Re: [Epic] Canada in Epic

From: Mike Bowen <mbowen_at_...>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:38:10 -0500 (CDT)

Aha! Someone who knows WW1 history!


> > >
> >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.

5 miles, a HUGE gain by WW1 standards. The Allies were not able to advance
fresh troops to the new battle line. Troops were not "fresh" after
marching thru 5 miles of mud and shell holes. Again, the attack was kept
up for too long after all hope for a true breakthru was lost

Only 30,000 killed instead of 70,000 that were lost at the Somme.

> 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.

reinforcing the idea at HQ that more artillery was the key to winning,
not the quality of the troops on the ground, leading to the great
slaughter at 3rd Ypres.


The attack at Arras was one of the few bright spots for the Allies.

> 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.

I would include Neuve Chapelle in 1915 as a small victory. Again, a
small victory followed by great slaughter at Loos and 2nd Ypres.


>
> > 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.

Again, good troops betrayed by poor leadership. Very poor, in this case

>
> 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.
>
More wasting of good troops, though in this case, more of a political
move to keep Stalin happy. "We tried to open a second front, but failed.
Sorry Joe, just keep the Germans busy till we try again next year"

>
> 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).

Esp. with all the old artwork. Lots of Nazi hats/helmets on those orks.

> 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.
>
Eldar=Finns. Yes, real hard fighters, low on numbers.

also, maybe
Eldar=Germans. Few troops, hitech equipment, better tactics
"we need more living space for our exodites. Give us this star system,
 or Die, puny human."

IG= Soviets. Lots of troops and arty.


I would have the USA as Orks. Kult of Speed! We Love our cars! Ar. Ar. Ar.
More Power! Put that Blower AND Nitrous on that V8!
Lots of odd behaviour, like Loudspeakers on Tanks or waterskiing
behind Hueys or PBR's, using captured equipment.
Take other countries technology as our own, and make it "better"
Getting drunk on Beer that nobody else would even think to call beer
We specialize in goofy hitech weapons that don't always work
Nobody walks, because we have all those Jeeps and Trucks
Nearly everyone in the the Good ol' USA has a big shooty gun, and the
more the merrier! Gun control is being able to hit your target!
Dakka Dakka! The bigger the gun, the better!
Like the Orks, we like to order all the little people around.
Like the Orks, We Know were better than anybody, and we will tell you so.

>Eugene

mike
Received on Mon Aug 18 1997 - 05:38:10 UTC