Topic: Historical strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian Army

[HoratioNelson]

Every army, if you examine it's history, has it's own strengths and weaknesses. If you look at the United States Army, for example, you will see that they have always benefited from strong independent initiative on the part of their soldiers, plus excellent technology and abundant manpower and materiel. However, the United States Army also has a mentality of attacking head-on, regardless of circumstances (see: the invasions of Canada in 1812, Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive of the First World War, and many actions on the Western Front of the Second World War), which often contributes to much heavier losses than would be necessary. The British Army, for a comparison, has always been cool under fire and highly disciplined, and always relied on superior firepower and training to win it's battles, but has usually sacrificed in tactical flexibility and strategic mobility, and is sometimes overly cautious and slow to move as well.

Now, I'm just an amateur, and these are just the observations that I have made about those two armies, I might be completely wrong. However, that's not what my question is. My question is: If you examine and analyse the short, but distinguished, history of the Canadian Army, from the Northwest Rebellion to Afghanistan, what would be the greatest strengths and weaknesses of the Canadians at war?

[Officer of Engineers]

Strength, the regiment. Weakness, short memories.

[S2]

HoratioNelson Reply

"However, the United States Army also has a mentality of attacking head-on, regardless of circumstances...Now, I'm just an amateur, and these are just the observations that I have made.

Meuse-Argonne, eh? One W.W.I offensive conducted by U.S. Armed Forces yet you've countless examples of far worse blood-lettings from which to draw by other forces-German, British, and French from the same war.

W.W.II? Your examples? None.

Two of our most recent offensives, Desert Storm with it's famous left hook and OIF-functionally a double envelopment-remain unmentioned by your selective observations.

My observation?

You're a sock-puppet, rank-amateur fan-boy who should be reading more and presenting your observations less.

[JAD_333]

S-2,

You shoot to kill. Aren't you being a little hard on the fellow? Yes, he jumped to conclusions, but admitted being an amateur. You could have pointed him in the direction of a good book on the subject or poured forth from your expansive knowledge.

[S2]

JAD_333 Reply

"You shoot to kill. Aren't you being a little hard on the fellow?"

mea maxima culpa...

"You could have pointed him in the direction of a good book on the subject or poured forth from your expansive knowledge."

It's certainly not expansive though sufficient to recognize utter B.S. in this case.

Let's put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, shall we? I'll offer this-

Breakout And Pursuit-Martin Blumenson

...and this-

Certain Victory-Scales, et al.

He'll need to scroll to the "C" section and locate CERTAIN VICTORY to read such for free.

There. I've just saved him from $20 to $70 depending upon the editions he might otherwise choose to buy.

Hope that helps patch the holes in his brain and elsewhere...

Just some more of that inexhaustible American materiel.

[HoratioNelson]

I am sorry for my ignorance, sir, I had completely forgotten about Schwarzkopf and Desert Storm, which was indeed brilliantly executed, or Iraqi Freedom, which was another brilliant modern campaign. If you were wondering about my comment about WWII, I was thinking of the actions before the Siegfried Line, which were characterized by bloody frontal assualts, particularly by the First Army. The campaign in the Huertgen Forest stands out. But, of course, I really don't know anything, and I'll freely admit that and bow to your superior knowledge.

[S2]

HoratioNelson Reply

"If you were wondering about my comment about WWII, I was thinking of the actions before the Siegfried Line, which were characterized by bloody frontal assualts, particularly by the First Army."

I'm sure you had something in mind. What's troublesome is the absence of context or consideration about operational dilemmas faced by other armies under similar circumstance such as the German army before Sevastopol in W.W. II. Or, perhaps, the various Russian offensives-such as around the Yelnya salient in the late summer of 1941 as just one small example. Those are just a couple of examples upon which to draw.

Then, of course, were the myriad allied and German operations taken in W.W.I from which to draw experiences regarding frontal assaults. I've only the western front immediately in mind but that's adequate to illustrate my point.

"But, of course, I really don't know anything, and I'll freely admit that and bow to your superior knowledge."

Whatever...

I hope that in the future you'll take greater care in presenting your observations. I suspect you'll find most armies of the world guilty of severe tactical, operational, and/or strategic mistakes at one time or another. Repeated, then, over and over by others who've failed to heed history's lessons adequately.

Pigeon-holing an army's historical strengths and weaknesses too-often seems pursued only by ignoring the countless exceptions lying about.

I've said too much already. Enjoy your studies...