of course they did, hence the specialized training.


Well sir-you have been saying the whole time that there have been no differences in training and that they were ALL as well trained as the other, bs in my opinion. As you have so aptly stated, "specialized" implies special, implies specialized!


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Before D-Day, all troops in the Canadian Army went to displays by Demonstration units, who wore German uniforms, used German weapons, and did mock attacks using German tactics, in order to familiarize the Canadians with what they would look like in action. I'm not sure how much hands-on training was done, but really, how often did that become useful? For either the Paras, SSF, or regular units?


Again sir-your 4th word in the last sentence answers your question-elite units, especially paras, and not withstanding sf's, worked behind ENEMY lines. often with not too much ammo. so...eg, at arnhem they eventually ran out of ammo so they would have had to learn how to use enemy weapons. if you think its not important to learn enemy weapons training, i dare you to question socom as to y it gives special forces troops today major courses in enemy weapons handling. say, eg, a paratroop gets seperated from his group and is behind enemy lines, he gets pinned down and manages to kill a few germans, but, all of a sudden, he runs out of ammo (not unlikely) and has to grab the guns of the men he killed. wut would happen if he did not know how to use it, or b proficient on it?  :skull: Another key word is "displays" they were NOT trained in these guns, just saw them in action-taht doesnt help most of the regualar forces!


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> What is your source for this?


That was answered by art


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Ummm....what is more than stupendous, exactly?


r u insinuating that it is not possible to find an adjective better than stupendous. hows this-superstupendous, or incredible. They did go through more intense training dude, face it, i suggest u read the time/life book "commandos"


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> How often were they issued with explosives? Every Canadian infantry battalion had a pioneer platoon, and each division had Field Squadrons of the RCE available to use demolitions.


the paratroops would have. and quite often actually from wut i've read for 1st ssf. plus wut happens if pioneer platoon was wiped out, which i'm sure happened


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> There was snow on the Canadian front in NW Europe for about 4 weeks in the winter of 44-45 if I remember correctly, and the winter stalemate lasted from November to the beginning of February - patrolling was the main activity during this time. It was the same in Italy - operations tended to slow down in the winter months.


read sum books on the battle of the bulge, and the cases of cold weather deaths, frostbite, etc. the 1st paras were with the americans at bastogne? i think it was, according to the book "airborne" a history of the 1st Canadian Para. Battalion


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Remetanea and la Difensa. Admirable feats of arms. The Hasty P's performed a similar feat at Assoro, on a smaller scale. I would agree that this operation, however, probably necessitated specially trained troops. I'd also say the mission was a rarity - why do you think the Force was disbanded in December 1944?


it still came in handy. i'm not quite sure, ask a politician or a general. i think they still could have been useful


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> No, I'm insinuating that you didn't need ski, mountain, amphibious, parachute trained specialists to hold the perimeter there - just aggressive soldiers like the SSF. I think they also outperformed "regular" Canadian units in this instance, as Canadian units were not known for being aggressive in their patrolwork - though they were certainly competent enough.


exactly, still is it rong to be better than regulars? plus your statement just admitted that 1st ssf were better.


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> My point was, and is, that Canadian troops were no better or no worse than British and American troops. All had their strengths and weaknesses, and I think all learned to use well the tools they had - artillery especially. Canadian troops were criticized postwar for lack of aggressiveness, but US and British divisions were also war weary by late 1944. I think my main point is I don't see the point of pitting them against each other - they were all good enough to get the job done, with some notable exceptions.


plz name sum strengths and weaknesses. and sum exceptions


			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> As for the German Army, all I can say is I'm very glad they lost.


me 2 bud, me 2


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

B Falcon, your posts will be much easier to read and much more clear if you try to use proper English instead of resorting to lazy internet-speech (wuz, sum, rong).


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> Btw, where were canada's regulars at this time (eg, ppcli)?



If you want to conduct a simple comparison of war records to identify the major activities of units, you may want to start by comparing battle honours. The 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion was authorized the following battle honours for the Second World War:

Monte Camino (5-9 Dec 43)
Monte-La Difensa--Monte La Remetanea (2-8 Dec 43)
Monte Majo  (3-8 Jan 44)
Anzio (22 Jan - 22 May 44)
Rome (22 May - 4 Jun 44)
Advance to the Tiber (22 may - 4 Jun 44)
Italy 1943-44
Southern France (15-28 Aug 44)
North-West Europe, 1944

Awards pubished in Canadian Army Orders Issue No 559, 2 Sep 57
Dates from Canadian Army Orders, Issue 503, 10 Sep 56

Comparative battle honour lists for active infantry regiments may be found on my site here:

http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/rcic.htm


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (9 Feb 2005)

ty, i will check it out


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Feb 2005)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> If you want to conduct a simple comparison of war records to identify the major activities of units, you may want to start by comparing battle honours. The 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion was authorized the following battle honours for the Second World War:
> 
> Monte Camino (5-9 Dec 43)
> Monte-La Difensa--Monte La Remetanea (2-8 Dec 43)
> ...



Bear in mind, those honours are for 2 Canadian Parachute Battalion, not the 1st, which fought in France and Holland.   The ones listed are for the SSF, which was administratively known as 2nd Canadian Parachute Battalion.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2005)

Whew!

I'm glad you caught that.  1 Can Para was not in Italy or Southern France, so it sure looked funny to me.

GW


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Feb 2005)

That list of battle honours is as quoted in the Orders, of which I have a copy in front of me. Since the unit is also annotated as disbanded, it is possible that the honours for both battalions had been rolled into one list and the "1st" was being considered to perpetuate the "2nd."

(When I get a moment I will scan the list and post a link.)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Feb 2005)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> That list of battle honours is as quoted in the Orders, of which I have a copy in front of me. Since the unit is also annotated as disbanded, it is possible that the honours for both battalions had been rolled into one list and the "1st" was being considered to perpetuate the "2nd."
> 
> (When I get a moment I will scan the list and post a link.)



If that was true, there would be honours for Normany Landing,  Divisionisiones Crossing, The Rhine, and The Ardennes.  Also, North West Europe would be 1944-45 not just 1944.  

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/traditions/ww2battlehonours.htm

These were all awarded to 1 Can Para and are absent from your list.  The ones you have are solely for 2 Can Para Bn.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (12 Feb 2005)

why did finland have overall the best footsoldiers? (or so i've heard)? were they better than canada's footsoldiers?
how would u compare them?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> why did finland have overall the best footsoldiers? (or so i've heard)? were they better than canada's footsoldiers?
> how would u compare them?



http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=23

Why don't you ask some yourself?  Go to the above forum (registration is free) and ask.  There are several English speaking gentlemen from Finland who post there. Not war vets, but some of them have served in the Finnish Defence forces and would be happy to cover their side of the question.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (13 Feb 2005)

thats great, ty dude


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (19 Feb 2005)

What would you say the main role of the Canadian troops in the normandy campaign was? How did they ever defeat the germans?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> What would you say the main role of the Canadian troops in the normandy campaign was? How did they ever defeat the germans?



At what point in time?

6 June 1944 - gain a lodgement and secure locations inland like Buron, Carpiquet airfield, etc.  The first objective was met quickly - though not cheaply- and the secondary objectives were not met for 4 weeks or so.

By the time Caen was taken, the objective was the Verrierres Ridge, on the road to Falaise.  This was a bloody affair (Operation Spring et al).  

During this period, the objectives changed - after the Mortain counter-offensive, the German 7th Army was staggering back to the gap between Falaise and Argentan.  The Canadians' mission was then to close the gap.  This was accomplished, though to what degree of success is still being debated by historians.

After that, the pursuit to the Seine.  This was done ahead of schedule (D +90 was the anticipated date that an assault crossing of the river would need to be made).   

By 1 September 1944, the Germans had retreated well away from the Seine, and the Canadians turned their attention to the Channel Ports (including Dieppe), ending the Battle of Normandy.


----------



## Bfalcon.cf (19 Feb 2005)

Why do you think the Germans were not able to push the allies back into the  sea, or at least stall them for a much greater length of time? What do you think was the greatest skill the Canadians used to defeat the germans (not including artillery, or bombers)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 Feb 2005)

Bfalcon.cf said:
			
		

> Why do you think the Germans were not able to push the allies back into the  sea, or at least stall them for a much greater length of time? What do you think was the greatest skill the Canadians used to defeat the germans (not including artillery, or bombers)



I'd suggest you read the topic on FIELDS OF FIRE by Terry Copp.  Better yet, read the book - also John English's book on the Canadians in Normandy.  As this is now way off topic, I'm going to shut it down.  If you have any serious questions about what you read in those books, feel free to start another thread.


----------

