Canadian Special Forces and Light Infantry in World War Two`

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Neither.

 

[B.McTeer]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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

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

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

 

[Love793]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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

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

 

[B.McTeer]

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

B.McTeer

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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

B.McTeer

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

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

 

[Bfalcon.cf]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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

 

[B.McTeer]

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

B.McTeer

 

[Love793]

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

 

[B.McTeer]

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

 

[Bfalcon.cf]

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

 

[B.McTeer]

yeah true

 

[Love793]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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

 

[Love793]

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

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

 

[B.McTeer]

god i love new "toys" hehehe ;D

 

[baboon6]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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

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

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