Re: [Epic] Canada in Epic

From: Eugene E.W. <eug_at_...>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 21:09:05 -0400

----------
> > I wonder who Canada is in all this? I know they did exceptionally well
in
> > WWI (Or at least, I think) What about WWII, didn't we do a lot then
too?
>
> Nobody did real well in the Great War, except to prove that
> "Over the top, boys!" wasn't a good tactic. The U.K. and Germany
> only had decent tactics outside of Europe, in Africa and The Middle
> East, where tactics were possible, by way of the Arab Revolt and with
> Lettow-Vorbecks Raiders in Africa.
>
>In Europe, all UK forces were used in attrition attack mode, which
> meant that the UK Generals knew that with having more soldiers than
> Germany, Germany would lose because they would be "bled white" first.
> All troops on both sides were considered as cannon fodder.
> No new tactics till late '17 with British tanks and German Shock Troops
> in 1918.

Actually, that's not entirely correct, and the Canadian forces (under
British command) were an exception to the generalaties about the British in
WW1

The four divisions of the Canadian Corps were used as a unit at Vimy ridge
in 1917, and by using very precisely timed artillery support, they captured
the position and broke through the German lines -- the success was not
exploited because it was not expected. They succeeded because they
introduced the 'walking barrage'; a scheme whereby a steady curtain of
artillery fire would sweep forwards from the friendly trenches, with the
troops walking only a few paces behind the barrage. After Vimy, Canadian
troops were used as shock assault units for the rest of the war; they were
sent after the toughest objectives. Sometimes they succeeded, but not
always. Vimy, incidentally, was the first clear Allied victory on the
western front after the Marne in 1914.
>
> The U.K. forces in Europe were well respected by the Germans, to a point.
> it is summed up best by this quote from a German General(name escapes me)
>
> "The British Men fight like Lions, but are led by Donkeys"
>
I have heard that the arrival of Canadian troops into a specific sector was
taken by the Germans as an indication that an attack was likely to be
launched soon in that area.

The Imperial Gaurd in E40k doesn't have an option for Veterans, but if
there were, the Canadians would probably be nicely represented by a veteran
infantry/artillery army.

> In WW2 the Divisions from Canada did very well in France and Italy
> and not sure of how they did in S.E. Asia

They surrendered along with the rest of the British garrison in Hong Kong.
Apparently they, and the Australians, were the defenders who offered the
most resistance.

The Canadians were involved in a massive cluster-fuck called Dieppe, which
was sort of a practice Normandy thing. Because of Dieppe, the Allies
decided to land on beaches rather than trying to take cities directly by
amphibious assault. They also confirmed that airpower would be a handy
thing to have when staging landings.

One of the five Normandy beachheads (Juno, IIRC) was taken and held
entirely by Canadian troops. For most of the rest of the France campaign,
the Canadians fought the 17th SS Panzer (Hitler Jungend) division, which
was one of the two or three strongest Axis formations on the western front.
Both sides grew to loathe each other passionately, and there were incidents
of prisoner-killings on both sides.

Frankly, most any WW1 or WW2 army is best represented by the IG, although a
case can be made that Germans should be represented by Orks (although it's
hard to explain why they don't have any medium or heavy tanks). If you're
more trying to capture the 'feel' of the armies, however, then I think it
works best as:
Russia = Orks (although the T-34 was a lot better than battlewagons are)
Germany = Chaos (with the emphasis on infantry and tanks, rather than
daemons. Later in the war, they start using Lots of Chaos Cultists)
USA = IG (the Yanks believed in firepower, and lots of it, they also had
lots of vehicles)
Japan = Tyranids (they were a bit low on firepower, often died to the last
man, and, well, Banzai charges are a 'Nid specialty. The troops don't match
up well, though)
Britain = realistically, they'd be IG too, but you could call them Eldar if
you wanted... really, the Only WW2 combatant who had some strong
similarities to the Eldar were the Finns (from Finland, y'know). They used
ski troops for hit and run attacks, made excellent use of terrain, and
really HAD to keep the casualties down.

Probably, it's best to say Allies = Imperium and leave it at that, because
both Brits and Yanks used the same tanks (Shermans, mostly) and both had
elite units that could be represented by Marines (drop pods to represent
paratroopers? In that case the Germans should have them too, as well as the
soviets, but the Japanese shouldn't).

Regards, Eugene
Received on Mon Aug 18 1997 - 01:09:05 UTC