Canadians showed Germany the Blitzkrieg

[Pongo]

Well that explains why the Allies took Italy so quickly and Caen.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
In point, if a German unit knew they were up against a Canadian unit, they would retreat.

If a German unit knew?  We basically fought the same German unit for the entire Italy campaign, the first German parachute division. They would eventually tactically retreat after pounding the crap out of us.

[Furball]

so.... the conclusions of this thread..

1) Canadians taught Germans Blitzkrieg.
2) Blitzkrieg means "if in doubt, copy canada".
3) Canada's current army is like an army of US Army Rangers.
4) Canada's pilots are better than everyone elses.
5) Everyone runs away when they hear 'aboot' Canadians in the area.
6) USA told Japan how to suprise them at pearl harbour.
7) Canadian soldiers are all war criminals.
8) British and French generals suck.
9) Canadians 1/2 suck from their Frenchness, are half badarse from their Britishness.
10)Habu cries like a girl.

wow, pretty constructive thread in the end, much better and more entertaining than the boring arse kerry/bush threads!

[Habu]

Let me guess. Never finished high school?

[Furball]

never went.

I went to secondary school, did A-Levels and would have gone to university too had illness not stopped me though.

[SC-Sp00k]

Listening to you blokes in this thread, you'd swear us Aussies were milling around in the bottom of trenches, picking our noses and flicking boogers over the parapets at the enemy!

So for us forgotten diggers, I give you Villers-Bretonneux. If we didnt stop their advance, you lot would have a few more ridge names and poppy fields to argue about.

When it comes to WW1, our lot, were in the thick of it from the beginning and your lot would be hard pressed to match them.

We were also at Vimy Ridge and suffered enormous losses.

I wont denigrate the Canadian effort at Vimy, it was supreme, but its a bit rich to believe it, as a single battle was a turning point in the War. All of our countries have over exuberant historians who like to make those claims whilst forgetting the enormous Allied Casualties prior to, including and surrounding these battles that bore the brunt of German steel, allowing our successes to succeed.

It could be argued that without the tremendous losses of the French, Brits and Aussies at Vimy Ridge, the Canadian attack would have met far greater resistance and failed.  Conquering Vimy Ridge whilst involving the adoption of new methods of attack by the Canadians was not wholey and solely the result of one countries efforts.

[loser]

Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Listening to you blokes in this thread, you'd swear us Aussies were milling around in the bottom of trenches, picking our noses and flicking boogers over the parapets at the enemy!

So for us forgotten diggers, I give you Villers-Bretonneux. If we didnt stop their advance, you lot would have a few more ridge names and poppy fields to argue about.

When it comes to WW1, our lot, were in the thick of it from the beginning and your lot would be hard pressed to match them.

We were also at Vimy Ridge and suffered enormous losses.

I wont denigrate the Canadian effort at Vimy, it was supreme, but its a bit rich to believe it, as a single battle was a turning point in the War. All of our countries have over exuberant historians who like to make those claims whilst forgetting the enormous Allied Casualties prior to, including and surrounding these battles that bore the brunt of German steel, allowing our successes to succeed.

It could be argued that without the tremendous losses of the French, Brits and Aussies at Vimy Ridge, the Canadian attack would have met far greater resistance and failed.  Conquering Vimy Ridge whilst involving the adoption of new methods of attack by the Canadians was not wholey and solely the result of one countries efforts.

Exactly

If it weren't for the Aussies, Lord Humongous would have been able to steal all the gas.

No gas means no fuel for the last of the V-8 Interceptors with roots style superchargers that you can turn off and on..and definately no gyro-copters.

[Habu]

The point of my post was not to say the Canadians won WW1. If that is all you got from the post then I have to say you are totally missing the point.

All nations that fought in WW1 had battles where they won and battles where they lost. Canada had over 60,000 war dead out of a country of little more than 3 million.

What the Canadians did do is discover a way to take ground that did not have to be paid with the blood of thousands for every mile. The Germans and British thought modern warfare at that time was simply a game of attrition. That is why the Brits were so keen to have the Americans join the fight. They figured if the death rates continued at the same levels eventually the Germans would run out of men and would lose the war. Imagine how stupid and callous the war planners had to be to think like that.

The Canadians demonstrated by using surfaces and gaps, and by allowing lower level officers to appreciate when to seize the initiative that you could take ground without loseing all your men in the process. The Germans had to analyze why they lost so badly at places like Vimy Ridge and Canal du Nord both which were supposed to be unpassible. When the Canadians blew by them the Germans wanted to know what they did wrong or more likely what the Canadians did right.

Remember even late in the war British Generals still did not get it. Haig still wanted the Canadians to attack the Germans at the Canal du Nord in their position of strength.

The Canadians crossed the canal rapidly (before the Germans could move the extra divisions up) and exploited the gain by encircleing and capturing thousands of prisoners.

Read the history of the last 100 days of the war. It is very interesting to see what the Canadians pioneered there and what continues to be standard battlefield doctrine right up to today. Look at how the Americans invaded Iraq. They were using the same 4 principles the Canadians used in WW1.

Today such battlefield logic is well understood and taught everywhere. But in WW1 it did not exist. If it did the war would have never degenerated into the static trench warfare battle of attrition that it did.

[Furball]

11. The Coalition based desert storm on the canadians in wwi.

[Habu]

The difference between a learned man and an ignorant one is that a learned one can read the newspaper and walk away with some new ideas. He may read a viewpoint that is different from his own but that will only motivate him to further investigate the topic to see if he or the writer is wrong.

An ignorant one reads the newspaper and pisses on any article that does not fit his idea of the world and only believes those that confirm his opinions.

The problem with having a closed mind (and sarcastic nature) is that you may think you are coming off looking funny and intelligent but the reality is that you are just coming off as ignorant. If you want to come off looking intelligent then try to defeat an idea you do not believe by posting arguements as to why it is wrong.

[Furball]

I couldn't care less if i appear ignorant on here, because i know i am not.  

I do have an open mind, and i often read the bbs to learn about what i do not know about (pretty much most things discussed on this bbs)  but, judging by the responses in this thread to your claims - it appears i am not the only one that does not agree with you.

I'm sorry if i have offended you, or upset you. But i very rarely take any (depending on circumstances) post on here as serious.  Which is why more often than not i make a sarcastic response.

[Cerceuilvolant]

Originally posted by Habu

The French had not yet panicked (just like the Germans when the Canadians reached the Canal du Nord in WW1) as they expected the river to be a major logistical barrier and the fact they had a major system of fortifications defending the line. They expected the Germans to stop and consolidate for several days or perhaps a week. Long enough for them to move an additional 11 divisions to the area.

 

There had no major fortifications along the Meuse in the Sedan area. The beginning of the Maginot Line was 90 km SE, and the area was just protected by (mostly) unfinished, low quality (built by the troops, not specialized workers) and firepower bunkers, barely able to stop an infantry crossing. Many of them didn't have their doors, because this sector was not considered as a priority. Not 11 reinforcement divisions were expected, just 2 or 3 other B divisions. The IXth Army was the weakiest one, and could not afford 11 divisions. Even the IInd Army at the South, and wich was stronger, couldn't afford 11 divisions. The Schwerpunkt was expect at the NORTH of Namur (Namur-Gembloux), and the Ist army was there to counter it. The french armored divisions that was kept in reserve around Reims were supposed to intervene for the Ist Army, not the IXth. They were later diverted to try to close the gap.

[Habu]

Your information disagrees with mine. I used this paper as one of my sources for this post. It is PDF so I cannot cut and paste from it but please read it and see what you think.

Link to Rand Institute Research Report