Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on October 14, 2004, 10:13:55 AM
-
The Germans were very effective at taking ground at the beginning of WW2. They blew by the big defensive lines the French and Belgians had constructed as a way of insuring that what happened in WW1 would never happen again.
The reason was superior tactics and specifically the Blitzkrieg. How did the Germans develop such an effective strategy?
They did it by looking at who was most effective at kicking their tulips in WW1 and copying their techniques. Of course the ones who hands down took the most ground and cracked the hardest nuts in WW1 were the Canadians. Starting with the unbelievable defeat at Vimy ridge and continuing right to the last days of the war the Canadians took a static trench warfare type of combat and defeated using massed attacks with rolling artillery barrages and precision timed troop advances. They used every technological advantage available to them including isolating German artillery positions using precision sound triangulation, and aerial spotting backed by the best fighter pilots in the war.
-
The good ole days.
-
canada has definately seen its zenith come..............and go.
But they do smoke great dope and import really cheap drugs from malaysia.....perhaps their phoenix will rise again...
-
Yea, I think we blew it around the time of the Avro Arrow. You should see some of the crazy trench raiding gear our boys used in WWI at our National War museum in Ottawa. They must have looked straight out of the dark ages with their spiked maces and breast plates.
-
It is interesting to see how a country can become the best in the world at something and then let it all go to nothing.
No politician has valued the Canadian miltary after the wars and our legacy is one of teaching others how to win in war and then forgetting what we developed, only to see our tactics and technology adoped by others and used with great success later.
-
I think that you grossly over esitmate the effect of Canadian military accomplishment on german military thinking.
In fact I would say its ZERO.
The origins of the Blitzkrieg concept are well documented. You can still buy the base materials if you like.
Where you got this idea I cant even imagine. But its pretty laughable.
-
So show us this well documented evidence.
The Blitzkrieg was a way of massing your resources in a well timed point attack that exploited the enemy's weakness, while not getting bogged down in a trench warefare style stalemate.
The Germans copied the Canadians.
-
>>The Blitzkrieg was a way of massing your resources in a well timed point attack that exploited the enemy's weakness, while not getting bogged down in a trench warefare style stalemate.
<<
i always thought it was the Vikings that developed the Blitzkrieg type of warfare.
-
thats like saying canada invented rambo when during ww1 a 16 year old newfoundlander got into the enemy trenches and took out a number of gun emplacements...
-
To a scholar it is not. But to you maybe it is.
-
Originally posted by Habu
So show us this well documented evidence.
The Blitzkrieg was a way of massing your resources in a well timed point attack that exploited the enemy's weakness, while not getting bogged down in a trench warefare style stalemate.
The Germans copied the Canadians.
Thats just ridicolous. I'll can just as easily say that the Canadians copied the German special assault tactics from the war. Neither of which have anything to do with Blitzkrieg..
I'm all for being proud of one's country, but polese keep the delusions in check...
-
This must be an american posting trying to make canadians look stupid.
So you contend that concentration of force is a Canadian war fighing concept copied by the Germans and called blitzkrieg?
I think the germans have a word for it in thier language for crist sake. Germans and war is like eskimos and snow.
You are delusional. You think your being scholarly?
Like I said, the evolution of Blitzkrieg and combined arms is well documented. Look up names like Fuller you numskull.
lol
-
We Germans are not a war like people, BUT WE HAVE OUR LIMITS!
-SW
-
Canada invented soup.
-
If you read the official British history of WW1 you will hardly find a mention of Vimy Ridge. However it was probably the most important victory of the war. It broke the back of the German generals in that once it fell they knew there was no way they could hold any part of the line if the Canadians attacked like that again.
Yet to British historians is was but a minor scurmish in a British war.
To Americans historians their entry into the war was the decisive turning point that lead to the Germans defeat but the Germans were already reeling at that point and any American actions were very costly to the Americans and not very successful.
The reality of the war is that the breakthroughs were being done by the Canadians and their tactics including the use of armour (although too primitive to really have much success) were the basis of all that came later.
The best British and German military minds could only formulate a plan that lead to hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers and a more of less static front. It was the upstart Canadian generals who showed how to win.
Keep in mind that trench warfare was the pinnacle of all military thought at that time. It was the result of the best military minds in the world. Hard to acknowledge that a small new country with little military history could make such a big impact and biased historians are not going to make such claims.
-
Canadians are well and truly honered for thier excellent contributions in WW1. The British and Germans and the whole world recognise the absolute failure of their military staffs or economies.
The Western allies could muster the troops to win but not the plan. The Germans could muster the plan but not the troops.
That America chooses to recogise their own contribution is not supprising. The aussies, Austrians, Italians etc etc including the Canadians do the same.
But to correlate Vimi ridge with blitz krieg is silly.
Me thinks you are just starting to learn about some of these issues and might gain a more measured view with much more research.
-
Tune in tomorrow for another episode of Canadian Catfight!
...........and now a word from our sponsor.
-
all a canadian ever needs to tell anyone is "we invented hockey" and "our strippers are really college student not hooker saying they are college student". that right there could put them in running for most evolved culture on planet earth. if i were alien spy i know where id want to be assigned. :)
-
Back when it was cool to be Canadian. WWI:lol
-
You guys can make fun of Canada all you want...
but Cirque Du Soliel is still more popular here in the US.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Me thinks you are just starting to learn about some of these issues and might gain a more measured view with much more research.
No my opinion is the result of looking at these issues for many years and having read many books on the topics and thinking beyond the biased history books that are so often quoted.
I think you are probably an academic who has been taught to reguritate other peoples opinions to the point where you adopt them as your own.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I think you are probably an academic who has been taught to reguritate other peoples opinions to the point where you adopt them as your own.
This is the tradionatl retreat of the person who proposes an extreme and outlandish pet theory and then gets the fcats and reality thrown back in their face.
In other words the: "Dammit think for yourself man!!!" proclamation, naturally proposing that only thoughtless dronmes could oppse you wonderous and unique discovery...
In this respect you really arent much different than the loons who propose that 911 was some government conspiracy.
-
Grun
I don't see any facts being thrown in my face just a few posts belittling my assertions with no examples proving anything wrong.
My reply is totally on the money I am sure.
You stretch to 911 just shows me how you are totally incapable of making a logical argument.
-
You arent much different than some consipiracy nut...
You take a small factoid, the battle of Vimy Ridge for example. And then yoiu twist and expand it out of all proportion and logic to make some greater point that is both outlandish and factually unsupportable beyond your tightly delimited context.
Moreover the consipracy nuts always demand that their outlandish theories be "proven wrong." When in fcat it is their burden of proof to validate and prove right their own theories..
Thats clearly what we see in your posts..
Pongo has been very nice in pointing you to the facts as to the orgin of blitzkrieg doctorine. I suggest yiou take his advice while he still bothers to offer it...
-
Canada flew aeroplanes so really they showed Japan how to attack pearl harbour.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You take a small factoid, the battle of Vimy Ridge for example. And then yoiu twist and expand it out of all proportion and logic to make some greater point that is both outlandish and factually unsupportable beyond your tightly delimited context.
Actually Vimy Ridge was only the first time a major battle was fought that was totally planned and executed by the Canadian Generals.
My point about the Blitzkrieg concerns the battles won by the Canadians during the last 6 months of the war up to the final day.
I can tell by your replies that you know nothing about this period so your replies are just the spouting off of someone with too much opinion and no knowledge. Something I am sure you are not afraid to do despite the fact it makes you look stupid.
-
If you are limiting your timeframe to the last 6 months of WW1 as the source of your Canadian blitzkrieg origin theory then you have a huge problem since the Germans instituted similar special assault tactics in the final spring/summer offensive of 1918. The offensive and its new tactics and weapons were very succesful in routing the trench system but as Pongo said Germany simply did not have the men to carry it through properly.
And simple facts like that is why you blitzkrieg theory doesnt work...
Let it go, be proud of your nation, but dont take its accomplishments to the point of obsurdity.
And stop the "I know everyting and you guys know nothing" insults, you allready look bad enough with your rantings so please dont do more damage to your position by trying to be a smartazz...
-
Vimy Ridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimy_Ridge)
The facts.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Canada flew aeroplanes so really they showed Japan how to attack pearl harbour.
Canadian pilots were the best of the best in WW1. That is true Furball. Barker Collishaw Bishop and probably the best of the war McLaren.
But Japan developed the plan to attack Pearl Harbour from a report published by an American many years before the war.
-
Originally posted by Habu
But Japan developed the plan to attack Pearl Harbour from a report published by an American many years before the war.
I assume this report was based on the British action at Taranto.
nope, couldn't have been if this report was before the war. What report Habu?
-
GS stop regurgitating the truth and think for yourself man!!!!
-
How was it supposed to influence the germans into 'blitzkrieg'? what was so radical about it? seems it was just a well planned out with training and logistics, then the walking artillery bombardment? i honestly know little about the battle.
If anything, it should be the Cambrai offensive which would influence them into Blitzkrieg. 14 R.F.C. squadrons for air support, no artillery to alarm the enemy, mass tank attack driving through the lines followed by (albeit, not enough) infantry attack caught the Germans completely by suprise.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Vimy Ridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimy_Ridge)
The facts.
From that site Curval:
"By late April it looked like the allies might lose the war - except for Vimy Ridge which had been held for a year. On August 8 1918 the Canadians, holding the Ridge, and Australians and some British units, attacked in one massive short bombardment and wiped out nearly all the German guns. As infantry, guns, air all moved into action, the entire force moved more in one day than in the entire war. All the elements of the battle worked: the German line collapsed utterly.
The Hindenburg Line fell and the Canal du Nord was crossed - in Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm was told he had lost, and must now surrender. There were no advances in the fall as details of the surrender were negotiated, led to the 1918 Armistice on November 11, 1918.
The war was over. But a new form of warfare had emerged, mobility-driven, that would be mastered by the defeated Germans and deployed as their 1939 blitzkrieg, or lightning warfare, embodying all they had learned (the hard way) in 1918."
Seems I am not alone in my opinion. What this site does not expound on is the fact that the tactics used in this advance and the main force leading the attacks were the Canadians lead by General Curry.
I am glad we are now moving beyond name calling and into the facts behind the period I was discussing.
-
Originally posted by Furball
How was it supposed to influence the germans into 'blitzkrieg'? what was so radical about it? seems it was just a well planned out with training and logistics, then the walking artillery bombardment? i honestly know little about the battle.
If anything, it should be the Cambrai offensive which would influence them into Blitzkrieg. 14 R.F.C. squadrons for air support, no artillery to alarm the enemy, mass tank attack driving through the lines followed by (albeit, not enough) infantry attack caught the Germans completely by suprise.
If the tactics used by the Canadians to cross the Canal du Nord and cause the collapse of the Hinderburg Line were so obvious and simple when why did the Brits lose hundreds of thousands of men achieving nothing for the previous 4 years?
-
Originally posted by Curval
I assume this report was based on the British action at Taranto.
nope, couldn't have been if this report was before the war. What report Habu?
Hint written by a very famous American officer who was drummed out of the service by court martial for advocating a seperate air force and better condtions for pilots.
-
Originally posted by Habu
If the tactics used by the Canadians to cross the Canal du Nord and cause the collapse of the Hinderburg Line were so obvious and simple when why did the Brits lose hundreds of thousands of men achieving nothing for the previous 4 years?
I am asking you what was so radical about it if you read what i said - again. Because i know little about it.
It was a brilliant accomplishment, but i cannot see the resemblance to Blitzkrieg. Cambrai seems much more like the german wwii equivalent with the combined air/armoured/infantry assault.
-
Originally posted by Habu
No my opinion is the result of looking at these issues for many years and having read many books on the topics and thinking beyond the biased history books that are so often quoted.
I think you are probably an academic who has been taught to reguritate other peoples opinions to the point where you adopt them as your own.
actually I am an ex infanteer in the PPCLI that has read about Vimy and other WW1 battles that helped define my regiment since I was quite a young man.
As has been amply demonstrated by others here. You are off your rocker. You dont understand what blitzkrieg even was much less what inovations the Canadians added to the effort in WW1.
The prinicples that you expound are nothing to do with blitzkrieg other then the concept of concentration of force in the attack. A concept that was written down when Vimy was populated by barbarians and Canada by tribes of hunter gatherers.
-
Originally posted by Habu
From that site Curval:
"By late April it looked like the allies might lose the war - except for Vimy Ridge which had been held for a year. On August 8 1918 the Canadians, holding the Ridge, and Australians and some British units, attacked in one massive short bombardment and wiped out nearly all the German guns. As infantry, guns, air all moved into action, the entire force moved more in one day than in the entire war. All the elements of the battle worked: the German line collapsed utterly.
The Hindenburg Line fell and the Canal du Nord was crossed - in Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm was told he had lost, and must now surrender. There were no advances in the fall as details of the surrender were negotiated, led to the 1918 Armistice on November 11, 1918.
The war was over. But a new form of warfare had emerged, mobility-driven, that would be mastered by the defeated Germans and deployed as their 1939 blitzkrieg, or lightning warfare, embodying all they had learned (the hard way) in 1918."
Seems I am not alone in my opinion. What this site does not expound on is the fact that the tactics used in this advance and the main force leading the attacks were the Canadians lead by General Curry.
I am glad we are now moving beyond name calling and into the facts behind the period I was discussing.
And why does your site say that by april 1918 it looked like the allies would lose the war? Was it because of dumb germans were stuck in their trenches, unable to to form new ideas like you say only the canadianbs could...
Nope, it was because of the German 1918 spring/summer offensive that used special assault and movemant tactics to defeat the tranches and succeded in driving almost all the way to Paris in 1918.. The only problem was that germans were spent by that point in the war and did not have the men and material to finish the job.
Your theory is wrong Habu, you are wrong on this issue.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Hint written by a very famous American officer who was drummed out of the service by court martial for advocating a seperate air force and better condtions for pilots.
Ok I will make it easy.
Read about it here
Billy Mitchell (http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blbillymitchell1.htm)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
actually I am an ex infanteer in the PPCLI that has read about Vimy and other WW1 battles that helped define my regiment since I was quite a young man.
As has been amply demonstrated by others here. You are off your rocker. You dont understand what blitzkrieg even was much less what inovations the Canadians added to the effort in WW1.
The prinicples that you expound are nothing to do with blitzkrieg other then the concept of concentration of force in the attack. A concept that was written down when Vimy was populated by barbarians and Canada by tribes of hunter gatherers.
Pongo nothing but a bunch of name calling has been amply demonstrated here.
You have done nothing but said I am wrong. If you are so learned in as few words as possible why don't you enlighten us as to what is unique about Blitzkrieg warfare and if the concepts of concentration of force was so well understood since the time of hunter gathers why WW1 degenerated into stalemate and why the Canadians broke the stalemate.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Pongo nothing but a bunch of name calling has been amply demonstrated here.
Now you openly lie.
-
Taranto proved that attacks against shipping with torpedo's in shallow harbour could be successful even against capital ships, the Japanese were much impressed by this and used the technique to attack pearl harbour.
Billy Mitchell proved capital ships could be sunk by aircraft.
Saying that the Japanese developed the plan for pearl harbour from a 1920's report seems a bit dilusional.
But Japan developed the plan to attack Pearl Harbour from a report published by an American many years before the war.
-
Habu.
fighing better then the Brits and French in WW1 doesnt establish any place in valahalla for the Canadian effort.
The germans wrestled for years for a way to regain a war of manuver. The Canadians didnt demonstrate that. I assume you are talking about actions like the Pursuit to Mons.
Hardly an example of Blitzkrieg. The Germans were simpley bled dry and had nothing left. Revolt forumlating at home. The people starving.
The canadians in that action didnt implement any doctrine remotely related to blitzkrieg. They simply kept chasing. They didnt move to encircle. I believe the quickly out paced thier arty. They certainly had no integrated fighterbomber capablitiy. They germans collapsed and the Allies kept up the preasure.
The germans STARTED ww1 with that kind of operation in 1914.
-
Originally posted by Habu
If the tactics used by the Canadians to cross the Canal du Nord and cause the collapse of the Hinderburg Line were so obvious and simple when why did the Brits lose hundreds of thousands of men achieving nothing for the previous 4 years?
That one is easy, the British Generals were a bunch of mass murdering morons.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Taranto proved that attacks against shipping with torpedo's in shallow harbour could be successful even against capital ships, the Japanese were much impressed by this and used the technique to attack pearl harbour.
Billy Mitchell proved capital ships could be sunk by aircraft.
Saying that the Japanese developed the plan for pearl harbour from a 1920's report seems a bit dilusional.
Read the second and third pages there Furball. You will get to the part about Hawai. Always good to read and reflect before fireing off an insulting post.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Now you openly lie.
Gurn post an example and your post would have so much more crediblity.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Habu.
fighing better then the Brits and French in WW1 doesnt establish any place in valahalla for the Canadian effort.
The germans wrestled for years for a way to regain a war of manuver. The Canadians didnt demonstrate that. I assume you are talking about actions like the Pursuit to Mons.
Hardly an example of Blitzkrieg. The Germans were simpley bled dry and had nothing left. Revolt forumlating at home. The people starving.
The canadians in that action didnt implement any doctrine remotely related to blitzkrieg. They simply kept chasing. They didnt move to encircle. I believe the quickly out paced thier arty. They certainly had no integrated fighterbomber capablitiy. They germans collapsed and the Allies kept up the preasure.
The germans STARTED ww1 with that kind of operation in 1914.
The hundred days as it later became know was started by the battle of Amiens. The Canadians used innovate tactics and even openly refused to follow the orders of the British to spearhead that attack, the ones that followed including the most important which was the crossing of the Canal du Nord, and defeat the Germans.
The race to the channel which marked the start of WW1 degenerated in the static trench warfare that followed for the next 4 years. Clearly trench warfare where a smaller army was capable of holding ground against an overwhelmingly larger one was the solution to the tactics the Germans used at the start of the war.
It was the Canadians that developed a way to overcome this solution and demonstrated it with stunning success in the Hundred Days and in the intial capture of Vimy Ridge. It was at Vimy Ridge that the counter attack to the great German offensive of 1918 was begun after the rest of the allied lines had basically collasped.
Vimy Ridge was the one place that did not get taken by the Germans in this counter attack.
Now back to my initial point. What was the key to the Canadians success in the Hundred Days and why was it so effective and different from what the British French and Americans were doing up to that point? And how was that related to the Blitzkrieg of WW2? What was the major innovation the Blitzkrieg was based on? If it was just another massed attack then what was so different about it?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That one is easy, the British Generals were a bunch of mass murdering morons.
Not only the British generals...
-
You said all that was demostrated in this thread was insults.
Thats not true, not even remotely. You may choose to ignore the inconvenient facts presented by GS, Pongo and me but that does not mean they were not prsented.
But look, I have enough experience arguing with kooks on this board to know thatv there is nothing any of us can tell you or show yoiu that will change your mind at this stage.
I knew it was over when you began the "think for yourself" routine.
-
Habu
Here is your post
"
The Blitzkrieg was a way of massing your resources in a well timed point attack that exploited the enemy's weakness, while not getting bogged down in a trench warefare style stalemate.
The Germans copied the Canadians.
"
You feel a set piece attack on the strongest held point on the whole front with a 7 day arty preperation that could be heard all the way to london, with no penetration or exploitation of the success at all is like Blitzkrieg? They built a model of vimy ridge..did the Germans build a model of poland to exercise on.
All of these things are the oposite of blitzkrieg. If the Germans had snuck in and stormed the largest fort in the maginot line they would have been copying the canadians.
Your assertion is so groundless and silly it is hard to even find a common denominator of fact to debate you about it. How do I convince someone who thinks that things like supprise a concentration of force in the attack where canadian inovations in war?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Habu, I did not call you names ... but you conveniently ignored my post.
Sorry GS I did not catch your post. I will reply later when I get home.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Habu
Here is your post
"
The Blitzkrieg was a way of massing your resources in a well timed point attack that exploited the enemy's weakness, while not getting bogged down in a trench warefare style stalemate.
The Germans copied the Canadians.
"
You feel a set piece attack on the strongest held point on the whole front with a 7 day arty preperation that could be heard all the way to london, with no penetration or exploitation of the success at all is like Blitzkrieg? They built a model of vimy ridge..did the Germans build a model of poland to exercise on.
All of these things are the oposite of blitzkrieg. If the Germans had snuck in and stormed the largest fort in the maginot line they would have been copying the canadians.
Your assertion is so groundless and silly it is hard to even find a common denominator of fact to debate you about it. How do I convince someone who thinks that things like supprise a concentration of force in the attack where canadian inovations in war?
Well quickly because I have to leave my office in a bit.
You are mixing up two totally different periods of the war. You seem so quick you name call that you are not even reflecting on the events.
Vimy Ridge demonstrated to the Germans that a coordinated concentrated attack using all technologies available when executed with precision timing was capable of taking the most heavily defended and dug in position with ease.
The Germans took that defeat analysed it and used the extra troops freed up by the truce with Russia to launch the offensive of 1918 which was intially very successful.
Canada countered the German offensive in the Hundred Days period by preventing the Germans from consolidating their gains and retaking all the ground lost and more. They did so by using the tactics that were later to develop into the Blitzkrieg type attack
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You said all that was demostrated in this thread was insults.
Thats not true, not even remotely. You may choose to ignore the inconvenient facts presented by GS, Pongo and me but that does not mean they were not prsented.
But look, I have enough experience arguing with kooks on this board to know thatv there is nothing any of us can tell you or show yoiu that will change your mind at this stage.
I knew it was over when you began the "think for yourself" routine.
You have not refuted nor discussed one thing relating to the military issues of this post. Every post you make is the same.
I am discussing with Pongo my arguements and asking him to define Blitzkrieg so I can show him the relavance to my original post. Still waiting for his reply. that is not ignoring his facts.
I replied to GS and will post more when I get home.
You have said nothing even remotely intelligent here and I don't expect you will so good bye and don't let the door hit you in the bellybutton on the way out.
-
Right. I have said nothing except to point out that Germans used the exact same theories in their early 1918 offensive that you were saying were used by the canadians in the last 6 months of the war - and that somehow those ideas inspired blitzkrieg.
Of course you have since altered your story to now say that the germans learned this from the canadians from vimy ridge. So when?
Dont try to weazel out of it now, because there are yoiur words Habu...
"My point about the Blitzkrieg concerns the battles won by the Canadians during the last 6 months of the war up to the final day."
So stop changing your story Habu....
And your original post is not blitzkrieg, read what pongo has been saying.
He disagrees with you.
What I see in this last post of yours is you waiting to pin Pongo onto some limited aspect of blitzkrieg and then hammer him with some wildly eggagerated link that you extrapolate from these late ww1 battles.
Not unlike what you have been doing the whole time.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Read the second and third pages there Furball. You will get to the part about Hawai. Always good to read and reflect before fireing off an insulting post.
you get insulted pretty easy mr habu. everything anyone seems to debate or say with you - you interpret as insulting or personal attack.
I have nothing against you, just differing opinion on this.
He also went to Europe and the Far East to study the advances being made in aviation. After returning from the latter trip in 1924, he wrote a shocking 323-page report--probably the most prophetic document of his career--that stressed that, when making estimates of Japanese air power, "care must be taken that it is not underestimated."
He predicted that air attacks would be made by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines and described how they would be conducted.
It seems from what i have read, that contrary to what you have posted, it was Mitchell prophesising what the Japanese would do rather than the Japanese basing their attack on his report.
Its like saying the soviets based the iron curtain on Churchills 1946 prophecy.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Not only the British generals...
and what do you mean by that?
-
Originally posted by Furball
and what do you mean by that?
The French ones too..
-
whats the definition of blitzkrieg?
-
Originally posted by Furball
Canada flew aeroplanes so really they showed Japan how to attack pearl harbour.
Those Candian BASITGES!!!! :rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The French ones too..
ahh! :)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
whats the definition of blitzkrieg?
According to Habu its a sustained week long artillery barrgae foloowed by a massed frontal attck on the enemys strongest point.
Its obviously excatly like what the germans did in 1940 as they bravely attcaked the heart of the maginot line after a devestaing bombardment of the French positions.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
whats the definition of blitzkrieg?
its german translates loosely to "if in doubt, copy canada"
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The French ones too..
Right.
-
hebu.
I have given your thesis more time and energy then it deserves.
It is defeated. You have posted nothing to support your assertion. Nothing to show you even understand why Blitzkrieg is a recognized as a military inovation.
So if Canada demonstrated the foundations of Blitzkrieg at the end of WW1(its not at Vimy now apperently, althought you seemed to be saying that Vimy was blitzkrieg like until I convinced even you otherwise) Then please save us the babble and post the exact reasons why. Show us the parity.
But I maintain that all that happend in 1918 is that the German gamble that was enabled by the armitice with Russia and provoked by the US entry into the war enabled mobile warfare to be waged. That Canada was the reason for that I had never heard stated. The reason that Vimy was the only place not taken if true is probably because the germans knew better then to attack the strongest spot in the line. amazing isnt it?
-
Originally posted by Furball
its german translates loosely to "if in doubt, copy canada"
Heheh.
-
Pongo go back and read what I have typed.
Really do so.
I never said the Blitzkrieg was based on Vimy ridge.
I used Vimy ridge as an example of how a British historian (in the official British history of the war) would rate Vimy as a relatively minor battle and victory. This is an example of the bias of British historians because Vimy was much more than that. Just read the German generals thought on that battle to see that.
My original post said that starting at Vimy (which was the start in that is showed that you can take any position with proper preparation) but more importantly is the next statement "and continueing right until the last day of the war". Here is where I am hinting you will find the correlation between Blitzkrieg and the tactics the Canadians were using to defeat the Germans.
Of course I could have just come out and spoon fed my reasons in the original post but I was hopeing people would see what the Canadians did in the last 100 or so days of the war and compare that to the tactics used by the Germans in the Blitzkrieg.
All thought it based on what was learned from what came before. From Vimy came ideas for the spring offensive of 1918 and from the defeat of the Germans in that offensive came the ideas of the Blitzkrieg
I keep asking you to state what about the Blitzkrieg makes it a military innovation but you refuse to answer yet you claim you are an expert on this topic.
I know what I think is unique about the Blitzkrieg and how it relates to what the Canadians were doing in the last 100 days but I want you come out and say it. That is how a debate works.
It is interesting the the link posted by Curval basically makes the same point I did even though I have never seen the link before. My school of thought on this is not unique and that author also makes the connection.
But if his thesis and mine are not worth your time and you feel no need to enlighten me on where I am wrong so be it.
-
"I know what I think is unique about the Blitzkrieg and how it relates to what the Canadians were doing in the last 100 days but I want you come out and say it. That is how a debate works.
"
Thats the triple crown. You dont understand Blitzkrieg, Vimy or debate.
-
The hundred days as it later became know was started by the battle of Amiens. The Canadians used innovate tactics and even openly refused to follow the orders of the British to spearhead that attack, the ones that followed including the most important which was the crossing of the Canal du Nord, and defeat the Germans.
The Hundred Days was a good example of combined arms operations, but what makes you think it was a Canadian innovation?
It was after all the British who developed tanks, which were rather important to combined arms operations.
The Hundred Days describes the British and Commonwealth combined arms offensive against the Germans, not just Canadian operations. The battle of Amiens consisted of 8 British divisions, 4 Canadian divisions, 5 Australian divisions, 2 US infantry regiments, and the French 1st Army, all under the cmmand of the British 4th Army. A British General, Rawlinson, was in command.
The Australian and Canadian Corps each contained 1 of the British divisions.
The British also supplied over 400 tanks, and the combined allied air forces over 1,000 aircraft.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
According to Habu its a sustained week long artillery barrgae foloowed by a massed frontal attck on the enemys strongest point.
Its obviously excatly like what the germans did in 1940 as they bravely attcaked the heart of the maginot line after a devestaing bombardment of the French positions.
Actually Grun you are wrong for the reasons stated in my previous post.
WW1 was all about week long artillery barrages and massed attacks after and each time the result was the same. The attackers got slaughtered.
But the Canadians started to do something different and were not slaughtered and started to win ground.
Can you tell me why this is so?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"I know what I think is unique about the Blitzkrieg and how it relates to what the Canadians were doing in the last 100 days but I want you come out and say it. That is how a debate works.
"
Thats the triple crown. You dont understand Blitzkrieg, Vimy or debate.
My opinion of you just drops lower and lower with each reply. You allude to this wealth of knowledge but I am still waiting to see it.
-
Right. I have said nothing except to point out that Germans used the exact same theories in their early 1918 offensive that you were saying were used by the canadians in the last 6 months of the war - and that somehow those ideas inspired blitzkrieg.
They weren't the same theories.
Germany didn't have the tanks or the aircraft to carry out operations in the same way as the allied 100 days offensive. Grmany developed and used small unit tactics of infiltration in their offensive in early 1918, which was pretty costly in the lives of their soldiers.
WW1 was all about week long artillery barrages and massed attacks after and each time the result was the same. The attackers got slaughtered.
To begin with. It's wrong to think the whole war was fought in the same way, though.
But the Canadians started to do something different and were not slaughtered and started to win ground.
Can you tell me why this is so?
It's a mistaken assumption.
The large scale adoption of tanks by the British followed the 1916 offensives, which show rather well that the British were seeking to innovate in tactics.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Actually Grun you are wrong for the reasons stated in my previous post.
WW1 was all about week long artillery barrages and massed attacks after and each time the result was the same. The attackers got slaughtered.
But the Canadians started to do something different and were not slaughtered and started to win ground.
Can you tell me why this is so?
So now yoiu say Vimy didnt have a week long artillery barrage to start?
Or is Vimy no longer central tro your theory? I forget which version of the tale you are spinning now...
You are enttled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts...
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Hundred Days was a good example of combined arms operations, but what makes you think it was a Canadian innovation?
It was after all the British who developed tanks, which were rather important to combined arms operations.
The Hundred Days describes the British and Commonwealth combined arms offensive against the Germans, not just Canadian operations. The battle of Amiens consisted of 8 British divisions, 4 Canadian divisions, 5 Australian divisions, 2 US infantry regiments, and the French 1st Army, all under the cmmand of the British 4th Army. A British General, Rawlinson, was in command.
The Australian and Canadian Corps each contained 1 of the British divisions.
The British also supplied over 400 tanks, and the combined allied air forces over 1,000 aircraft.
THat is a very good point and you are correct as all operations were combined at this point. It was how the attacks were exectuted and what was happening after each attack that was the basis of my argument.
The offical history would say the Canadians were under the command of the British 4th army but that was hardly the case. The Canadian General Curry was decideing how to make each attack and how to use his forces. The British set the objectives only. Haig did make the plans for the Canadians at Canal du Nord and Curry disobeyed them. The British were not in charge, if they were that very important battle (probably the most important battle of the campaign) would have been lost and thousands of Canadians would have died. Instead the Canadians crossed the canal and started a lightening advance on the other side.
-
Throwing off the the shackles of inept parlour Generals, was the best tactic the Canadians evar used.
-
Originally posted by Habu
My opinion of you just drops lower and lower with each reply. You allude to this wealth of knowledge but I am still waiting to see it.
My opinion of you started low and has stayed there or maybe dropped a bit.
You like the word allude. yet that is all you do. Allude to facts you do not present. Now we find that this is what you call debate.
Most of us do not. Most of us would say debate is you presenting your opinion and then supporting it. Not you presenting your opinion and then alluding to some facts you want people to guess at to prove you right.
You now seem to be focusing on the crossing of some canal as the birth place of Blitzkrieg.
Give us the details.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So now yoiu say Vimy didnt have a week long artillery barrage to start?
Or is Vimy no longer central tro your theory? I forget which version of the tale you are spinning now...
You are enttled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts...
Grun if I am wrong in a fact show me where.
Sinced you asked. Vimy was attacked by the allies before the Canadians attacked it and each attack was the same. Weeks of artillery followed by a mass attack where the British or French were all slaughtered.
The Canadians got it and were expected to fail as well but they did not only take the ridge but lost relatively few men in the process. The key reason is they did things differently. The week long artillary barrage was not a random attack on the positions they were going to attack but was directed at wipeing out the German artillery, something that suprisingly had not be done before. The Canadians had maped each German gun before the battle and they had ranged all of their guns so they could zero in on each German gun.
They also did not pound no mans land but tried to keep it intact for the battle so their troops would not get bogged down in the mud.
They also cut the wire by hand and did not expect the artillery to destroy it so they were not funnelled into the machine gun killing zones.
They did other things as well but by now you should get my point that Vimy was full of innovative concepts all applied together to achieve victory where others failed miserably.
As to how Vimy fits into my theory Vimy showed that different tactics could have dramatically different results from the stalemate slaughters the British were so good at organizing. However after the Canadians took Vimy there was no followup plan. They did not know what to do once they were on the ridge as no one in the British high command expected them to take it. What the Canadians learned from this was what they did in the last 100 days and that is what the Blitzkrieg was based on.
The rest of the battle of Arras that was part of the Vimy campaign sputtered to the halt and the British predictably failed to achieve their objectives which were against much easier targets than what the Canadians were given.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
My opinion of you started low and has stayed there or maybe dropped a bit.
You like the word allude. yet that is all you do. Allude to facts you do not present. Now we find that this is what you call debate.
Most of us do not. Most of us would say debate is you presenting your opinion and then supporting it. Not you presenting your opinion and then alluding to some facts you want people to guess at to prove you right.
You now seem to be focusing on the crossing of some canal as the birth place of Blitzkrieg.
Give us the details.
Read up of the battle Pongo. Think about what you read then come back and tell me if there is merit to this idea or better yet show by example that there is not merit to that idea.
-
I read the link Curval posted. The tactics used at Vimy Ridge don't even come close to even a remote resemblence to Blitzkrieg.
Also a British general was in command of the Canadian Corp with a Canadian general as Chief of Staff. There was also a British division assigned to the Canadian Corp .
Commanders generally issue orders to take a certain objective, or to hold a certain objective and the *how* is often left up to individual unit commanders.
Blitzkrieg was based on mechanized warfare. The armored units on the ground, supported by infantry and backed up with artillery and air support, would exploit weaknesses and breakthroughs to encircle enemy units. I personally see no correlation between tactics used by Canadian forces in WWI to tactics used by the German army in WWII.
-
So Habu, Vimy ridge did not have a week long artillery barrage? Right?
-
Originally posted by Furball
It seems from what i have read, that contrary to what you have posted, it was Mitchell prophesising what the Japanese would do rather than the Japanese basing their attack on his report.
Its like saying the soviets based the iron curtain on Churchills 1946 prophecy.
Furball I am suprised after reading that you do not see the Japan did not adopt ideas originally proposed by Mitchell in their attack on Pearl Habor.
In 1924 the US general staff could not even believe a plane could sink a ship (until after much resistance Mitchel got permission to show them how). In light of the backwards of the military thought at this time for the man to write a 300 page report outlining that Japan was the next big enemy to the US and how they could attack the US was simply amazing. He was right too and his senario played out. Other authors took his ideas about an attack on Pearl Harbor and built on them and they were know to the Japanese.
His ideas were ignored and damned by faint praise as so often in the military. He was court marshalled later as well. Innovative thought had no place in the US military in the 20's.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I read the link Curval posted. The tactics used at Vimy Ridge don't even come close to even a remote resemblence to Blitzkrieg.
Also a British general was in command of the Canadian Corp with a Canadian general as Chief of Staff. There was also a British division assigned to the Canadian Corp .
Commanders generally issue orders to take a certain objective, or to hold a certain objective and the *how* is often left up to individual unit commanders.
Blitzkrieg was based on mechanized warfare. The armored units on the ground, supported by infantry and backed up with artillery and air support, would exploit weaknesses and breakthroughs to encircle enemy units. I personally see no correlation between tactics used by Canadian forces in WWI to tactics used by the German army in WWII.
This is off the same site Elfie:
By late April it looked like the allies might lose the war - except for Vimy Ridge which had been held for a year. On August 8 1918 the Canadians, holding the Ridge, and Australians and some British units, attacked in one massive short bombardment and wiped out nearly all the German guns. As infantry, guns, air all moved into action, the entire force moved more in one day than in the entire war. All the elements of the battle worked: the German line collapsed utterly.
The Hindenburg Line fell and the Canal du Nord was crossed - in Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm was told he had lost, and must now surrender. There were no advances in the fall as details of the surrender were negotiated, led to the 1918 Armistice on November 11, 1918.
The war was over. But a new form of warfare had emerged, mobility-driven, that would be mastered by the defeated Germans and deployed as their 1939 blitzkrieg, or lightning warfare, embodying all they had learned (the hard way) in 1918."
Also regarding this point you made Commanders generally issue orders to take a certain objective, or to hold a certain objective and the *how* is often left up to individual unit commanders.
This quote is off the same site:
The Canadian Corps' commanders were determined to learn from the mistakes of the French and British and spent months planning their attack. They built a replica of the Ridge behind their own lines, and trained using platoon-level tactics, including issuing detailed maps to ordinary soldiers rather than officers or NCOs alone. Each platoon was given a specific task by their commanding officers, rather than vague instructions from an absent general.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So Habu, Vimy ridge did not have a week long artillery barrage? Right?
Line 7 in my reply to you Grun.
-
Just because the Canadians used different tactics than the French and British were using does not in itself equate to the beginings of Blitzkrieg.
Blitzkrieg was all about mechanized warfare, rapid advances to exploit breakthroughs by armor and encircling the enemy to force units to surrender so they couldnt *live to fight another day*. Artillery and aircraft were used in conjunction with the ground units. This resulted in a type of warfare never before seen.
-
You lay oout a bunch of innovative ways to overcome trench warfare but none iof that is blitzkrieg, not even the start of blitzkrieg. Like I said the germans developed ways to defest threnches by 1918 as well, but nobody in their right mind would claim that was the start of blitzkrieg.
-
Wouldn't the first use of shock troops and combined arms warfare be centuries ago with war elephants, cavalry, spearmen, swordsmen and archers?
Admittedly a very differant style of warfare than is really being discussed here, but the true origin of the use of combined, but differant forces in the one action none the less?
Romans, Pheonicians, Byzantines,Carthaginians etc used 'lightning war' style tactics many hundreds of years before anyone who took part in WWI was even a wicked grin and a glint in their daddy's eye.
As far as that goes, the first time Ugghmph realised that it would be harder for that brute Raaaarrr from over the valley to hit him with his half-a-tree-battle-club, if only Ohhhh would just stand behind him and throw rocks could be described as the first use of combined arms warfare.
I say blame it on the Italians and Greeks, most everything can be traced back to them screwing up somewhere ;)
-
Hey, the Greeks invented everything. You saw the movie.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Wouldn't the first use of shock troops and combined arms warfare be centuries ago with war elephants, cavalry, spearmen, swordsmen and archers?
using different types of units to support each other being used before the canadians...NEVAR! oh wait, i forgot this was grade 7 battle tactics, thought it was stroke canadas ego night at the strip club...
-
Habu. Your using Vimy again. Whats it going to be.
I have read about the battle. You need to quit being a little tart and tell us specifically what about blitzkrieg the Germans learned from the Canadians that wasnt 1000s of years old. You seem to think that the entire history of warfare pre 1918 was trench warfare.
I dont see any of the centeral tenents of Blitzkrieg in anything that you have said. Manuver warfare sure. Fluid warfare sure.
But nothing an American civil war Calvary officer wouldnt have recognised.
Your just way off base.
Probably a bit of a reach for you..but blitzkrieg was a failure. No one has ever been able to make it work again. When the Russians defeated it in 1941 it has stayed defeated. The US the Soviets the Germans the British,none could revive it.
They had manuver warfare. They had mechanized warfare. They had combined arms. But Blitzkrieg never worked again.
Personaly I think command and control and reconisiance evolved beyond the ability for blitzkrieg to overwhelm the whole enemy nation like it did in 1940.
But I suppose the canadians didnt know that when they designed it.
-
Ok Pongo since you have read some of the background important to my argument here are some fact to consider.
Most armchair generals consider Heinz Guderian the father of the Blitzkrieg and summerize this type of attack as an innovative use of tanks, combined with combined arms etc all learned from his study of the ideas of British military writers such as Basil Liddell Hart and John Fuller.
I propose that the weapons used by Guderian are not the real core of Blitzkrieg theory. Tanks were merely the most effective weapon at the time to execute such theory. In WW1 tank technology was in its infancy so they were less important in the actual battles fought by the Canadians. But central to the success of the Canadian troops in WW1 and the German Blitzkrieg were the following 4 concepts:
Center of Gravity
Mission type orders
Combined Arms
Surfaces and Gaps
Each of these tenets were first explored or fully exploited by the Canadians in WW1 and it was from these tenets that the Blitzkrieg concept evolved.
I will discuss Center of Gravity at the end but that was the lesson the Canadians learned at Vimy when the took the ridge and then did not exploit the gain quickly enough to have a much greater effect on the disoriented and defeated army that had lost that vital position.
Mission type orders: There are two elements (or contracts) to mission type orders. One element is the commanders' intent. This is a long-term vision of how he wants to attack the enemy and the final result he wishes to achieve. The short term and small slice of the intent is the order relating to a specific point within the accomplishment of a wider vision or mission. The key to success is ensuring a particular subordinate understands the commanders' intent two levels up, and those two levels below understand the order. Mission type orders can be thought of in very simple terms as centralized planning and decentralized execution.
Remember Vimy Ridge? It was the Canadian that pioneered a concept that they later used in every battle they fought. Contrary to conventional British military theory at the time that soldiers were ignorant and should only be pointed in the direction of the enemy and told to advance, and not be given detailed briefing or maps, the Canadian Generals believed individuals understanding the objectives of the attack and working together to overcome obstacles was key to the success. They trained using platoon-level tactics, including issuing detailed maps to ordinary soldiers rather than officers or NCOs alone. Each platoon was given a specific task by their commanding officers, rather than vague instructions from an absent general. This was a major and perhaps the biggest innovation the Canadians made in the war. No one else was doing it.
Combined Arms: Combined arms is the use of a combination of different types of fire. Actions taken by an adversary to avoid the effects of one type of weapon will quickly expose him to a second type of fire. This will result in confusion and a loss of cohesion within the enemies' forces and result in the creation of exploitable gaps within his defenses. In WW1 the Canadians used aircraft strafing, machine gun battalions, rolling timed artillery barrages, tanks and infantry all at the same time in their attacks. Every weapon available to General Curry was combined in each attack. They pioneered indirect fire by machine gunners and formed mobile machine gun battalions. They did not view the machine gun as a static weapon for example.
I will finish this tomorrow but do not leave with the idea Vimy ridge was a biltzkrieg attack. It utilized the concepts that were later central to the success of blitzkrieg but it was in the last 100 days of the war that the Canadians built on what they learned at Vimy and made full use of these at the time innovative concepts.
-
all of you are wrong, it was my US Marines (devil dogs) that won WW1 at the battle of bellou woods.
as in WW2 you euro's* can start wars but you can't finish them, so the americans have to come in and show you how to win wars.
* i consider canada, ozyland and NZ part of europe.
-
Mission type orders. You attribute that to Canadians?
You think each of the 2.2 million Germans under arms in 1940 were briefed personaly on all objectives in the battle of france?
You think that the Germans never had a concept of the focal point of battle. They have a world that means only that. schwerepunkt or something like that.
Combined arms you may be able to prove that it occured first to the canadians. But I doubt it.
Surfaces and Gaps. That sounds canadian all right.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Mission type orders. You attribute that to Canadians?
You ridecule, but you don't say who did come up with it.
You think each of the 2.2 million Germans under arms in 1940 were briefed personaly on all objectives in the battle of france?
You are misrepresenting what Habu said. He never said anything like all the military knowing what all the objectives are, he said.
"There are two elements (or contracts) to mission type orders. One element is the commanders' intent. This is a long-term vision of how he wants to attack the enemy and the final result he wishes to achieve. The short term and small slice of the intent is the order relating to a specific point within the accomplishment of a wider vision or mission. The key to success is ensuring a particular subordinate understands the commanders' intent two levels up, and those two levels below understand the order. Mission type orders can be thought of in very simple terms as centralized planning and decentralized execution."
Habu, you could have avoided almost 2 pages of BS if you had made your agruement at the beginning.
-
Originally posted by john9001
all of you are wrong, it was my US Marines (devil dogs) that won WW1 at the battle of bellou woods.
bois Belleau
Originally posted by Pongo
Mission type orders. You attribute that to Canadians?
You think each of the 2.2 million Germans under arms in 1940 were briefed personaly on all objectives in the battle of france?
You think that the Germans never had a concept of the focal point of battle. They have a world that means only that. schwerepunkt or something like that.
Combined arms you may be able to prove that it occured first to the canadians. But I doubt it.
Surfaces and Gaps. That sounds canadian all right.
That would be Clausewitz's "schwerpunkt" added to the "Zentrum der Kraft und Bewegung" as described in his Vom Kriege book.
-
Surfaces and Gaps:
Surfaces are enemy strengths, also referred to as hard spots. Gaps are enemy weaknesses, also referred to as soft spots.
The commander strives to match the combined arms strength against the enemy’s weakness. Because of the fluid nature of war, gaps are rarely be permanent and will usually be fleeting. To exploit them requires flexibility and speed. The British method of Central inflexible planning in WW1 was unable to exploit these gaps as it was too slow to respond. They were gone by the time a plan had been drawn up and anyway the troops were unable to execute such plans quick enough due to the lack of mission type planning.
Once gaps are located, exploitation by fast-moving, mobile forces is critical. Exploitation usually occurs at a gap and extends the destruction of the enemy by maintaining continuous offensive pressure. Exploitation destroys the enemy’s cohesion. In a classic demonstration of maneuver warfare, the commander aims to render the enemy incapable of effectively resisting by shattering his moral, mental, and physical cohesion and his ability to fight as an effective, coordinated whole.
Simply put in Blitzkrieg the objective is to advance rapidly by avoiding enemy strengths and focusing efforts against the enemy’s weaknesses.
In the Battle at the Canal du Nord the Canadians demonstrated graphically the concept of Surfaces and Gaps.
The objective of getting past the Canal, a critical defensive barrier in the Hindenburg line was given to the Canadians. This was a flooded canal, 30 metres in width with a dry section to the south. The British General Haig wrote the battle orders for the Canadians directing them to attack the enemy in their position of greatest strength, across a canal and into a fortified German trench. Curry flatly rejected the orders.
With the support of General Byng, Currie had bridges quickly assembled and crossed the dry section of the canal at night, surprising the Germans with an attack in the morning. A classic gap exploitation. The effectiveness of Canadian engineers, for whom Haig had no use was also demonstrated. Innovative combined arms thinking with mission planning won the battle.
After crossing the canal the Canadians exploited the german gap further by splitting their forces; attacking behind the German positions to the left and taking Bourlon Wood to the right of the crossing. Classic blitzkrieg encircling.
By October 1, the Germans had thrown 6 divisions into the fight.
Hardly the bled white force you and others mention Pogo. The tactics won the battle, the victory was not due to the lack of troops on the German side.
Another Blitzkrieg tenet was demonstrated with is a part of the Surface and Gap theory. As enemy cohesion breaks down, the exploitation may develop into a pursuit. The pursuit seeks to annihilate the enemy force once resistance has completely broken down. The condition of the enemy may determine whether an exploitation becomes a pursuit. The opportunity to conduct a pursuit is often fleeting and must be seized quickly by the commander. An encircling force must have continuous fire support and greater mobility than the enemy.
On October 9 the Canadians attacked Cambrai and by October 11 had secured the entire district with their 37 kilometer advance into enemy territory. This action had resulted in the liberation of 54 towns and villages. A classic pursuit style fight exploiting the gap created by the breakdown of the German cohesion.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Habu, you could have avoided almost 2 pages of BS if you had made your agruement at the beginning.
Thrawn when I read the simplistic historical interpretations of the orgins of the blitzkrieg the glossing over of major events in WW1 such as Vimy Ridge and the crossing of the Canal du Nord I am amazed at how superficial some sources are.
Massed attack and week long artillery barrages were standard military practice in WW1 and always failed. The adoption of some simple but very advanced battle concepts is what allowed the Canadians to win where others failed.
Maybe because Curry and the other Canadian Generals came up through the ranks and had no prior misconceptions or class system like the British Generals it allowed innovative ideas to be adopted much more readily.
I wanted to see what others here had to think. No sense coming right out at the begining and spoon feeding your ideas to everyone.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Furball I am suprised after reading that you do not see the Japan did not adopt ideas originally proposed by Mitchell in their attack on Pearl Habor.
In 1924 the US general staff could not even believe a plane could sink a ship (until after much resistance Mitchel got permission to show them how). In light of the backwards of the military thought at this time for the man to write a 300 page report outlining that Japan was the next big enemy to the US and how they could attack the US was simply amazing. He was right too and his senario played out. Other authors took his ideas about an attack on Pearl Harbor and built on them and they were know to the Japanese.
His ideas were ignored and damned by faint praise as so often in the military. He was court marshalled later as well. Innovative thought had no place in the US military in the 20's.
You said the Japanese based their attack on his report. I dont care what the US thought at the time that is not what we were discussing.
As i said, all i can see from that link you posted, from what of it i read.. is that Mitchell prophesised the attack. The japanese did not deveolop the planof their attack from it. All mitchell did was prove that ships could be sunk by aircraft.
I guess in your mind proving that ships can be sunk is enough for you to say "OMG!! the japanese based their attack on it because he said ships can be sunk!" and "OMG! the canadians took some ground so that must be the inspiration for blitzkrieg!!!"
Originally posted by Habu
Furball I am suprised after reading that you do not see the Japan did not adopt ideas originally proposed by Mitchell in their attack on Pearl Habor.
I know!!! i have a great idea!!! lets forrow the attack which our enemy expects us to do and has arready pubrished!!! they will never know!!!
You seem to make a point, then are deviating from it when making a reply. Lets not forget the thread title here: -
Originally posted by Habu
Canadians showed Germany the Blitzkrieg
and the other comments you made in this thread which i completely disagree with: -
Originally posted by Habu
But Japan developed the plan to attack Pearl Harbour from a report published by an American many years before the war.
Originally posted by Habu
Canadian pilots were the best of the best in WW1. That is true Furball. Barker Collishaw Bishop and probably the best of the war McLaren.
Yes they were very good and all credit to them, but by no means were the canadian pilots the "best of the best". Each country had outstanding pilots.
-
Furball you seem to be the one jumping to conclusions. Mitchell showed the US chief of staff the vunerabilities of the US forces especially at Pearl Habor.
Why don't you investigate the orgins of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor and you will see that the idea the Japanese read and used his report in the planning of the attack is credible.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Why don't you investigate the orgins of the attack on Pearl Harbor and you will see that the thought the Japanese read and used his report in the planning is credible.
maybe.. but i dont really care enough. unless someone shows me the info straight up. as i said - i was using the link you gave me as a basis. and from that i can see no way that the japanese attack was developed from the mitchell report. Just because mitchell foresaw it, it doesnt mean it was used to develop the attack.
Originally posted by Habu
Furball you seem to be the one jumping to conclusions.
nah, i have disagreed with you from the start.
-
To see how point in my original post about the Canadians showing the Germans the Blitzkrieg compare the battle at the Canal du Nord with Guderian's breakthough at Sedan.
Guderian intent in his blitzkrieg attack on France was to secure a bridgehead over the Meuse at Sedan.
On May 11 1940 lead elements of the 1st Panzer Division were 5 kilometers from the French border and 20 km from Sedan. The next day the entire corps advanced to the east bank of the Meuse just opposite Sedan in just 4 hours.
Guderian spent the entire morning of May 13 visiting his three division commanders conducting face to face coordination and explaining his aims for the upcoming operation. Here we see mission type order planning.
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.
Guderian identified a Gap in the French defenses and realized if he could cross quickly he could exploit that gap and get his panzers into the open country on the west side of the river before the French could close the Gap.
Guderians XIX Panser Corps crossed the Meuse on the fly exactly as the Canadians had crossed the Canal du Nord in WW1. After a combined arms bombardment of the river defenses by the Luftwaffe and artillery, infantry and engineers crossed the river in inflatable boats and secured the west bank. During the night of May 13 engineers managed to erect a bridge across the Meuse (just like the Canadians at the Canal du Nord) and Guderian got 150 armored vehicles across the bridge that night.
The similarities between Guderians action and that of the Canadians at Canal du Nord are striking. And both victories resulted in the breakdown in the cohesion of the enemy forces which was quickly exploited resulting in major gains over the following weeks.
-
Well I might grant you that the candians did the first modern assualt river crossing. But that isnt blitzkrieg.
Also
you have not made a case that prior to 1918 no german general briefed his battalion comanders on thier mission befor an attack.
I submit you will not be able to establish that.
-
Originally posted by Habu
It is interesting to see how a country can become the best in the world at something and then let it all go to nothing.
No politician has valued the Canadian miltary after the wars and our legacy is one of teaching others how to win in war and then forgetting what we developed, only to see our tactics and technology adoped by others and used with great success later.
thats cause at heart your not fighters. Your lovers.
Probably comes from the french heritage while your ability to use Technology undoubtedly comes from the Brits.
Which I suppose is a good thing. You only fight when you haveto.
after all when was the last time you saw countries HATING Canada?
You have people from all over the world hating everyone from Russia to Isreal to France to the USA.
Nobody hates the Canadians. Cept maybe the general population in southern Fla which you seem to like to invade every winter LOL
Your like the quiet kid sister sitting in the corner.
Quiet, semicute. but not worth messing with unless drunk.
:)
-
Habu, it's not spoon feeding, it's presenting your arguement.
Originally posted by Pongo
Also you have not made a case that prior to 1918 no german general briefed his battalion comanders on thier mission befor an attack. I submit you will not be able to establish that.
He doesn't have to. The implication is that he has to establish that it never in histroy did any one use the tennets by which he describes a blitzkrieg.
To properly refute his agrument some needs to either say his definition of blitzgkrieg is wrong, or if it is accepted, were it had been used in history before.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Nobody hates the Canadians. Cept maybe the general population in southern Fla which you seem to like to invade every winter LOL
:)
hey , we like Canadian tourests down here, y'all come on down, bring money, enjoy the sunshine. :cool:
-
Originally posted by john9001
hey , we like Canadian tourests down here, y'all come on down, bring money, enjoy the sunshine. :cool:
1.3 billion in 2002..... well not me personally but come December I hope to do my part...:D
-
During WWII, the Germans in Italy had a name for us Canucks: Furchtsoldaten. In point, if a German unit knew they were up against a Canadian unit, they would retreat.
Why? We tend not to take prisioners. Ever. It's why we advanced so far during D-DAY (with 1/3 of the soldiers on exactly the same German strenghts). Taking prisioners slows you down. Kill them, and you can keep on moving forward. :D
It was a well known fact, even up to when I got out in 97, that we don't take prisioners.
Besides, the training the average Canadian soldier receives is equal to a US Ranger. Imagine having an army consisting entirely of US Rangers. :eek:
-
Well that explains why the Allies took Italy so quickly and Caen.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Let me guess. Never finished high school?
-
never went.
I went to secondary school, did A-Levels and would have gone to university too had illness not stopped me though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
11. The Coalition based desert storm on the canadians in wwi.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR775/MR775.chap4.pdf)