# Saluting... just curious



## SpinDoc (9 Dec 2002)

I was just wondering, when did our salute switch from palms out (like the Brit army) to palms down (like the navy(?)/Yanks)?  I get the impression that during WWII it was still done with palms out, so I am assuming it was between then and now that the form was changed.

Did the unification have anything to do with it?

I remember someone telling me that the reason the navy saluted without the palms out was to hide the dirty palm (from back in the days of coal and whatnot or something) when saluting... Am I way off base there?


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (9 Dec 2002)

Navy --> Dirty Palms

Too many one liners to list here, let the flame war begin.

The periscope was greasy...no really it was.


----------



## Lawrence (10 Dec 2002)

I believe it was sometime in the 60‘s that the switch was made.


----------



## SpinDoc (10 Dec 2002)

Now, was there a rationale behind the change?  Was everyone doing the palms down anyways so they decided to make the switch or was it a decision-by-committee thing?

I‘m curious to know if it happened overnight...


----------



## SNoseworthy (10 Dec 2002)

In the 1960s, the Government was trying to give the CF a more Canadian image, by moving away as much as possible from British traditions...would I be correct to assume that saluting was one of the ways of making the CF more "Canadian"?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Dec 2002)

Possibly.  More likely, though, you need to remember what Unification means.  The three forces were unified into one in the late 1960s.  The three services were abolished, and the Canadian Forces created in their place.  One uniform was worn by all three services - CF Green - for the land, air and sea elements.    No more air force or navy blue.

Along with the new CF uniform came the adoption of the naval salute by all elements of the new CF, as a standardization measure.


----------



## Harry (10 Dec 2002)

Correct there about the adaptation of the Naval Salute.

It was adopted as the Navy is the senior service and when the Drill and Ceremonial was being re-written the preponderance of drill, albeit based upon the Commonwealth standard, adhered to the Navy drill regs as they where the only ones without unit quiffs.  

Now for a brief history byte.  The Canadian Navy was up until the 50‘s predominantly officered by Royal Navy Officers.  There are three known below deck actions in the history of the Canadian Navy.

Lots of stuff about the dirty palms etc, hence the nick for sea dogs of ‘Hairy Bags‘.  However, to qoute my father, "You couldn‘t salute like a pongo or you would smash you knuckles on a bulkhead, so straight up and straight down, like a man would.  Not some articulating gesticulating pouff in a skirt‘.

Guess all that crusty old salt never leaves once you have been to sea.

Readt Aye Ready


----------



## SpinDoc (10 Dec 2002)

I KNEW there was no such thing as a stupid question        I‘m learning tons just by asking.

While we‘re on the subject of Commonwealth, would I be right to assume that saluting only when you have your headdress on is a Commonwealth thing?  Americans seem to salute every which way, with or without their hats, etc etc...

And speaking of headdresses, I see sometimes in pictures and stuff (of Brits, Isrealis) that people sometimes tuck their berets under their epaulette... I never see that happen here.  Is it a faux pas?  Big nono?  I gotta tell ya, it seems like an awfully convenient place to store the beret... well, used to be anyways... could still do it with the CADPAT in front but that seems "less right" than tucking it up on your shoulder...


----------



## combat_medic (10 Dec 2002)

I don‘t know about the beret, but I see a lot of guys put their Balmoral on their front pocket (pocket button goes through hanger on rear of balmoral, pocket gets buttoned up), and the Glengarry can be stored down the front of the DEU tunic with the tails hanging out the top.

Maybe in the next uniform change they should add a "headdress storage compartment". Seems like just the kind of thing the CF would waste a million dollars on.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Dec 2002)

US Marines never salute without hats either IIRC.  Nor do the Germans (or at least, the Wehrmacht never did).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Dec 2002)

Combat Medic - we do the same with our tam o‘shanters in Calgary, but we do it from the map pocket button, on the outside of the thigh.  Weird.

The glengarry, FS Cap and beret are commonly seen under the epaullette in WW II photos, but it has fallen from "fashion".  I once got yelled at in a restaurant during Stampede by a junior officer (visibly drunk) who saw me with my glengarry under my shoulder strap.  Haven‘t seen it done too often, but that is just one man‘s experience.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (6 Feb 2003)

> US Marines never salute without hats either


ALWAYS WITH THE MARINES!!!!

They way people in other countries talk, you would think we should just scrap all our other services and just have the Marine Corps. H*ll, you‘d think we already did.

Now that that‘s out of my system...



> Americans seem to salute every which way, with or without their hats, etc etc...


We do not salute without headgear, unless one is reporting to an officer in doors. Generally, we only salute out doors, and as one must wear headgear outdoors, one is covered when one salutes. The only times one would salute indoors is reporting (as above) or when under arms, in which case one is also covered. That is also the only time one is covered while in doors.

So you guys salute like us? D*mn, and here I thought we were special. Too bad, Drill Sergeants love telling new recruits that the reason the US is the only country to salute palm down is because we‘re the only country to have never lost a war. NCO‘s always have such a unique understanding of history.


----------



## onecat (6 Feb 2003)

_________________________________________
So you guys salute like us? D*mn, and here I thought we were special. Too bad, Drill Sergeants love telling new recruits that the reason the US is the only country to salute palm down is because we‘re the only country to have never lost a war.
_________________________________________

This just bugs me so I have to point out that Yes you lost a war.  The war 1812-14, because if you hadn‘t there would be no Canada.  It must be the way history is taught down there, but if you read up on the history of 1812-14; it would be pretty clear that USA lost it.  Three US invasion that fail, a lost at the battle of frenchtown, burn of the white house.

Its okay to have some folklore in your history, but its just wrong to say that you‘ve never lost a war.


----------



## combat_medic (6 Feb 2003)

...and Vietnam, and the Alamo, and the Bay of Pigs...

but those don‘t REALLY count, do they?


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Feb 2003)

> Drill Sergeants love telling new recruits that the reason the US is the only country to salute palm down is because we‘re the only country to have never lost a war. NCO‘s always have such a unique understanding of history.





> The war 1812-14





> ...and Vietnam, and the Alamo, and the Bay of Pigs...


No one ever said that traditions, or the explanations for them must be built upon supportable objective truth.  And what recruit would challenge the explanations issued by his DI?     ;-)


----------



## Dacier (6 Feb 2003)

Wasn‘t Texas independant at the time of the Almo?  Also, the Bay Of Pigs invasion didn‘t include American soldiers, though they were supplied by the Americans of course.  


Anyway, it could also be argued that Canada has never lost a war.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (6 Feb 2003)

Ah ha! I knew someone would bite. Now, as to the War of 1812, I know it‘s the only war you can claim as a victory, but... well, we‘ve already been down this road. I argued this point already on this site, you should be able to find it under "a student‘s veiw of our history." I have read about the war between the US and BRITAIN (I don‘t remember Canada being a soverign nation then) and stand by all my points already made in the aforementioned thread. BTW I could just as easily make the same accusation about ‘what they teach up there‘.

As for the others...

Vietnam: never lost on the battlefield. Show me a major engagement won by the NVA/VC.

Alamo: that was Texas, not America. If you don‘t think the distinction matters, go tell a Texan.  And a more glorious loss one would be hard pressed to find. Besides, Scots still celebrate Collodin (sp?) don‘t they?

Bay of Pigs: again not Americans. And please don‘t bring up anything having to do with that dumb-*ss Kennedy. No one would like him today if he hadn‘t had the good sense to get shot.

And it is true that traditions do not have to be based on truth. How many soldiers in your Highlander regiments are Scottish, let alone of Highland origin? And of course no recruit is going to correct his DS (how many times do I have to tell you, it‘s Drill SERGEANT) not that the kid know‘s anything anyway.


----------



## Dacier (6 Feb 2003)

Winning the war is more important then winning the battles.  Leaving Vietnam could not be seen as an act of victory for the Military.

I hope Iraq and Afghanistan won‘t be another Vietnam.  The people won‘t accpet Western Leadership no matter how great we think it is.

Not saying the war shouldn‘t be fought, but long term I think were in for decades of dangerous peace keeping missions.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (6 Feb 2003)

When US forces left in 1973, the war was over, there was a peace treaty signed, and South Veitnam was still a soverign nation; mission accomplished. After we were gone, the NVA launched another offensive, we didn‘t intervine, and SVN fell. 

In anycase, the war was lost by the politicians and the generals. The grunts on the ground were never beaten.


----------



## onecat (6 Feb 2003)

My point was and is that your wrong to say the United States has never lost a war.  It is true that we were a colony at that point, but the major battles were fought by the local units and Native tribals loyal to the British. I searched for your thread but didn‘t find it, so I have no idea what you points were on that topic.  If the United States had won, there would be no Canada period.


----------



## MethylSilane (6 Feb 2003)

> Now, as to the War of 1812, I know it‘s the only war you can claim as a victory, but...


I seem to recall a few other wars that Canada could claim as victories.  

For that matter, I can‘t think of any defeats we‘ve suffered either.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Feb 2003)

I think the case has been effectively made that the Americans have never lost a war.

In fact, it hasn‘t been often in the 20th century that they lost a major battle.  I can think of only one in Africa in WW II - that being Kasserine Pass.  After that, the US Army was undefeated in Africa, Italy and NW Europe (though there were some long drawn out battles, Anzio and the Ardennes coming to mind).

In the Pacific, Bataan and Wake Island were significant losses; after Midway, the US Army seems to have been in one successful campaign after another - Guadalcanal (after the Marines took the brunt of the fighting   ), and other notable battles like Okinawa and the Phillipines.

Korea was a draw, but really a victory in that the South was kept free - look at them today.

Vietnam - the US Army was never defeated militarily (though Ia Drang wasn‘t a victory, either), but in 1973, did anyone really think that the South could really hold their own against the North?  Could you not characterize "Vietnamization" as really a US withdrawal?  I don‘t know, which is why I ask; would love to hear our American friend‘s take on that.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Feb 2003)

MethylSilane - Canadian defeats?

Hong Kong
Dieppe
Verrieres Ridge

Are the biggies that historians dredge up time and time again.

Canadian attacks on some of the channel ports were less than successful - I do believe one or two had to be "masked" and left in the rear of First Canadian Army to wither on the vine until May 1945.  I‘m fuzzy on those, and stand to be corrected.

Walcheren Causeway is one of the Calgary Highlanders‘ proudest battle honours, yet we were never able to secure the Causeway for more than a day or so, and the Maisonneuves promptly lost the bridgehead once they relieved us.  It was a tough, tough fight, and in the end, I think it safe to say we lost.  British Commandos reduced Walcheren Island from the sea.  Our troops fought damn hard there, though and were given a (in my opinion) not un-typically stupid and suicidal mission when there were other means available.

The first attacks of the Fifth Canadian Armoured Division in early 1944 were disastrous.  The 11th Cdn Inf Bde, in its baptism of fire, performed extremely poorly.  They went on to much greater glory, but they did not do well their first time at bat.

These are small examples of battalion actions; overall, we won our major battles, too.

I would say that in larger scope, the Americans, Canadians and British may have lost the Battle of Sicily - despite taking the island in 38 days, the poorly thought out invasion and operations there allowed the bulk of the German garrison to escape to the mainland to fight again - including very good units like the Hermann Goering.


----------



## MethylSilane (7 Feb 2003)

Sorry, I was reading ‘wars‘, not ‘battles‘ -- in which case you‘re right.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Feb 2003)

Well, Canada has never won a war without American help, if you think about it.  World War One, World War Two, Korea...a lot of people in this country seem to want to forget that.  

Not to put down our own participation, by any means - the Americans in WW I never had any truly masterful tactical victories on the scale of Vimy, as far as I know, for example.

American participation in Korea was spotty - our troops are generally rated as more professional; certainly the Chinese saw them that way.  Canadian deception plans usually involved disguising Canadian troops as Americans so that the Chinese would get careless - they regarded the Americans (generaly speaking) as lax compared to Commonwealth troops.

But the main point to remember is - we were all in it together.  And wherever Canadian soldiers are buried, with the exception perhaps of Hong Kong, American soldiers are buried very close by.

Even at Dieppe, where US Rangers suffered their first fatalities.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (7 Feb 2003)

I found the thread where the War of 1812 was refought; it was buried in the ‘army‘ section, not history. Now if I counld just figure out how to link it here...

Any case it‘s about half way down on page four of Army topics.

As for Vietnam, I do think it‘s safe to say that Vietnamization was an American withdrawl. When one considers we originally went in there to help the Vietnamese fight their own war, not do it for them, then Vietnamization was supposed to achive what American intervention was intended to be. And seriously, if after over a decade of American assistance they still couldn‘t defend their country, they deserved to lose.

The thing about Vietnam is that it was a terribly complicated situation that few people understand (I don‘t pretend to understand all of it), but everyone likes to point to it and say, "ha ha America, you lost." We decided to leave because in the end, it wasn‘t that important to us. But to say we are beaten is to display an ignorance of the actual events.


----------



## Marti (8 Feb 2003)

> Well, Canada has never won a war without American help, if you think about it. World War One, World War Two, Korea...a lot of people in this country seem to want to forget that.


should the Boer War be included as a Canadian victory? our participation was the same as WWI/WW2: proportionally smaller contingent under British command.


----------



## onecat (8 Feb 2003)

__________________________________________Well, Canada has never won a war without American help, if you think about it. World War One, World War Two, Korea...a lot of people in this country seem to want to forget that
__________________________________________

 Okay a few things you need to remmber, Canada entered both WW1 and WW2 before the United States, and did not need the Help of Amercians to win.  Both those wars were won but an allied effort, and not because of American‘s entry into them.  

Lets take WW1, It started in 1914, not April 1917.  And Canadians were at the front perfecting the tactics that won the war.  Amercian troops were in France in the spring of 1918, and after the Germans had lost their stream in their great push, their entry shorten the war, but did not win it.

WW2 again started in 1939 not Dec 7 1941.  Yes Amercian troops and industrial machine played a major role in the defeat of German, but so did our‘s and the of course lets not forget about the USSR.  They really won the war agaist Germany.  It was their man power and their country that wore out the German war machine and forced the cracks ito show in the German leadership.  Japan is a different story as it was all the work efforts of United States, it was ther war to win.  And Canada played a very small part in this war.

Korea again it was an amercian conflict, and Canada played a small part with only 25,000 troops.

 Your statement could really applied to any nation who was an allie in those wars.  I.e Could Britian of won ww1 and ww2 without Canadian help...  and the answer would most likely be no they could not of won without our help or the help of the common wealth. To make a statement like that down plays our role in this century.  Canada‘s problem has been that we‘ve always worked under someone else‘s rules and most this century dressed in someone else uniform.... and we get over looked by our allies because we don‘t speak up.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Feb 2003)

> Okay a few things you need to remmber,


I haven‘t forgotten



> Canada entered both WW1 and WW2 before the United States, and did not need the Help of Amercians to win.


Bull****.  In 1917, the collapse of the Eastern Front allowed Germany to send thousands of fresh troops to the west -  at a time when French divisions were mutinying, and British formations in the field were downsizing in order to keep the number of divisions constant.  The German spring offensives of 1918 were a shocking blow.  It is very possible that without American intervention, the western front may have collapsed, or at least extended the war into 1919.



> Both those wars were won but an allied effort,


Exactly.



> and not because of American‘s entry into them.


Read my post again; I said that these were all team efforts and I was not attempting to downplay the role of our military.



> Lets take WW1, It started in 1914, not April 1917. And Canadians were at the front perfecting the tactics that won the war.


Canadians didn‘t fight any major battles until April 1915, if you want to get picky, and with only one division that mostly destroyed itself in rash counter-attacks (ie St. Julien, etc.)   6000 men of the 10,000 man division became casualties.  Because of their bravery, the line held and a major German breakthrough was prevented (though historians will point out the Germans had not planned for a deep breakthrough during Second Ypres anyway, and would have had to stop short of their own accord even if they pushed the Canadians aside - which they weren‘t able to do).   A second division didn‘t reach the front until later in the year.  

Are you saying Canada won the war with just two divisions?  The Third and Fourth arrived later, the Fourth in August 1916.

So yes, we got into the war in August 1914 (we had no choice, as politically we were tied to Britain), and did not have anyone in action until April (though the Patricias did see action a bit earlier as part of the British Army).  That‘s nine months, and the Second Division did not arrive until September 1915, over a year after war was declared.

The Americans were able to field over 1,200,000 troops during Meuse-Argonne (with thousands others in different sectors), at a time when French troops were in disarray and reeling.  The Canadian Corps amounted to about 40,000 troops.



> Amercian troops were in France in the spring of 1918, and after the Germans had lost their stream in their great push, their entry shorten the war, but did not win it.


Some historians would agree, others would not.  I think you can say for sure that Canadians didn‘t win the war alone, and the involvement of the US made an appreciable difference.



> WW2 again started in 1939 not Dec 7 1941.


And Canadian troops did what, exactly, during this period?  Spitsbergen, and faced no opposition.  Oh yes, and lost 6 men when the First Division moved to Brittany briefly before being withdrawn.  At the same time, the US was providing material aid to Canada and Britain clandestinely.  So while Canada was far more involved (mainly through the RCAF, BCATP, and naval escort duties on the North Atlantic run), America wasn‘t exactly idle.  They also started drafting soldiers in 1940 to prepare their military for war action - Canada began drafting men in 1940 and refused to let them serve in combat until January 1945 (the decision was made in Nov 44, but they didn‘t arrive in theatre until the next year).



> Yes Amercian troops and industrial machine played a major role in the defeat of German,


Every Canadian armoured regiment used the Sherman tank by 1944 - guess where they were made?     



> but so did our‘s and the of course lets not forget about the USSR. They really won the war agaist Germany.


I never disputed either of these points.  And again, the USSR was aided considerably by American help - GMC trucks, Sherman tanks, and lots of other goodies.  The British too, got War Aid clothing from the US, Lee Enfield rifles produced in the US, etc.  Again, my point was that WW II was a team effort - and that US involvement in that team was not just ‘nice to have‘ as perhaps in WW I, but a necessity.



> It was their man power and their country that wore out the German war machine and forced the cracks ito show in the German leadership.


This mystifies me - which cracks are you referring to?  I am rereading Matthew Cooper‘s THE GERMAN ARMY - a masterful treatise on Germany‘s wartime direction.  I think the cracks were apparent from before the war - Hitler made all the decisions, period, and they were usually the wrong ones, tactically and operationally speaking.



> Japan is a different story as it was all the work efforts of United States, it was ther war to win. And Canada played a very small part in this war.


I disagree - China had a large burden in fighting the Japanese, from very early on, as did the Australians and the British (in Burma).  It was not just the Americans fighting the Japanese - even the USSR came onside once it was clear the Japanese were defeated and there was territory to be gained.    

You are correct about our role, though - aside from the two battalions we threw away at Hong Kong (and our VC winning pilot who was killed on the same day as one of the A Bomb strikes), Canada did very little.  We sent a brigade of draftees to Kiska, but the Japanese had fled before they arrived.


> Korea again it was an amercian conflict, and Canada played a small part with only 25,000 troops.


What do you mean "again"?

It was NOT an "American" conflict, 17 nations fought there under the United Nations banner, albeit under US operational control.  Large contingents from Britain and Australia made up the Commonwealth Division along with our 25th Brigade.



> Your statement could really applied to any nation who was an allie in those wars.


Of course it could, that was the point.



> I.e Could Britian of won ww1 and ww2 without Canadian help... and the answer would most likely be no they could not of won without our help or the help of the common wealth.


This is certainly true of WW II - Canada produced 60 percent of all Bren Guns, trained thousands of pilots through the BCATP, and performed the lion‘s share of escort duties in the North Atlantic.  As for WW I, I think we had a profound influence on tactics (as you point out) and military science - the 40,000 troops we had in the field at any one time was only a drop in the bucket - but Canadian skill managed to multiply the force beyond what the mere numbers suggested.  The Germans always braced themselves for the worst when they heard the Canadians or Australians were going into the line opposite them.



> To make a statement like that down plays our role in this century.


On the contrary, it puts it into the proper perspective - and doesn‘t allow anyone to downplay the vital role the Americans played in both world wars - something that is popular in this country, unfortunately.



> Canada‘s problem has been that we‘ve always worked under someone else‘s rules and most this century dressed in someone else uniform....


Read my book DRESSED TO KILL and you will see how non-sensical this statement is.  Or check out KHAKI by Clive Law.  Canadian uniforms were very distinct from the British in WW i - they were also poorly made and had to be replaced en masse, from the boots on up.  In WW II Canadian uniforms were highly sought after, being well tailored, of high quality cloth, and generally smart looking.

But aside from taking your statement too literally, why would you suggest this was a "problem"?  I don‘t even know if I agree - the Canadian Corps was independent in WW I - the British had wanted to split our troops up as reinforcements for British units.  Our victory at Vimy was a result of us remaining independent.

McNaughton fought tooth and nail for Canadian command in WW II.  In fact, Canadian independence was a giant problem in Italy, when we insisted on having our own corps headquarters there when none was required.  It actually managed to sap troops needed elsewhere, and the Brits hated the Corps headquarters we imposed on them.



> and we get over looked by our allies because we don‘t speak up.


I‘m not sure what this refers to.  We sat up and begged for Dieppe, we had our own beach on D-Day in Normandy, we were certainly not overlooked in Hong Kong...what does this refer to?


----------



## Gryphon (10 Feb 2003)

> Korea again it was an amercian conflict, and Canada played a small part with only 25,000 troops.


I have to tell you that while this may be true, the Americans were getting their asses whipped in Korea before the Canadian contingent showed up, and with our superior knowledge, we helped keep the Koreans at bay
----
Going back to the saluting thing:

Saluting began in the 15th C. or earlier. A soldier would raise their right arm to show that they were not baring any weaponry (namely swords). It then evolved to the hand touching the headdress, palms out, then to what we have now.

Also, handshakes were given with the left hand with in a regiment as a show of trust. By offering your left hand, you were not protected with your sheild, and you let yourself be open to attacks.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Feb 2003)

> ...the Americans were getting their asses whipped in Korea before the Canadian contingent showed up, and with our superior knowledge, we helped keep the Koreans at bay
> ...


On June 25, 1950,  *seven North Korean assault Divisions,* plus sundry other elements, invaded South Korea. As of 1 July 1950, the US had a total of 485 personnel in Korea. (NK forces totalled 150,000-200,000)

By the time the South Koreans and the US Forces deployed from Japan had established the Pusan perimeter at the end of July 1950, US forces in country totaled only about 50,000 personnel.

By September that year, UN Forces were pushing the North Koreans back to the north and even by the end of 1950, the US still had only 160,000 troops in Korea.

By mid-1951 the US had over 200,0o0 troops in Korera and peaked at about 175,000 at the Armistice, 31 July 1953.

The US also suffered 109,958 casualties diuring the Korean War, including 27,704 deaths.

The PPCLI arrived in Korea in February 1951, with the remainder of 25 Brigade deployed in-country through Pusan in May of the same year (gievn the rotation schedule, Canada probably had few more than 8000 personnel in country at a time, compared to the US‘ 229,000 in June 1951.

Canadian stats were as follows:


> REMEMBER
> Korea
> 26,791 Canadians served
> 516 died and 1,558 were wounded
> ...


I don‘t think it was so much the Canadian effort single-handedly tipping the scale as the build-up of forces from all Commonwealth and UN coutries that participated.

   http://www.kvacanada.com/cdnforces_army.htm   http://www.tcsaz.com/koreanwar/timeline.html  
  http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/237ADM.htm  
  http://onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr50/fkorean1950.htm  
  http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vac-acc.gc.ca%2Fgeneral%2Fsub.cfm%2Fhistory%2FKoreaWar%2Fvalour


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Feb 2003)

Well, done Michael!

Let‘s hope our friend actually reads some of the sources.  As in WW I, Canadian involvement was slow in Korea too - by the spring of 1951, we had a single battalion in the line (once again, PPCLI beat the rest of the Canadian Army to the draw), the full brigade wasn‘t in action until after almost a full year had passed.  Meanwhile, as pointed out, the Americans were doing quite well for themselves, with Inchon and the drive all the way to the Yalu.  If it wasn‘t for McArthur‘s stupidity, who knows what might have happened at that point had he not provoked the Chinese.


----------



## Gryphon (10 Feb 2003)

Alright, so my information was a bit biased (i got it from my grade 11 history text book.. it‘s canadian. so sue me)

However, we can‘t disregard Canada‘s participation in the 2nd world war

First, there was hill 127. This was a stratigic hill that the Germans had occupied, and seeing that it was smack dab in the middle of plains, the germans had a grand killing time, whenever someone tried to take the hill. The Yanks tried to take it, without success. The brits tried to take the hill, and got slaughtered. So, they decided to give it to the Canucks. Well, the Canadians rehersed a battle for a few weeks, and then when the timing was perfect, they attacked the hill. After alot of casualties, the germans finally surrendered, and the Canadians gained what neither the Brits, nor the Americans could take.

Then there‘s Dieppe. A tragedy, right? WRONG! true, a lot of Canadian soldiers gave their lives in the attack gone awry, but without Dieppe, a lot of historians, and mil. stratagists said that Normandie would have not been a success, as the Allied forces did not know what to expect. It also boostered Hitler‘s ego, in thinking that there won‘t be any attack on the coast of Normandy, as the conditions were similar to Dieppe.

Lastly, there‘s Normandy. Not much to say, except that Canadians were the first to land in Normandy (both in the airdrops, as well as Juno Beach had the first Contact Rep)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Feb 2003)

> Alright, so my information was a bit biased (i got it from my grade 11 history text book.. it‘s canadian. so sue me)


This is probably a warning to stop here, but I‘m genuinely fascinated by some of your comments below.



> However, we can‘t disregard Canada‘s participation in the 2nd world war


"We"?  I don‘t see anyone here disregarding Canada‘s participation in the Second World War, or advocating same.



> First, there was hill 127. This was a stratigic hill that the Germans had occupied, and seeing that it was smack dab in the middle of plains, the germans had a grand killing time, whenever someone tried to take the hill. The Yanks tried to take it, without success. The brits tried to take the hill, and got slaughtered. So, they decided to give it to the Canucks. Well, the Canadians rehersed a battle for a few weeks, and then when the timing was perfect, they attacked the hill. After alot of casualties, the germans finally surrendered, and the Canadians gained what neither the Brits, nor the Americans could take.


What on earth are you talking about here?  This entire paragraph is a flight of fancy.  The British and Canadians operated on their own side of the front in Normandy, the Americans in a seperate area altogether.  As for weeks of rehearsals, the Normandy battle only lasted from June to the end of August 1944.  Are you speaking of Verrierres Ridge?   The Americans were nowhere near it.  I don‘t recall reading about the British ever going anywhere near it either.



> Then there‘s Dieppe. A tragedy, right? WRONG! true, a lot of Canadian soldiers gave their lives in the attack gone awry, but without Dieppe, a lot of historians, and mil. stratagists said that Normandie would have not been a success, as the Allied forces did not know what to expect.


Really?  Name one.



> It also boostered Hitler‘s ego, in thinking that there won‘t be any attack on the coast of Normandy, as the conditions were similar to Dieppe.


Really? If Hitler was fooled into thinking there would be no landings in Normandy, then why did he spend all those resources making extensive concrete fortifications on the Normandy coast?



> Lastly, there‘s Normandy. Not much to say, except that Canadians were the first to land in Normandy (both in the airdrops, as well as Juno Beach had the first Contact Rep)


The Juno landings happened well after the Omaha landings.  Juno‘s first wave came ashore at about 8 am, Omaha‘s first wave landed an hour early at about 7 am.

As for the "lessons" of the Dieppe Raid - ask yourself this.  If Dieppe had never happened, would the Allies have done anything differently in Normandy?  Do you really think the Allies would not have used battleship and heavy bomber support on D-Day in Normandy?  Dieppe taught no lessons at all and was a complete waste.  it was not a necessary precursor to the Normandy invasion; Sicily proved to be a larger invasion than Normandy (some seven divisions went ashore on the first day, as opposed to six in Normandy on D-Day), and experience was gained there, in North Africa, at Salerno and Anzio, as well as lessons drawn from operations in the Pacific and even in the First World War.  Not to mention rehearsals in the UK such as Slapton Sands.  

What exactly is it that the Allies learned at Dieppe, that they wouldn‘t have found out anyway?


----------



## Marti (12 Feb 2003)

so about saluting, i read that it was a navy tradition to salute with palms down (as has been stated) but that it was standardised as such during the years of unification and remained that way afterwards. that came from the old master cadet handbook, i‘m not sure how reliable that is so can anyone confirm/deny this?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Feb 2003)

Marti, that was confirmed on page one of this thread.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2003)

Between testing stuff on our own troops to how we treated the veterans returning home to how we left people over there and tried to cover it up, i think vietnam was one of the worst black marks in our history.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (12 Feb 2003)

Our?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2003)

Our as in north america.
Yes i know canada did not send soldiers to fight (Except the 30‘000 volunteers).
I felt bad about always saying "You guys".
Don‘t wanna sound anti american, never know whos watching the internet and recording every time someone says something naughty about the U.S. Eh


----------



## Gryphon (12 Feb 2003)

Uh, Guy?

1) I never said that Hill 127 was part of Normandy. It was well after the normandy invasion. It was some hill in the middle of france.

2) Hitler did ignore the warnings of his brass. He could have reinforced Normandy with tanks and arty, however, he didn‘t, because he didn‘t believe that the Allies were going to attack there. He thought that they were going to attack much higher in the British Channel.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Feb 2003)

And that makes Hill 127 an even bigger flight of fancy, since the Canadians left France in September 1944 and fought in Belgium, then Holland in October thru February, then briefly in Germany on both sides of the Rhine, then Holland, then Germany again.

  

As for Hitler ignoring the warnings of his generals, I don‘t think any of them were especially clairvoyant vis a vis Normandy.  Rommel also expected a landing at Pas de Calais, for example.  Hitler did release panzers late in the day on the 6th, and sizeable armoured formations made their way to the bridgehead area in days to come, notably against the British and Canadian sectors.  The Mortain counteroffensive was a major attempt to defeat the landings, and actually helped the Allies by forming the Falaise pocket, which unfortunately the Allies were too slow to close.

To continue the theme of Canadian abilities, the closure of the pocket is sometimes blamed on the inexperience of the Canadian troops fighting to close it.  While they certainly didn‘t lack in courage (as evidenced by Currie who won the VC at St. Lambert sur Dives) a combination of inexperience, combat exhaustion (Third Division was in the line for a long stretch between 6 June and the Falaise fighting), and perhaps inadquate equipment (ie the  Sherman V) led to (understandable) delays in sealing the gap (as well as the order to the Americans not to advance north and close off the gap at its neck).  

The German Army at Falaise suffered great casualties nonetheless, and much equipment was lost.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that Hitler had lost favour with his generals was not his handling of Normandy, but in the fact that on 20 July, he was injured in an assassination attempt.


----------



## Pikache (13 Feb 2003)

Gryphon, you really don‘t want to argue with our resident military historians.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (13 Feb 2003)

> ...the closure of the pocket is sometimes blamed on the inexperience of the Canadian troops fighting to close it.


Really? We just always blamed Montgomery. Of course we blamed him for just about everything.

Actually I always wondered what the Canadians think of him. He‘s not too popular in the US for various reasons, and the Brits love him simply because he was British. Since the Canadians served under him, but weren‘t technically British, I always figured they should have the most fair opinion. Any good Canadian books on the man?


----------



## combat_medic (13 Feb 2003)

I‘m reading a good book right now called "Marching as to War" by Pierre Berton. It‘s Canada‘s history from 1899-1960 (?), and while it‘s verly politically oriented, there‘s a lot of good stuff in there, about Montgomery and many others.


----------



## Gryphon (13 Feb 2003)

Sounds good. I want to Major in military history (major as in the University degree, not the rank    ) But right now i‘m only in CEGEP (Quebec College). So i‘m not even in university, and the only army history that i get is from what i read..

I conceede then


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Feb 2003)

Montgomery was a brilliant trainer of troops, and American historians generally have no idea of that aspect of him.  He would go into the new Canadian divisions in the UK, inspect every battalion, and instantly be able to pick out which COs, company commanders, and RSMs were good or bad.  He made many on the spot judgements - usually correct - and the Canadian Army benefitted directly from these inspections.

He had his faults, just like Patton, MacArthur, et al - vanity, perhaps, and in Monty‘s case, a disturbing trend after the war to bend the truth as to what his true intentions were during the war.  But he was the best the British had, and if he was slow and methodical, so what?  The Canadian Army also preferred to "use guns instead of men", though both the British and Canadians may have suffered a bit from a lack of aggressiveness, they also didn‘t go around saying idiotic things like Patton (for example), who admonished his commanders when not enough officers were being killed (bad for morale, according to Patton, to see Enlisted casualties not matched by officer casualties).

Monty was a rock at Alamein, where he was needed most, and was amazingly progressive even when commanding 3rd Div in France in 1940.  He was the first general to wear battledress, and he gave no-nonsense orders about VD - admitting that the troops were going to sleep around anyway, his instructions were on minimizing the impact on his soldiers rather than prohibiting sexual contact between his men and the locals.

In Sicily and Italy, 8th Army had no dress regulations; Monty figured that latitude in orders of dress (and one can see this in his own attire as well) was not a big issue.  When I Canadian Corps HQ set up shot in Italy under Crerar, with it came so much chicken**** that the troops were quickly fed up.  Monty had simply not cared about such things as officers wearing ties, or soldiers painting names on their trucks.  Canadian staff officers did, and were detested by the fighting troops for it.

There are many Canadian soldiers who had no use for Monty, and many historians have mixed feelings about him.  He was a colorful figure among many colorless people - certainly the Canadian commanders found no equal to him; Crerar was old and stodgy; McNaughton was brilliant but not flashy; Vokes was gruff and abrasive; Burns was cold and unapproachable; Hoffmeister was brilliant but soft spoken; Simonds was an excellent protege but was cold and aloof; Victor Odlum was just plain old; Matthews, and a slew of other div commanders are mostly just names to us now.

Monty had rapport with the troops - standing on the bonnet of a jeep and gathering men around him - but it was very put on and had a PR feel to it.  The Canadians in Sicily wearily marched for miles after the campaign up and down hills for the privilege of listening to one of his staged pep talks; their only question for him was if he had brought beer for them.

He hadn‘t.

Overall, feelings towards him remain mixed - but I think we profited by his participation in many, many ways and would have been hard pressed to find a better commander in NW Europe for 21st Army Group.  Perhaps Horrocks?


----------



## Art Johnson (13 Feb 2003)

Michael, re what was learned at Dieppe. I suggest that you view the War Amps tape on Dieppe, Cliff Chatterton gives a resume of the weapons and tactics that were developed as a result of the Dieppe Raid.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Feb 2003)

Art - I‘ve actually had this discussion here (and at Tanknet, MLU, etc.) several times, and there have been one or two people to point out some good lessons learned at Dieppe.  I haven‘t checked out Chadderton‘s take on it, but will try and do just that.  I was mainly trying to see if anyone would rise to the challenge.

I have heard that ship to shore communication was improved as a result of Dieppe, and underwater demolitions teams were also improved, for two examples.

I still have to wonder, though, how many of the hundreds of technical innovations pioneered at Normandy would have been developed had Dieppe never occurred.  I would certainly hope no one would seriously suggest that disasters like Dieppe should be de rigeur for military training?

I think Russ has a copy of Chadderton, I will give it a look - thanks for the advice.


----------



## Art Johnson (14 Feb 2003)

Cliff mentions the advent of the Sherman mounted Bombard for blowing holes in the sea wall as another outcome of Dieppe.


----------



## Anderson56 (26 Feb 2003)

sgt s - you cracked me up.

As to1812 - nice to think that the Americans lost, but the truth is, it was a dead draw.  Burn York, Burn Washington - I understand that the White House is white because it had to be painted after the war.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2003)

No way, we win by default. They tried to invade, but were still canada.   :blotto:


----------



## Marti (26 Feb 2003)

> As to1812 - nice to think that the Americans lost, but the truth is, it was a dead draw. Burn York, Burn Washington - I understand that the White House is white because it had to be painted after the war.


i think it‘s quite clear the British won the war, they managed to take quite a bit of ground from the Americans before they gave it all back in the Treaty of Ghent.


----------



## Anderson56 (27 Feb 2003)

You know, I think you‘re right generally Marti, but I always had the feeling that the British had largely bogged down and had no real momentum at the time the war ended.  Does that thought have any merit, or am I just talking (or typing) through my hat?


----------



## Marti (3 Mar 2003)

after doing a bit of reading, i found that the British had gained momentum at the end of the war, that was when the raids on Washington and Baltimore and the occupation of Maine took place. perhaps if Brock had survived Queenston heights, the British side would have had a bit more momentum througout the war, or as much as resources would allow anyways.


----------



## Anderson56 (5 Mar 2003)

Well I certainly will second the thought on Brock - it really took the wind out of the British sails to lose him.  You know, more I think about it - seems that a lack of the right stuff in the command ranks has been a little more than endemic in Commonwealth ranks, though, as soon as I typed that, I wondered if I could point that figure at NZ, because I have always read that Freyburg was a very good commander.


----------



## Cpt. Kap (20 Mar 2003)

Hoping I don‘t make myself look like an idiot but I believe the salute orginated during the crusades. Mounted knights would salute with thier right hand to demonstrate that their hands where empty. They also passed on the right to purposely leave themselves open to attack fom the opposite knights right (sword) hand.


----------



## sarsteve (25 Mar 2003)

Just bein‘ anal, but the Alamo and Bay of Pigs were battles, not wars and the Bay was technically a Cuban Op, not American.


----------



## Linc (4 Apr 2003)

Well Alamo was a battle in a war that the Yanks won, and Bay of Pigs was a CIA activity using Cuban exiles, not a US military one.  And even if you want to agree that 1812 was ‘tie‘ or an American ‘moral victory‘ there are still plenty of other nations that have never lost wars.  Canada has never lost a war.  Australia has never lost a war, I‘m sure there are plenty of others too.


----------



## Danjanou (7 Apr 2003)

Well as long as we appear to have strayed waaay off topic here, a few points about the War of 1812. Yes it was a British/Canadian victory. US history books will of course argue that just because they won the last battle, New Orleans, which was fought incidentally after the Peace Treaty ending the war was signed, they therefore “won” the war.

The war was mainly about US Expansionism into the British Territories in North America. Other reasons such as the American claims it was about press ganging US sailors off of ships were merely excuses for the hawks in the US Government to go ahead.

They were hoping to take advantage of British preoccupation with the war against Napoleon to ensure they either didn’t notice or could do nothing about. 

As at the end of hostilities US forces did not hold any British/Canadian territory, and in fact as was already noted some US territory was held (later returned), the Yanks lost.

It was not as some popular historians would suggest a pure “Canadian” victory. The myth of the proud Canadian farmer militia type driving off the American invaders just don’t wash. In most engagements where they were employed the Canadian Militia were either used in supporting roles or ineffective. 

It was not either a total British victory, as some historians over there would suggest. The British garrisons in BNA were rather small, and included troops unfit for duty eleswhere. As the British Army was rather preoccupied for most of the war with the fighting in Spain and Portugal no initial help would be forthcoming.

It was rather a combination of these two elements, small cadres of regulars supported by fairly untrained militia that resulted in victories. These were bolstered by the not insubstantial number of regular Canadian troops in the war, the locally raised Fencible regiments such as the Royal New Brunswick Regiment (105th Regt of the Line), the Royal Newfoundland Fencible Regiment, the Canadian Volitguers and the Glengarry Light Infantry (Fencible). Finally the support of the numerous Indian tribes that fought against the Americans for various reasons must also be included.

There was also the factor of superior leadership on the British/Canadian side, at least for the most part. Mind the British didn’t have a monopoly on that. For every Brock or de Salaberry we were also saddled with a Prevost. On the American side, leaders such as Scott balanced incompetents such as Hull and Van Rensselaer.

The argument that towards the end of the war the British/Canadians were gaining momentum is valid. For the first three years of the war the British due to their commitments elsewhere fought basically a defensive action. After Napoleon’s defeat in 1814, plans to send reinforcements to North America were commenced. 

Plans for a systematic invasion of the states were developed although the peace treaty ended them. Two invasion columns one on the Niagara front and another down the traditional invasion route alongside Lake Champlain would be launched. The Lake Champlain one under Prevost initially failed.  The column was being reinforced with more veteran troops and a more aggressive commander when peace broke out.

A third strike with veteran troops from Spain was sent against New Orleans and it too failed. The earlier raid against Washington and Baltimore of course did not.

In retrospect it was a pathetic little war fought for unclear reasons. But then how many other conflicts does that also hold true for.

BTW Michael, while I agree with your points on Montgomery, both good and bad, I’d still place Slim as the “best” of the British generals in WWII. What he accomplished with 14th Army in India China and Burma had a lot to do with the ultimate victory against Japan. That he did t with such limited resources is even more remarkable


----------



## Veteran`s son (9 Apr 2003)

To continue the topic of saluting, I have some questions.

If someone is a Private(Untrained/Trained), do they salute a Private(with one chevron),a Corporal, Master Corporal or any NCM?

Are only Officers saluted?

Is a Private(with one chevron) or a Corporal addressed only as Private or Corporal?

Again, any responses to these questions would be helpful!


----------



## combat_medic (9 Apr 2003)

- NCMs salute all officers (officer cadets are usually not saluted because they hold no commission)
- Officers salute other officers of higher rank
- Officers refer to NCMs by rank
- NCMs refer to each other by rank or appointment ie. RSM, CQ etc. (higher or lower)
- NCMs refer to Officers as "Sir" or "Ma‘am"
- Officers may be referred to as "Mr." or "Ms./Miss/Mrs." in the 3rd person, but NCMs are not to be referred to as such.

I think that‘s about it.


----------



## SpinDoc (9 Apr 2003)

I think CSMs and RSMs are also referred to as "sir" by lower ranked NCMs.

I think for the Mr/Ms/Mrs business, it‘s only appropriate when referring to OCdts, 2Lts, and (maybe) Lts.  Shouldn‘t be calling a major "Mister".


----------



## combat_medic (9 Apr 2003)

CSMs, RSMs and other CWOs can be called Sir, or by their rank, or by their appointment... kind of a multiple choice thing. Some RSMs just HATE being referred to as "Sir" and are quick to correct you. 

As for the Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs thing, yeah you‘re right about junior officers only (we have so few senior officers I often forget that rule).


----------



## rolandstrong (9 Apr 2003)

Or senior NCM‘s from what I can see.


----------



## Veteran`s son (9 Apr 2003)

Thank you for your replies to my questions!


----------



## Danjanou (11 Apr 2003)

As a former CSM, I can catagorically state that if you wanted to get on my bad side, all you had to do was call me "sir." I worked for a living. 

(Yeah I know it‘s an old one but then so am I)


----------



## SpinDoc (11 Apr 2003)

I think the point of calling a CSM/RSM "sir" is because they have a warrant from Her Majesty, not because of "working for a living".

I don‘t think insinuations that only NCOs work for their money is constructive nor does it provide a good leadership example.

(And isn‘t it an American saying anyways?  Their pay scale is structured such that a 2Lt makes more than a S-Sgt while here a cpl makes more than a 2Lt)


----------



## McInnes (7 May 2003)

> - NCMs refer to Officers as "Sir" or "Ma‘am"


Actually, Officially, you should never refer to any female as Ma‘am, for "Ma‘am" is reserved for the Queen, representatives of the queen, and the royal family. Also in some cases, Ministers. In Canada it is officially only appropriate to refer to females, formally, as "Miss". In the United States, Miss is replaced by Ma‘am. Thus, refering to someone as Ma‘am in Canada, could potentially create some confusion, for it could be taken as mockery (Yes your majesty).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 May 2003)

We seem to have taken our cue from the Americans on this one.  The correct form of address for a female officer is "ma‘am" in the Canadian Forces.

The US Navy used to have a regulation that all officers, including female ones, were to be addressed as "sir."  Made things easier!


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2003)

If I can remember correctly from my QL2 days, is the correct of address for an officer either "Sir/Ma‘am" *or* their rank.  I am wondering because a lot of officers seem to get a little haughty if you refer to them be their rank, despite it being in the regs.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 May 2003)

I remember a particularly annoying Captain who called me "Sarge" all the time. From anyone else, it probably wouldn‘t have mattered - when he did it, it got under my skin. I just started calling him "Cap" that seemed to cure it - he went back to "TSM", or Sergeant.....    :rage:


----------



## Korus (7 May 2003)

Infanteer, you know we were taught the same thing on my BMQ last summer, but then got chewed out for calling officers by their rank.

Though it may have been because the one of the people who did it refered to a General by his rank.. when the sect commander was in the room.


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2003)

Hmm...I think I may keep a copy of that sheet in my pocket the next time the issue is brought up.


----------



## twosticks (10 Oct 2009)

I was reading about the "New" Salute and the thread said there wasn't a response in the last 200 days. That's the reason I'm posting this as a new topic. I did a little research and came up with this article which, by itself is a pretty funny expose. Enjoy. 

Copyright / Permission to Reproduce

http://www.vac.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/hrp/copyright_notice

This, is a hoot.


Transcript


Donald Stewart Ethell was born in July 1937 and was raised in Victoria, BC. His father was a Veteran of both the First and Second World Wars. His mother was a nurse. He and his sister attended boarding school because of his parents' jobs and he was only home at Christmas and during the summer. His mother passed away when Mr. Ethell was 10 years old. 

When he enlisted, Mr. Ethell joined the Queen's Own Rifles in Calgary. After several years of serving as an infantryman he was recommended for the officer training. Mr. Ethell graduated from the program and rose to the rank of Colonel. He went on to command Canadian, and United Nations, forces in various missions all over the world. In the mid 1990s, Col. Ethell retired with over thirty-five years of distinguished service.
Development of Unified Canadian Forces Salute


Our beloved minister, Pallier had pushed the, pushed the envelope saying we need to change the salute, because as you know the navy and the army and the air force all had different salutes, so it was being proposed by the director of training at that time, a full colonel, Radley Walters, he was tasked to come up with a different salute and the two that were, forty-five degree angle or the straight arm. He had to demonstrate this to the Chief of the General Staff, General Jean Victor Allard, who commanded the 4th Division in Germany at one time, British division, with a script. And Macleod called my boss again and said "Ethell looks pretty sharp in a uniform, he's gonna demonstrate this." So I was given a script and Linda would read the script and I would stand in front of the mirror and when it said navy and this and my arm was going up and down like a ping pong ball, leading to the culmination of what do you recommend colonel? And it was the one that they have today. The story doesn't stop there; I've got to tell this story, we at the certain time got the call, remember I'm a sergeant he's a full colonel and he's big, mean, ugly, a very famous army core colonel. He said "Ok, we're gonna go in there and you're gonna just follow my script, got it?" "Yes sir."And the general was sitting there, there was just the three of us in the office, there wasn't even an aid there and went through the script and went like this. And the general said, this was the recommendation, he said "Well Sergeant do you like the recommendation?" I said, " No sir", he says "Why?" and I said "Well I like to see the exposed palm." Because that was what I was brought up on, you're not holding an arm. He says "Oh, alright, well I can't do anything about this, I'm going to have to take it to the defence council, carry on". So I march myself out, well when the colonel came up, and remember this was his recommendation, we, lets put it this way, we had a one sided conversation and the only word, two words I got in at the end of this tirade was "Yes, Sir." Like next time you're asked your opinion don't say anything. Let me leap ahead 3 weeks and we now appear before the defence council, with General Allard all the heads of states, the three stars or whatever, sergeant, I don't know who they were, there was just a whole bunch of people in there and the minister sitting at the end of the table, same script, same reader, same model, going up and down like a ping pong ball and damned if Hellier (sp?) didn't say the same question, pose the same question. "Well Sergeant, do you like it?" and I said "Yes, Sir." Jean Victor Allard who had heard the first answer said in rather blunt terms and in language I won't use here, "Just what did you expect him to say?" As it turned out, that salute that they have today, was accepted as a, on a trial basis for a year and I bet you a months wages that it's technically still on trial, because I don't think they'd ever bring it up again. I don't know, maybe I'm selling them short. That's the story of the salute. :stars:


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Oct 2009)

Okay......   ???


----------

