# What were the greatest battles for Canada in WW1/WW2?



## Veteran`s son (4 Mar 2003)

Hello Everyone

What do you think were the greatest battles for the Canadian Armed Forces in World War One and World War Two?

Was there a battle that will be remembered as the finest moment for the Canadian military in World War One and World War Two?


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Mar 2003)

Vet‘s son - at the risk of the other board members now knowing that I am just an old softie - I just wanted to say that some of the discussions on this board are getting downright venomous, cynical, and sarcastic. (ditto Mike O‘s comments on circling sharks). That being said, I have found your posts to be sincere, and inquisitive, and have enjoyed them. You ask some pretty good questions. Keep it up. Great question, and am looking forward to the responses. We have a broad range of folks on this board, that will provide some insightful opinions, I‘m sure!


----------



## Coniar (4 Mar 2003)

(please excuse my poor spelling and/or grammar)

Vimy Ridge is the one that stands out in everyones memorys and is most likely the finest moment for the Canadian Army, or atleast in many minds. My personal favorite is Pachendale though, after that battle letters where intercepted that cleary showed the fear and respect the Germans had for the Canadians as shock troops and that was where the Canadian forces first really distinguished themselves in my mind. After that the canadians (along with our good buddys the Aussies) where the spear head of every magor offensive of the war.

(I hope im not giving out false info here, im trying to rember a book I read 2 years ago)

Coniar


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Mar 2003)

Vimy Ridge is THE greatest Canadian feat of arms, bar none.  Even given Berton‘s romanticized version of the battle - which is probably one of the best, most readable, histories out there among thousands of Canadian military history titles, this battle lived on in the national memory throughout the interwar period.  That it does not live on is mystifying.  It is our Gettysburg, our Yorktown, our Battle of Britain.

Because of Vimy, so the story goes, Canada became a nation - starting with the Statute of Westminster in the early 20s, which gave Canada the right to conduct its own foreign policy.

In WW II, we don‘t have any one cataclysmic battle on the order of Vimy, no one action in which the entire war effort was involved and changed the course of the war.  We fought around the globe, and of a population of 8 million put 1 million of them into uniform.  We trained Commonwealth pilots and air gunners, navigators, bomb aimers, we built more Bren Guns than the British and Australians combined, we built tanks, invented the armoured personnel carrier, and did the bulk of the escort duties on the North Atlantic Run, feeding the hungry in Britain and Russia and delivering guns, tanks and planes.

On land, Ortona stands out, as does our performance on D-Day in Normandy (we made the deepest penetrations of any of the five beaches).  The Scheldt was bloody awful and yet we persevered and won glory for ourselves by opening the approaches to Antwerp - vital to shortening Allied supply lines which because of the Germans‘ tenacity in holding the channel ports (many of whom held out until May 1945) stretched hundreds of miles back to Normandy.

And yet, when it comes to WW II, we dwell on Dieppe (which accomplished nothing) and Hong Kong (which accomplished equally little).

Vimy Ridge was an anomaly - a case of the right men for the right job, but also of being in the right place at the right time.  Such circumstances never presented themselves in WW II; we were simply contributing in too many theatres in too many ways. That ain‘t such a bad thing.

I would say that the simple fact of fighting through to final victory - and thereby stopping the Holocaust - was our greatest feat.

The people of Holland would also tell you that Canada‘s liberation of that country was a truly magnificent thing.  Not as glorious as Vimy Ridge, no one single victory in the field to point to, but surely just as important.  We fed thousands of starving Dutch in 1945, delivered them from occupation, and with our allies in the east and to the south of First Canadian Army, helped put an end to Dachau, Bergen Belsen, Saschenhausen, Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, and hundreds of other death, work and concentration camps scattered across the continent of Europe.

All of which was situated half a world away and really was none of our business.  That we went anyway also says leagues.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2003)

MD,

What an exceptionally, poignant response. You‘ve done well in outdoing yourself! I‘m waiting for your rebuttal to your own answer!   Kudos.


----------



## Fusaki (4 Mar 2003)

Just to open it up a bit, who could be considred a Canadian War hero? 

In my own humble opinion Canadians should have a better knowledge of our military history. Establishing a widespread pride in past military victories should be an important step in securing reasonable funds for the CF today.

When the only thing civillians hear about are Sea Kings, friendly fire, Somalia, and green CADPAT there is a feeling of a "lost cause" in regards to our military. We need to have the nation‘s pride behind us if we want the nation‘s money.

Forgive me if I‘m out of line, as a civillian I try and stay out of opinionated stuff around here... the above is just my interpretation of what goes on around me.


----------



## Gunner (4 Mar 2003)

> Such circumstances never
> presented themselves in WW II; we were simply contributing in too many
> theatres in too many ways.


Michael, could you expand on this point? 

I am not a fan of Canadian performance during WW2.  At the soldier level we had many a good lad, but, our ability to conduct operations was severely limited.  We were able to conduct a very methodical process to accomplish limited goals but we never had the opportunity to excell at operational manoevre.  Canada (and Britain) had no Guderian, Rundstedt, Kesselring, Model, Rommel, etc.  We only had slow, steady, methodical and mediocre Commanders.  Don‘t even get me started on our equipment....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Mar 2003)

Gunner - interesting point.  

As for expanding on the above - everything I said about the BCATP and the North Atlantic run.  We were building all kinds of war materiel in Canada - and for every truly awful weapons system we developed, like the Ram (which was put to very good use as an APC), we developed one or two good ones - production of the 25 pounder and Bren Gun were essential to the war effort, and I would argue these two weapons won the war in Europe and Italy.  Coupled with good stout Canadian hearts and sturdy backs, of course, as you point out.

As for the operational art, I don‘t know if I agree.  But I don‘t know too much about that area; perhaps you can educate me.  I thought that Simonds was generally thought of highly - his invention of the APC and ability to finally bash through at Verrierres (?) using them leave him, tactically speaking at any rate, on a par with the best of the Germans.

The Germans had no operational concept either, though, don‘t forget. Hamstrung as they were by Hitler, the Germans were nonetheless limited in their operational outlook also (if I‘ve read Cooper correctly) on many occasions.

I will confess to having a poor understanding of the textbook definition of "operations" and "operational" so perhaps you can refresh me before I go on.  

I know that Vokes handled the 1st Div poorly at the Moro, though the troops fought well.  Is this tactics, or operations?

Burns was not a success as I Corps commander, and the corps was really superfluous in Italy.

II Canadian Corps battered itself against tough opposition in Normandy and suffered from its inexperience.  One can argue that its equipment was not optimal, certainly the tanks were not suited for taking on German tanks and anti-tank weaponry (which was lavishly issued to their infantry).

But the tank was not really intended to do that, and the artillery system we had was world-class.  I don‘t need to tell you what a Victor Target or a TOT was.  The German harkos would have killed to have that kind of power, wouldn‘t they?

I‘ll give you that most commanders were colourless - Matthews, Spry, et al that no one today even recognized the name of.  

But should we have expected any truly great operational art to have evolved?  With so litte emphasis placed in peacetime Canada on formation level exercises or training (some things never change), could we really blame the generals then for not looking beyond fighting yard by yard?

I have a feeling I‘ve missed the point of your post entirely, so feel free to let me know where I‘ve gone astray.

Basically, we concentrated on a LOTmore than justpushing Army divisions around in WW II, and I think all our allies benefited from it.


----------



## onecat (5 Mar 2003)

"But the tank was not really intended to do that, and the artillery system we had was world-class. I don‘t need to tell you what a Victor Target or a TOT was. The German harkos would have killed to have that kind of power, wouldn‘t they?"

MD your really big on artillery it keeps coming up in many of our posts would like to hear more on the reasons for this?

This a great post for so far as we Canadians know so little of militray past.  Gunner I would like to know about your thoeries on WW2 and why our preformance was poor.  I agree with you on the kit side; The British tanks sucks, and even the American‘s ones weren‘t much better just cheap and quick to produce.  I‘ve never been a fan of Battle Dress and 37 pat webbing, it would of been nice if we could of had our own.  Something that said we‘re Canadian and not a Brit.  Did you have any good books I would like to do more reading and you seem very informed.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Mar 2003)

But radiohead, we did have our own uniforms.  Canadian Battle Dress was very different from Brit stuff.  Better made, better looking.

I‘ll let Gunner or RCA respond to the arty question for now.


----------



## Marti (5 Mar 2003)

> Just to open it up a bit, who could be considred a Canadian War hero?


to name just a few: Pte ‘Smokey‘ Smith comes immediately to mind, as do Tommy Prince and Cpt Paul Triquet. personally, i think very highly of Col Meritt, for a person with only one day of fighting, he consistently showed a great deal of courage.


----------



## combat_medic (5 Mar 2003)

Vimy, Ortona, Cecil Merritt, Smokey Smith... my little Seaforth heart just swells with pride reading this thread.    

I‘m very much inclined to agree with everyone on this; nothing the Canadian Forces have done since has ever equalled Vimy. The Somme, Dieppe, and others were disasters, but still were able to demonstrate that Canadians are made of tougher stuff. As for WWII, other than a few notable exceptions (Ortona being one) it was rare that there would be a large scale battle such as Vimy in which Canadians were the sole participants. D-day is a battle honour of the Americans and Brits too, as are many of the most pivotal battles of the war.

I also loved readin Berton‘s book on Vimy, as well as "Marching as to War" which talks about all of Canada‘s participation from the Boer War to Korea... very interesting read.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Mar 2003)

Of course we never had the chance to excel at operational manoeuvre and operational art.   We never had the opportunity.  Check that list of German generals again and compare the level of command (theatre, army group, army) at which they operated against that of the Canadian commanders.

We also never had an opportunity to start a fight with a doctrinal and experience advantage in our favour.  The "delta" between the Germans during their heyday (1940-42) and their opponents was both larger and more favourable than the "delta" between the Allies and Germans in Europe from 1943 until the closing days of the war.  The western Allies took the fight to the Germans at what I consider to be the peak of the latter‘s capability (summer ‘43 to fall ‘44).  Transpose the Normandy battle area or any sector of the Italian front at any moment in time onto a map of Russia and the truth about opportunities for operational manoeuvre should come clear.


----------



## Art Johnson (5 Mar 2003)

:mg:  Right on Brad.

A BIT OF A RANT.

Gunner, maybe you would like to expand on your remark â€œI am not a fan of Canadian
performance during WW2.â€ Are you talking about the Canadian Army, the Canadian
Navy, the Canadian Airforce, the Canadian People, the Canadian Politicians or just the
whole bloody lot of us in general? Where you even alive at that time? What are you a fan
of? If you want to talk about weapons why not. There are pros and cons on both sides and
we had some of the finest in the world and we had some that was awful and so did the
enemy. Surprisingly enough Blitzkrieg was actually a British idea. A quote from the Rand
McNally Encyclopedia of World War II page 196: â€œIn the 1920s, the German Army,
seeking a fomula for future warfare, embraced the theories currently being advanced by
Liddell Hart, Fuller, Hobart and other British analysts and began the planning of an
integrated armoured force, the Panzers.â€ I believe our own General Worthington
presented suggestions to the Canadian government about a similar type of army.


Radio Head, so you are not a fan of Battle Dress. Did you ever wear it in Action? The 37
Pattern was good enough for the Americans and the Germans to copy so I think it must of
had something going for it.


----------



## Veteran`s son (5 Mar 2003)

muskrat89

Thank you for your reply concerning Canada‘s greatest battles in WW1/WW2 as it was most encouraging!

I know that I have asked alot of questions but the members of this message board have been really helpful with their knowledge and replies regarding joining the reserves and other military history questions!


----------



## Danjanou (5 Mar 2003)

Adding to that list of Heroes

WW 1
Leo Clarke VC 2nd Bn CEF
James C. Richardson VC (posthumous) 16th Bn CEF
John B. Croak VC (posthumous) 13th Bn CEF
Thomas Ricketts VC RNFLDR

WW 2
John Osbourne VC (posthumous) 1st bn Winnipeg Grenadiers
John Foote VC RHLI
Fred Tilston VC Essex Scottish Regt.

A small sampling to be sure.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Mar 2003)

I‘m at a loss to understand the regurgitation of VC names in response to a question asking about "heroes".

There is a complete list of Canadian Army VC holders at my website at www.canadiansoldiers.com

I don‘t believe there is such a thing as a hero, and if there is, a hero would be the last one to admit that he was one of them.

To my way of thinking, anyone that served overseas willingly and ably was a hero.  Some of those poor *******s went to the UK in 1939 and didn‘t come home until 1946.  Home leave didn‘t exist for the vast majority of the Canadian Army in this period.

I don‘t care if you were one of the lucky ones to get a VC or a truck driver in Wales for the whole 6 years - that‘s a long time to be away from home, and pretty heroic by any stretch of the imagination.

VC does not a hero make.


----------



## Jungle (5 Mar 2003)

Other "big" names:
Arthur Currie: the brain behind Vimy, first Cdn to command the Cdn Corps.
Andy McNaughton: as Arty cmder at Vimy, he developped counter battery techniques to destroy German arty before the assault. In WW2, he was cmder of the Cdn Corps, then was appointed CDS. He eventually became MND. (That‘s odd, a MND with military background...)
There are plenty more, just don‘t wanna touch on that VC list...


----------



## Anderson56 (5 Mar 2003)

I agree with the general consensus about Vimy.  Wondering if the you would agree that the Canadian breakthrough there was foreshadowed in the Boer War?  As well, Interested in comments on the best Canadian commander.  Was it Currie?  Anyone else?  How about intellect - did McNaughton beat them all?  And am I right in my understanding that McNaughton would have been the first Canadian Gov-Gen but for his decision to become involved in atomic energy?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Mar 2003)

Best Canadian commander?  How about Hoffmeister?

Simonds was good too.

McNaughton never commanded in action, I wouldn‘t even consider him.


----------



## onecat (6 Mar 2003)

"Was it Currie? Anyone else? How about intellect - did McNaughton beat them all"

My choice is Currie, he developed the tactics needed to win at Vimy, stood up to Haig and told him we  would go when we were ready.  And if the war had lasted one more year, he going to replace to haig as lead general.  Now I don‘t think any other Canadian commander has come that close to leading other armies.


----------



## onecat (6 Mar 2003)

"To my way of thinking, anyone that served overseas willingly and ably was a hero. Some of those poor *******s went to the UK in 1939 and didn‘t come home until 1946. Home leave didn‘t exist for the vast majority of the Canadian Army in this period."

I‘m not sure if I would agree with that.  Just signing up and going overseas doesn‘t make you a hero.  Does it take guts, yes but that doesn‘t make you a hero.  In some cases going oversea would of been easier, then staying home. Life in a factory isn‘t fun and to keep up with war production I‘m sure they worked over-time and lost of it.  In some ways that might be harder than being a soldier being overseas and being carefree when your not at the front.  Being a hero takes a special action and selfless act, and going overseas isn‘t one of them in my books.  My grandpa was there from 1939 on, and he joined to get out of Acton, and see things he would be never see again. And from talking to him most of his mates joined pretty much the same reasons.

Answer to the question can never be really answered as everyone has own ideal of a hero.


----------



## Marti (6 Mar 2003)

> My choice is Currie, he developed the tactics needed to win at Vimy


most of the tactics used at Vimy were already developed and practiced by the French, including locating German artillery positions using hearing stations. but, i guess Currie should be commended for braking away from British practices and building on what the French had learned.

i think Simmonds was more innovative than Currie, among other things, he developed some good ideas for combined operations (although this was while he was at staff college) and tryed to implement these during the landings in Sicily.

as far as being a hero is concerned i‘m going to have to agree with radiohead. i think a hero goes above and beyond the sacrifice that everyone else makes just by being there, and deliberately puts themselves in danger for the bennefit of the others in the unit.


----------



## Jungle (6 Mar 2003)

> most of the tactics used at Vimy were already developed and practiced by the French, including locating German artillery positions using hearing stations. but, i guess Currie should be commended for braking away from British practices and building on what the French had learned.


The French had been working on "sound ranging" but with limited success. The British had worked on "flash spotting" again with limited success. McNaughton took both techniques, developped them to a point where they could pinpoint individual guns and take them out.
The CDNs at Vimy also invented indirect fire with machineguns, they were the first to issue orders down to the rifleman, the first to carry out large scale rehearsals, they perfected raiding techniques, and the list goes on...
Two men are responsible for all this: Currie and McNaughton.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Mar 2003)

radiohead said:  





> Being a hero takes a special action and selfless act


marti said:  





> i think a hero... deliberately puts themselves in danger for the bennefit of the others in the unit.


I dunno, enlisting for six years, or even the simple act of not running away when the going got tough, seems to be a "special action" or "selfless act" to me.  They all had a choice until November 1944 about whether they would go over or not.

What about the poor old grunt who served for months in a frontline unit, solid, reliable - never won any bravery medals, and had his leg taken from him the day before he came home?  I still think he deserves to be remembered with the same amount of respect and gratitude as the "hero" who throws himself on a grenade.

I guess I never bought that "cult of individual" stuff that American movies sell to us.  Given the dearth of comic-book treatment of Canadian "heroes" (think Rambo) I‘d have to think I‘m not alone in that respect in this country, but the point about all of us having our own definition of "hero" is apt.

I‘m all for giving our VC winners their due - they had that extra something special - but I hate the thought of reducing the sacrifices of those other unnamed thousands to nothing by comparison.


----------



## Coniar (6 Mar 2003)

> I‘m not sure if I would agree with that. Just signing up and going overseas doesn‘t make you a hero. Does it take guts, yes but that doesn‘t make you a hero


Spending 6 years of your life away from home for your country is in many ways a heroic thing, not worthy of a VC mabey but I hope if you ever meet a veteran who drove supplys around for 6 years in whales that you would treat him with the same respect you would treat a soldier with a VC. In my mind both did something that had to be done for the war effort, if that guy hadnt stayed back and driven that truck mabey the soldier who won the VC would have had to...



> we dwell on Dieppe (which accomplished nothing)


I think that something was acomplished at Dieppe, not much and I dont belive it was worth the price but it did in many ways set the stage for Normandy. Going back to my original post where I mentioned Pachendale, that in many ways set the stage for Vimy, but at a resonable cost in men and munitions, whereas Dieppe cost the lives of to many for to little advancment. In both cases we learned from our mistakes.


----------



## Art Johnson (6 Mar 2003)

Conair the Battle of Passchendeale was after Vimy Ridge. Vimy was in April of 1917, Easter weekend, Passchendeale didn‘t begin till July of 1917.


----------



## Marti (6 Mar 2003)

this issue of heroism is just a matter of semantics. i agree that all those who participated in the war effort deserve our highest gratitude and respect, but as M. Dorosh said of VC winners "they had that extra something special" and that something special is what i associate with heroism. 

about Vimy, most retellings of the battle downplay the influence of the French on the tactics used, i just wanted to bring that out. i should‘ve used ‘some‘ instead of ‘most‘ when quantifying these.


----------



## Coniar (6 Mar 2003)

It was???     well if that is in fact the case im exxtremly sorry and emmbarassed      Im going to have to sign that book out of my local library again because I swear that was one of the main points in the book...


----------



## Veteran`s son (6 Mar 2003)

Were there any battles especially notable for the Royal Canadian Engineers serving with the Third Canadian Division in World War 2?

Did the Royal Canadian Engineers earn any battle honors in World War 2?


----------



## Art Johnson (6 Mar 2003)

I don‘t believe the Engineers have Battle Honours. There motto is Ubique (pardon my spelling if I am wrong) just like the Artillery they are part of every battle.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Mar 2003)

Art is right, we have been part of every battle, so therefore technicaly we carry every battle honour that the CF has. Can you imagine what our flag would look like with all of them on it.

That is the reason why our motto is "UBIQUE".


----------



## Veteran`s son (8 Mar 2003)

I believe that the 18th Field Company, Royal Canadian Engineers(as part of the Third Canadian Division) were involved in the Battle of the Scheldt(my spelling may be incorrect) and Leopold Canal.

Does anyone have information about these battles and what part the Third Canadian Division(and the 18th Field company, RCE) had in the battles?


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Mar 2003)

Keep in kind that a regimentâ€™s list of battle honours are not inclusive of every engagement in which the regiment was in action.  They are the ones selected by the Regiment against the terms and conditions established in the appropriate Army Orders following each War. 

For example, for the Second World War:

Participation in Operations
12.	  A battle honour will not be awarded merely because a unit was present in an operation. To qualify, the unit must:
(a)	have been committed in the locality and within the time limits laid down for one of the individual operations defined below; (the full listing of possible Second War battle honours was included in the Army Order)
(b)	Have been actively engaged with enemy ground troops;
(c)	have taken a credible part on the operations;
(d)	be proud of its part in the operations.


As for the Engineers hypothetically having a potentially busier flag [Colour] than other regiments, there were also strict guidelines on how many battle honours from each war could be emblazoned on a Regimental Colour:

â€¦ the list of Honours for the Great War for emblazonment on the Colours may not exceed ten, â€¦. - Conditions for the Award of Battle Honours for the Great War 1914-1919, General Orders, 1 Feb 1928

Limitation of Honours to be Emblazoned. 
Para 17.  A maximum of ten Second World War honours, either battles, actions, engagements or theatres, may be emblazoned on the colours or appointments. - 33-1 Battle Honours â€“ The Second World War, part â€œAâ€ Supplement to Canadian Army Orders, 10 Sept 1956

2. (a) not more than two battle honours may be emblazoned. These may be either the theatre honour â€œKoreaâ€, with approproiate year-ends dates added, and one other, or two named operaions; â€¦.. - 33-1 Battle Honours â€“ United Nations Operations â€“ Korea, part â€œAâ€ Supplement to Canadian Army Orders, 31 Mar 1958


Mike


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Mar 2003)

thanks for the clarification Mike.


----------

