# Famous Canadian battles of World War One



## Ransomed (21 Sep 2005)

For my socials class I need to know world war one battles that Canadians fought in. Links and ant information would be helpful thanks.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Sep 2005)

You may find some info here to start with:

CONDITIONS OF AWARD OF BATTLE HONOURS FOR THE GREAT WAR 1914-1919
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/firstworldwar-btlhnrs.htm

AUTHORIZED CANADIAN BATTLE HONOURS
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/auth-btlhnrs-1999.htm

Battle Honours of the Canadian Army - Royal Canadian Armoured Corps
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/rcac.htm

Battle Honours of the Canadian Army - Royal Canadian Infantry Corps
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/rcic.htm


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Sep 2005)

Go to the library and read a book instead of having us do your research for you.

Try Desmond Morton's book MARCHING TO ARMAGEDDON for a start.   

Good luck.http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/cmarchive/vol17no5/marchingtoarmageddon.html


----------



## geo (21 Sep 2005)

most obvious one you should think about readin & writin about is Vimy

The Newfoundlanders at Gallipoli OR Beaumont Hamel are also a great read.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Sep 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> The Newfoundlanders at Gallipoli OR Beaumont Hamel are also a great read.



What does that have to do with Canadians in World War One?


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with Canadians in World War One?



About the same thing as 1812 has to Canadian military history.  The Newfoundlanders are part of the CF now, so their heritage is part of ours as well.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> About the same thing as 1812 has to Canadian military history.   The Newfoundlanders are part of the CF now, so their heritage is part of ours as well.



You do realize that Canada became unified under that name in 1867, right?

That the Canadian Expeditionary Force was so-called because men were recruited from Canada?   Not to say the majority of soldiers in it had been born here, but was nonetheless a "national" force?

And that Newfoundland didn't join Confederation until 1949?

How, then, does your 1812 example serve as a true analogy?   Newfoundlanders were not Canadians in the First World War, nor did their soldiers serve alongside Canadian ones; ISTR that the Newfoundland (later Royal Newfoundland) Regiment served in British Divisions and not as part of the Canadian Corps.     

Not seeing your point.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You do realize that Canada became unified under that name in 1867, right?
> 
> That the Canadian Expeditionary Force was so-called because men were recruited from Canada?   Not to say the majority of soldiers in it had been born here, but was nonetheless a "national" force?
> 
> ...



I figured you wouldn't, but thanks for reminding me on the dates.   :

I also seem to recall that every Canadian Military text that I've looked over makes reference to the fighting forces, techniques, and battles of the Natives, the French, and the British.   Numerous articles in the CAJ look at the action of both regulars and militia soldiers in 1812 and other conflicts that happened prior to 1867, as does Graves' excellent volumes on Fighting For Canada.   Canadian military heritage exists prior to Confederation, and being that Newfoundland has been Canadian for over half a century, the heritage of the Newfs is just as valid as de Salaberry at Chateauguay (which isn't "Canadian", at least by your definition, either) when studying Canadian military history.


----------



## geo (21 Sep 2005)

Listen guys - the fact that Newfoundland only joined confederation in 1948 would make the fellas termpaper that much more interesting - throwing a bit of a twist that would / could earn some brownie points in the final grading.
The battles of Gallipoli & Beaumont Hamel are quite interesting in their own right - no need to get a hernia


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (21 Sep 2005)

Perhaps examine the evolution of the Canadian Expeditionary Force through the following battles:

     a.   Ypres (1915) - The Canadian Division's first battle (the PPCLI had already been in action).  "Green" troops face a German offensive complete with poison gas. 

     b.   Vimy (1917)   - The Canadian Corps seize an important German position.  Some trace Canada's sense of nationhood to this battle.

     c.     Passchendaele (1917) - The Canadian Corps is committed to a stalled offensive.  Meagre gains in the mud at tremendous loss of life. 

     d.     Amiens (1918) - The Canadian Corps is a major part of the offensive that breaks through the German lines and leads to the "last 100 days."  

There's lots of other battles and I've left out some major engagements (Mount Sorrel, The Somme), but a paper usually needs some focus.  The Canadian Army went from a tiny force to a large, professional body of "shock troops."  It took time and great loss to get there.  

The Marching to Amageddon book is an excellent start, while Vimy is an easy read.   Hit the library!

Good luck!

2B


----------



## 54/102 CEF (22 Sep 2005)

2 Battalion History`s that I look after

The 54th Bn CEF - http://apollon_2.tripod.com

and

The 102nd Bn www.donlowconcrete.com/102

I would argue that nothing really developed until they got past Vimy Ridge in April 1917 - before that it was haphazard. Oh but we did so well on the Somme you say! Oh but we captured so little on the Somme I say. Effort vs gains were very lopsided.

Then we see very complex battles such as the squeeze of the Germans out of Lens and Hill 70 area

followed by Brits unable to master the terrain and using Passendale as a German Magnet to soak up enemy forces after the Germans cleared the Italian Front and captured 200,000 Italians at the Battles of Capporetto which set the stage for Amiens 1918 which followed the end of the German March - May 18 offensives. Amiens was just a part of a much larger Brit Offensive. I think its safe to say Canadians were BIG players in a Brit Strategy there then the march down the road from Arras to Cambrai and on to Valenciennes and Mons was only limited by the amount of Arty ammo they could push forward.

The 102nd Bn website was written by a unit Sergeant who was a journalist - so there's lots of observation - look for that a barrage looks like

We're going to start plotting the unit positions in latitude and longitude this fall so check back from time to time. 

These positions are well known - but cryptic to most unless you have the Imperial War Musem Trench Map CD and modern day French and Belgian Map CDS which kick out lat and long. 

The positions for most major activities of the 4th Cdn Div and their Bdes and Units are at http://apollon_2.tripod.com/mapping.htm

If you want a point calculated send money!!!!!


----------



## JDFreeSoul (22 Sep 2005)

If I was you, I'd write about the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917.

The Battle of Vimy Ridge was the biggest single Allied advance on the Western front up to that point in the Great war.
3,598 Canadians died during this battle.

Here's a little part...



> The Battle of Vimy Ridge began at dawn on Easter Monday, April 9, 1917, when all four divisions of the Canadian Corps attacked Vimy Ridge above the Douai Plain in France. The Commander of the Canadian Corps was Lieutenant-General Sir Julian Byng, who later became Governor General of Canada. The Commander of the First Division was Major-General Arthur Currie.
> 
> The Battle of Vimy Ridge was part of the Allies' effort to push the Germans out of France. Vimy Ridge was key to the German defence system, and previous attacks by the French and British had failed.



http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/canadaww1/a/vimyridge.htm



(Edited by Moderator to ensure correct attribution of quoted material.)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Sep 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Listen guys - the fact that Newfoundland only joined confederation in 1948 would make the fellas termpaper that much more interesting -



So would pictures of Playboy centrefolds modelling their underwear, and would be about as relevant.  

I don't know, if I told a class to write on Canadians in the Great War, and someone turned in a paper on the Miracle of the Marne or the First Day on the Somme, I'd give him an "F" and question his comprehension and researching skills.  No matter how interesting it was.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I figured you wouldn't, but thanks for reminding me on the dates.   :
> 
> I also seem to recall that every Canadian Military text that I've looked over makes reference to the fighting forces, techniques, and battles of the Natives, the French, and the British.



And do they refer to them as 'Canadians'?   

Would you accept a paper on the US Marines that fought at Belleau Wood in 1918 as an example of "Canadians"?   After all, Britain founded all her North American colonies at the same time, and so we have a common history.   Right?   If not, tell me why not.



> Numerous articles in the CAJ look at the action of both regulars and militia soldiers in 1812 and other conflicts that happened prior to 1867, as does Graves' excellent volumes on Fighting For Canada.   Canadian military heritage exists prior to Confederation, and being that Newfoundland has been Canadian for over half a century, the heritage of the Newfs is just as valid as de Salaberry at Chateauguay (which isn't "Canadian", at least by your definition, either) when studying Canadian military history.



None of which is relevant to the First World War; Canada already existed and was clearly defined as such, and Newfoundland was no more a part of it than Jersey, Guernsey, or the Alabama National Guard.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Sep 2005)

There is a risk of being overly pedantic here.  Newfoundland was not part of Canada at the time but they are now.  This makes the inclusion of their experience a much different case than that of the USMC.  Although sharing ancestory with the US our paths have since diverged.  On the other hand, the paths of Canada and Newfoundland have converged.

Whether or not the Newfoundland WWI experience would make sense in a paper on Canada and WWI would depend on the question being asked.  If it is about trying to trace Canada's sense of nationhood with her participation in WWI then it would be a stretch.  If it was on the war's impact on Canadian society then perhaps it would deserve mention.  

Cheers,

2B

p.s. When was the War of 1812?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Sep 2005)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> There is a risk of being overly pedantic here.   Newfoundland was not part of Canada at the time but they are now.   This makes the inclusion of their experience a much different case than that of the USMC.   Although sharing ancestory with the US our paths have since diverged.   On the other hand, the paths of Canada and Newfoundland have converged.
> 
> Whether or not the Newfoundland WWI experience would make sense in a paper on Canada and WWI would depend on the question being asked.   If it is about trying to trace Canada's sense of nationhood with her participation in WWI then it would be a stretch.   If it was on the war's impact on Canadian society then perhaps it would deserve mention.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

The original question was "For my socials class I need to know world war one battles that Canadians fought in."

Taken literally, he just wants a list of battles that Canadians fought in.     His further request for "any info" seems pretty open ended; I took it to mean the usual things - dates, places, context.   In general, a basic understanding of what Canadians did in the First World War.   

The Newfoundland Regiment might deserve passing mention, but certainly no more in that context.

I'll pass on the 1812 question (I thought it was fought between 1811 and 1814, but Infanteer is the expert on pre-Confederation history, since he has apparently read "some books" on the subject. ;D   I'll defer the subject to him; perhaps even to another thread altogether).


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'll pass on the 1812 question (I thought it was fought between 1811 and 1814, but Infanteer is the expert on pre-Confederation history, since he has apparently read "some books" on the subject. ;D    I'll defer the subject to him; perhaps even to another thread altogether).



Sorry, didn't know I had to play dress up to be considered an expert....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sorry, didn't know I had to play dress up to be considered an expert....



Not sure I'm catching your reference, can you explain this?


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Not sure I'm catching your reference, can you explain this?



Simply a barb for a barb.

Signed,

"The book reading expert"


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Sep 2005)

Here's another book recommendation - CENTURY OF SERVICE by Donald Graves, published this year by Robin Brass Studios.  It is the regimental history of the South Alberta Light Horse, but contains an excellent section on World War One that explains the entire Canadian participation in the war on the ground (doesn't touch on the navy or the air services, though Canadians were very prominent there, too).  

Rather than reading about Newfoundlanders getting machinegunned in droves, check out p 165. * "In 1918, Brigadier General Raymond Brutinel's Independent Force, highly mobile and commanded by radio, was one of the most advanced combat formations in the world."* Brutinel is mentioned in Pierre Berton's Vimy, and the Canadian Motor Machine Gun units were technologically and tactically advanced and sophisticated.  More interesting, to me, then the oft retold stories of senseless slaughter that Canadians like to wallow in.

By 1918, Canadian soldiers were using many if not most of the techniques that would make the German Army so successful in 1939-40, including infantry divided into small squad-sized groups of 10 men or so, the use of wireless (radio) to communicate, the co-ordination of supporting fires from artillery and machineguns, and even the use of tanks and armoured cars.  One of the few things the Canadians didn't have that the Germans did in 1939 was armoured troop carriers - and these were extremely rare in the German Army throughout the war.  

An interesting assignment at a university level would be to compare the Canadian Corps in 1918 to the German Army of 1939.   

As for high school (?) Social Studies, a look at that book would be most interesting and you will get an appreciation of what Canada did, at least from the perspective of the Army.  Graves is one of our best living historians - and holds his own against our dead ones, too. ;D

The WW I sections centre on an infantry battalion (the 31st) and a cavalry unit (Alberta Dragoons, later Canadian Light Horse), the latter of which served from 1915 to 1918.  Very well written, not a lot of "scholarly" words (ie isn't written at a university level so is rather accessible), and incorporates a lot of personal vignettes and stories to keep the story rolling.  Trouble is, it is expensive and esoteric enough that might not be easy to find in public libraries.


----------



## geo (22 Sep 2005)

When you consider the battles of Gallipoli & Beaumont Hamel and the way the Newfs got decimated in em..... it starts to explain the situation that existed on the Rock back in 48 and continues today.
The flower of their youth was mowed down pretty much to the last man. Considering the size of the Colony, the islanders never recovered - they never had a chance.
The men of Newfoundland never had a chance of developing industry.


----------



## Danjanou (23 Sep 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> When you consider the battles of Gallipoli & Beaumont Hamel and the way the Newfs got decimated in em..... it starts to explain the situation that existed on the Rock back in 48 and continues today.
> The flower of their youth was mowed down pretty much to the last man. Considering the size of the Colony, the islanders never recovered - they never had a chance. The men of Newfoundland never had a chance of developing industry.




Interesting point Geo and probably deserving of an essay/paper in its own right. However mush as I loathe the 



> Rather than reading about Newfoundlanders getting machinegunned in droves,



quote, MD may have something in a study of the innovations of such WW1 figures as Brutinel or General H.D.G. Crerar among others.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Sep 2005)

I get goosebumps every time I read about Beaumont Hamel, don't get me wrong, and think about poor Newfoundland - I've yet to meet a girl - not the most avid of military historians - from NF that didn't know what "July Drive" meant.  I have no doubt the repurcussions are still being felt to this day.

I just don't see it as particuarly relevant to "Canadian" history in the context it was presented in the first post.  If the instructor does, then fill yer boots, but we have so many virtually untold success stories it seems fatuous to dwell on the disasters.

Canada's army in the field in 1918 was the best in the world and doing stuff the Germans would later get credit for "inventing" in 1939.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Canada's army in the field in 1918 was the best in the world and doing stuff the Germans would later get credit for "inventing" in 1939.



That's because the Germans did in large part (although not in 1939) - I'll have to look for a few citations, but I got the impression from multiple works that a good portion of the infiltration and combined arms tactics the Canadian Corps used was derived from German successes with it in their _Stosstruppen_ units.


----------



## Danjanou (23 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's because the Germans did in large part (although not in 1939) - I'll have to look for a few citations, but I got the impression from multiple works that a good portion of the infiltration and combined arms tactics the Canadian Corps used was derived from German successes with it in their _Stosstruppen_ units.



Actually if I remember most of the main usage of the _*Stosstruppen*_ (Stormtroopers) and their tactics (infiltration, fire and movement and combined arms) first came to prominence during the final German push in 1918 after the Canadian Corps took Vimy Ridge.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Sep 2005)

D.

That is my understanding as well, but I could be wrong. I believe Curry brought back the framework for the revised "smal unit" tactics after Byng sent him to visit the French.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Sep 2005)

Yup; my understanding is the German stosstrupp tactics didn't really take off until the Spring Offensive of 1918; about a year after the Canadians took Vimy.

I think they did develop small unit tactics of sorts earlier; one source suggests at Verdun in 1916, but I'd have to look it up.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Sep 2005)

Michael is correct on the Verdun point.   A quick scan of Gudmundsson's Stormtroop Tactics mentions _Hauptmann_ Rohr (an essential figure in the evolution) and his assault detachments in 1915.   There is an entire chapter dedicated to the lessons and genesis at Verdun.   The Eastern Front is also an important place to look at the taking of the "infiltration" method up from the tactical level to the operational one; I believe that the offensive on Riga in 1917 was a "trial run" of the offensives we would see in 1918 on the Western Front.

I have no doubt that much of the innovation of the Canadian Corps is ours and ours alone, and I am not attempting to lessen that.   However, I do remember a specific passage which detailed how the Canadians derived a chunk of their tactics pertaining to infiltration from the German experience with the _Stosstruppen_ (I'm trying to remember where I read it, perhaps in English's On Infantry) - I'll have to keep thinking about it.   A visit to the French by Currie seems to ring some bells for a few things as well.

Whatever the case, the German evolution started early - St Michael was only the finished product (and an unfinished one at that; it would be completed in France in 1940).  It was precisely that, an evolution - and so was the Canadian experience.  It should be interesting to break it down and see who derived what from where and how many crosslinks there are in the evolution of Trench Warfare for the Canadians and their Teutonic opponents across the wire.

Has anybody read LCol Shane Shreiber's Shock Army of the British Empire?   I'd be interested to see his take on it.

Anyways, this has the makings of an interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## 54/102 CEF (23 Sep 2005)

Whew! Everyone`s and expert! Back to basic trg all of you rascals! As in Internet Searching - See the Cdn Army reading List http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/Reading_list/ARL_v1_sept2001_e.pdf

Among others - one of the few that is endlessly educational

Bill Rawling - Surviving Trench Warfare -- you get solid research on what was and wasn`t happening in the Canadian context and where it came from 

Surviving Trench Warfare: Technology and the Canadian Corps, 1914 â â€œ 1918. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. ISBN 0-8020-6002-1.

The First World War is often painted as one wherein little tactical innovation occurred. In this study of technology and the Canadian Corps, the author argues that technology itself was not a decisive military factor, but that the response to it was. Rawling describes how the Canadian Corps (and to a certain degree the British Army it belonged to) changed tactics and procedures in a coordinated, deliberate fashion that produced one of the best formations on the western front.

Also - a very good look at WW1 for those on the way to their next elevator meeting with their boss

Check out UNENDING SIEGE HERE CHAPTER 4 on the left column  http://www.cmhg.forces.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_603.asp


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Sep 2005)

Just to add another wrinkle, the Russian General Brusilov used rather innovative tactics as early as 1916.  He realized that massive artillery bombardments lasting several days only served to mangle the terrain and warn the enemy.  He employed short "hurricane" bombarbments to suppress the enemy and then relied on small teams to neutralize enemy strongpoints using infiltration.  He used these to great effect against the Austrians, although his offensive eventually stalled. 

Supporting what others here have written, I believe that both the French and Germans were also studying ways to break the trench stalemate using small unit tactics as early as 1916.

The study of WW I offers many examples of how militaries adapt (or fail to adapt) in a time of great technological and social change (new weapons of the industial age matched with the ability of the modern nation-state to moblilize for war).

Cheers,

2B


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (25 Sep 2005)

there are various books on  World War 1 , and Canadian efforts. 
Pick a branch of the service. 
Airforce.....or Aircorp  we had Billy  Bishop there and his VC
Navy, started with nothing and built a fleet from former british ships and new ships
Army, a whole pile of VC s won, 
pick a  battle a Canadian unit was more then likely there. 
first suggestion is go check out a book on great battles of ww 1,  read it, or at least skim thru it. 
then get a book that  centers on one of the mnay  major battles in WW 1
and go from there

the facts are from the web site not sure how accurrate they are . 

from the web site 

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-canada

The Great War


On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated, setting off a chain of events leading to World War I. By August 4, Britain had declared war on Germany and, as part of the Empire, Canada was automatically entered in the fray.

At first the war brought Canadians together. Canada was suffering from an economic downturn and the war effort helped to revitalize the economy. The unemployed gladly volunteered for the war, expecting it to be a quick and exciting adventure. However, the soldiers were poorly equipped and the war lasted for four years.

Important events with regard to Canadian history and World War I include: Second Battle of Ypres, Battle of Somme, Vimy Ridge, and Passchendaele.

The Parliament of Canada passed several important pieces of legislation during World War I: War Measures Act (1914), Income Tax (1917), Military Service Act (1917), Military Voters Act (1917), and the Wartime Elections Act (1917).

On November 11, 1918, Germany surrendered, and as of June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles formally ended the war. At Borden's insistence, Canada signed the treaty, an important symbolic recognition of Canadian sovereignty.

More than 620,000 Canadians served in the war. Of these, more than 60,000 died and more than 155,000 were wounded.


----------



## Spr.Earl (25 Sep 2005)

Gentelman I suggest you refrain from arguing with  54/102 CEF because I have helped with some of his research in regards to the 54 Bt. in WW I.

I do suggest you go to his web sites and read and learn.
He has spent a few years researching both Battalions actions in WW I.
He has even gone as far as getting GPS Loc. Sites of certain small actions and even the trench lines in some cases.

 54/102 CEF is a cornucopia of knowledge when it comes to Canada in WW I.
He has spent many hours and I know not how much money but has been helped by freinds and contacts like my self.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Sep 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Gentelman I suggest you refrain from arguing with  54/102 CEF because I have helped with some of his research in regards to the 54 Bt. in WW I.



And which books have you published, Earl?  Just curious.  So you're saying his knowledge stems from your assistance?  What exactly would your credentials be?  Again, just curious.



> I do suggest you go to his web sites and read and learn.
> He has spent a few years researching both Battalions actions in WW I.



And this qualifies him to recommend reading for a high school level essay how exactly?  The stuff he suggested seemed like overkill for a guy who just wanted a list of battles we fought in.

Unless he was really talking down to the rest of us; wasn't really paying attention if that was the case.  I lost interest when he said "most people think no innovation" occured in the First World War - pretty odd, really, since I was explicitly stating just the opposite, as was Danjanou.  *shrugs*


----------



## 54/102 CEF (25 Sep 2005)

Len Deighton the famous British Spy novelist onbce said - the politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.

To do otherwise follows in the path of the Gen George McLellan - Lincoln`s Saviour at Antietum  

As for books - its not what you publish - its who reads them - isn't it?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Sep 2005)

There is always a danger of going too far into the weeds when starting out.  My own advice is to start with the "lens" at wide angle before focusing in on details.

My own credentials are rather thin.  I would, however, recommend the following book to both high school students and just plain old Army folk who want to know about World War 1:

    a.  A Short History of World War 1.  James L. Stokesbury, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, 1981

At just over 300 pages it is easily digestible while still giving an excellent overview of the war.  I read it over a weekend for a basic level history course and I have gone back to it several times.  He covers all theatres, and while focusing on the national/ strategic level he also delves into the operational and tactical to give the reader an idea of what was going on at the soldier's level.  I found that it gave me a broad understanding of the war and brought my attention to some theatres I had neglected.  It also gives some context within which to study Canada's participation in the war.  There are tons of other books, of course, but page for page I find this one to be an excellent investment of time and money.  

Desmond Morton's A Military History of Canada would also be a good start point.  Follow up with Vimy by Pierre Berton to gain a detailed, yet human, understanding of one key Canadian battle.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## reccecrewman (25 Sep 2005)

> I think they did develop small unit tactics of sorts earlier; one source suggests at Verdun in 1916, but I'd have to look it up.



The Germans did use small unit tactics at Verdun in 1916.  This was how they took Ft. Douamont (a key fort in the ring of forts surrounding Verdun)


----------

