British/Commonwealth Forces in NW Europe
Moderator: John W. Howard
Sid
Cool. I know what you mean about not asking more questions. In Dem Co. RAR we had a CSM who had done the post war Malay / Borneo etc
scenes and many who had been in for 15 years or more.
Talk about pros. I got back from my first bush patrol with RAR and headed in to get a shower and a drink. By the time I got out of the shower the RAR types were already cleaned up, changed, and practicing battle drill! I still headed to the pub, but with just a little shame in my heart!
Reb
Cool. I know what you mean about not asking more questions. In Dem Co. RAR we had a CSM who had done the post war Malay / Borneo etc
scenes and many who had been in for 15 years or more.
Talk about pros. I got back from my first bush patrol with RAR and headed in to get a shower and a drink. By the time I got out of the shower the RAR types were already cleaned up, changed, and practicing battle drill! I still headed to the pub, but with just a little shame in my heart!
Reb
-
Martin Schenkel
- Supporter
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:40 am
- Location: Ft. McMurray, Canada
IIRC, the prefered weapon of Gurkhas was (still is?) a special type of dagger that they used to slit the throats of the enemy.Freiritter wrote:A buddy of mine, an U.S. Marine, had gone on an exercise with Gurkhas in South Korea, a few years back, and said that they were tougher than they were. That says a lot from a Marine.
"Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence" - Sun Tzu
I saw a documentary on the Ghurkas (modern). Mercenary is an honored profession there and there is a major competition among males for the selection to the Ghurka Battalion of Brit Army. Many of the men start training for the selection from an early age. So the Brits are getting the best of the best out of this deal.
reb
reb
-
Freiritter
- Associate
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
- Location: Missouri, USA
I think the unique Gurkha weapon is called a kukri and I saw a documentary that featured one. This had stated that the kukri's forward angled blade was designed to employed in a chopping motion. Also, it stated the Gurkha honor demanded that each time the weapon was unsheathed, blood must be shed. I would also think that potential recruits could get combat experience in the current Maoist insurgency there. Another question: I've been reading an account of the 2 NZ Division online, and it stated that the 2 NZ Div was under the 2 NZ Expeditionary Force. Was this a higher headquarters that controlled all NZ forces in the ETO/MTO and did the other Commonwealth troops there have similar higher HQs?
Cordially,
Freiritter
Cordially,
Freiritter
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
-
Martin Schenkel
- Supporter
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:40 am
- Location: Ft. McMurray, Canada
This HQ is also sometimes refered to as the 2nd NZ Corps. It was however more or less a temporary HQ, sort of along the lines of German Korpsgruppe/Korpsabteilung. Basically, the NZ divisional commander (Freyberg) was alloted extra corps and army artillery (and other support) assets under his direct command, as well as the services of an extra division (as Reb pointed out). This new 'HQ' was created primarily for operational purposes (the Cassino battles), and not for political control of NZ forces.Freiritter wrote:Another question: I've been reading an account of the 2 NZ Division online, and it stated that the 2 NZ Div was under the 2 NZ Expeditionary Force. Was this a higher headquarters that controlled all NZ forces in the ETO/MTO and did the other Commonwealth troops there have similar higher HQs?
The Commonwealth Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) did reserve the right for overall political control of their own overseas units serving under British theatre command. I'm not sure about the other dominions, but Canada set up its own overseas HQ (CMHQ - Canadian Military HQ) based in London, England, answering to the Canadian Parliament via the Minister of War. CMHQ thus maintained direct political control of all Canadian forces serving in the European and Mediterranean theatres. The British would ask CMHQ for use of Canadian forces (in strategic planning, not individual operations/battles), or CMHQ would ask the British to use Canadian forces. However, it was assumed Canadian forces would take part in the invasion of occupied Europe (that was the whole purpose of setting up First Cdn Army HQ), so CMHQ was more for just 'watching' to make sure Canadian forces were used 'properly' by the British. Since CMHQ answered to the Canadian government, it would have to accept requests by the government, although usually CMHQ made suggestions to the government, and the government would say yes or no.
I would assume, that the other dominions had some form of military/political liason in England in order to act as a middleman between the British war office and the respective national governments.
"Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence" - Sun Tzu
Today most Gurkhas serve in the Indian Army, they have a lot of battalions in their 6 regts. However, although the deal at Indian independence was that Brit and Indian armies would pay their Gurkhas the same, the Brits have somewhat better allowances and conditions so get the pick. Kukri is not a 'prefered' weapon, it is the traditional one. Being short it can't deliver the same force as a sword or axe but a good user can take the head off a pig in a single blow providing the pig's neck is on a log or similar. In Burma many (most in some units) British soldiers also carried kukris.
During WW2 terms like NATO's 'full command', 'operational command' or 'tactical command' did not exist. Basically Dominion forces (Aust, Cdn, NZ, SA) served under Brit high command with the condition that their divisions and generally corps served together and weren't split up (ie individual units being detached elsewhere) unless there was an overwhelming operational need (meaning a crisis) and that there would be agreement about their operational roles. Indian formations generally weren't split up but mainly for logistic reasons but there were other factors. For example I previously referred to the Gurkha motorised bde joing a Brit armd div in Italy, GHQ Delhi was most unhappy about this (the bde had been assigned to IS duties in Palestine) because the higher casualties would mean they wouldn't have enough Gurkhali speaking Brit officer replacements in the short term (the old maxim 'there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers' has 'influences' in the other direction as well). African formations also stayed in at least bde size formations.
For most of the campaign in NW Europe 1 Cdn Army was about 50% Brit (1st Corps).
The temporary NZ Corps under Freyburg appeared a couple of times IIRC.
During WW2 terms like NATO's 'full command', 'operational command' or 'tactical command' did not exist. Basically Dominion forces (Aust, Cdn, NZ, SA) served under Brit high command with the condition that their divisions and generally corps served together and weren't split up (ie individual units being detached elsewhere) unless there was an overwhelming operational need (meaning a crisis) and that there would be agreement about their operational roles. Indian formations generally weren't split up but mainly for logistic reasons but there were other factors. For example I previously referred to the Gurkha motorised bde joing a Brit armd div in Italy, GHQ Delhi was most unhappy about this (the bde had been assigned to IS duties in Palestine) because the higher casualties would mean they wouldn't have enough Gurkhali speaking Brit officer replacements in the short term (the old maxim 'there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers' has 'influences' in the other direction as well). African formations also stayed in at least bde size formations.
For most of the campaign in NW Europe 1 Cdn Army was about 50% Brit (1st Corps).
The temporary NZ Corps under Freyburg appeared a couple of times IIRC.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Guys,
If I remember correctly, 2nd New Zealand Division was so numbered because the New Zealand Division used in the WWI was considered "1st".
I imagine that the degree of British control over Commonwealth armed forces depended largely on the degree of political independence each had from London. Canada and Australia were big enough to assert themselves where necessary. Australia had a huge row with the UK over the Japanese threat and eventually withdrew all its land forces from the Middle East in order to address it. By contrast, New Zealand, under exactly the same Japanese threat, but smaller and more dependent on London, kept the bulk of its forces in Europe to the end of the war. As already pointed out, the sensitivities of South Africa's Afrikaaner population meant that initially the country's two field divisions were only contracted to serve in Africa.
It should also be noted that the Commonwealth was not without influence in London. Halifax was, I think, a Canadian and General Smuts gave South Africa Churchill's ear throughout the war.
Commonwealth considerations also sometimes restricted operations. Churchill stated that had the expeditionary force sent to Greece in early 1941 been composed entirely of British troops, he would have demanded that the Peloponese should have been fought for. As it was, with the bulk being Australians and New Zealanders, he had to take into account extra political considerations that inclned him to an early withdrawal.
In discussing internal Commonwealth tensions sixty years on, it should be remembered that national identities were not then so distinctive and there was a much stronger sense of a common British heritage and mutual obligation than today. That said, it should be noted that there was a joint Commonwealth Division in the Korean War, as late as the Falkands War New Zealand offered to send a frigate and Australia gave up its agreed purchase of a British aircraft carrier, and, for all its UN veneer, the recent Timor operation was largely conducted by Commonwealth troops.
Cheers,
Sid.
If I remember correctly, 2nd New Zealand Division was so numbered because the New Zealand Division used in the WWI was considered "1st".
I imagine that the degree of British control over Commonwealth armed forces depended largely on the degree of political independence each had from London. Canada and Australia were big enough to assert themselves where necessary. Australia had a huge row with the UK over the Japanese threat and eventually withdrew all its land forces from the Middle East in order to address it. By contrast, New Zealand, under exactly the same Japanese threat, but smaller and more dependent on London, kept the bulk of its forces in Europe to the end of the war. As already pointed out, the sensitivities of South Africa's Afrikaaner population meant that initially the country's two field divisions were only contracted to serve in Africa.
It should also be noted that the Commonwealth was not without influence in London. Halifax was, I think, a Canadian and General Smuts gave South Africa Churchill's ear throughout the war.
Commonwealth considerations also sometimes restricted operations. Churchill stated that had the expeditionary force sent to Greece in early 1941 been composed entirely of British troops, he would have demanded that the Peloponese should have been fought for. As it was, with the bulk being Australians and New Zealanders, he had to take into account extra political considerations that inclned him to an early withdrawal.
In discussing internal Commonwealth tensions sixty years on, it should be remembered that national identities were not then so distinctive and there was a much stronger sense of a common British heritage and mutual obligation than today. That said, it should be noted that there was a joint Commonwealth Division in the Korean War, as late as the Falkands War New Zealand offered to send a frigate and Australia gave up its agreed purchase of a British aircraft carrier, and, for all its UN veneer, the recent Timor operation was largely conducted by Commonwealth troops.
Cheers,
Sid.
Hi Guys,
Hope you do not mind, but to go back to the original question:
Land Forces:
North West Europe
Canada
United Kingdon
Italy/Greece
Canada
India
New Zealand
South Africa
United Kingdon
Air Forces:
North West Europe
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdon
Italy/Greece
Canada
New Zealand
South Africa
United Kingdon
Best Regards
Mace
Hope you do not mind, but to go back to the original question:
Land Forces:
North West Europe
Canada
United Kingdon
Italy/Greece
Canada
India
New Zealand
South Africa
United Kingdon
Air Forces:
North West Europe
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdon
Italy/Greece
Canada
New Zealand
South Africa
United Kingdon
Best Regards
Mace
-
John Kilmartin
- Contributor
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Hi Sid,
It was Beaverbrook who was the Canadian in the British Cabinet. Since there was no such thing as a 'Canadian citizen' at the time it is really hard to make a distinction as he spent most of his adult life in the U.K. Bonar Law who had been in cabinet during the Great War was also born in Canada and if I am not mistaken is the only British PM not born in the home islands.
It was Beaverbrook who was the Canadian in the British Cabinet. Since there was no such thing as a 'Canadian citizen' at the time it is really hard to make a distinction as he spent most of his adult life in the U.K. Bonar Law who had been in cabinet during the Great War was also born in Canada and if I am not mistaken is the only British PM not born in the home islands.
' Strip war of the mantle of its glories and excitement, and it will disclose a gibbering ghost of pain , grief, dissappointment and despair'
Hi SidSouth Africa's Afrikaaner population meant that initially the country's two field divisions were only contracted to serve in Africa.
This 'contract' didn't apply to those SA forces of the RAF, did it?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die
And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi CY,
South Africans could volunteer to serve outside Africa and a division operated in Italy in 1944-45.
I presume that the South Africans in the RAF were such individual volunteers. If I remember rightly, the South African Air Force had its own numbering system for its own squadrons, whereas I think the other white Commonwealth countries had their squadrons numbered in the RAF sequence. (I seem to remember that 2SQ. SAAF flew reconnaussances over Romania from Italian bases in 1944).
Cheers,
Sid.
South Africans could volunteer to serve outside Africa and a division operated in Italy in 1944-45.
I presume that the South Africans in the RAF were such individual volunteers. If I remember rightly, the South African Air Force had its own numbering system for its own squadrons, whereas I think the other white Commonwealth countries had their squadrons numbered in the RAF sequence. (I seem to remember that 2SQ. SAAF flew reconnaussances over Romania from Italian bases in 1944).
Cheers,
Sid.
I think that pre-war sqns retained their numbers, typically starting with 1, but the war formed sqns generally used the 4nn series.
South African law only permitted the militia to serve on the African continent, Australia had the same rule although they changed the definition of Australia to include Papua island! In both case volunteers could serve anywhere. Of course the SAs has suffered significant losses in NA, not least when they lost Torbruk, the remnants of both divisions were withdrawn home and a new volunteer armoured division formed for Italy.
South African law only permitted the militia to serve on the African continent, Australia had the same rule although they changed the definition of Australia to include Papua island! In both case volunteers could serve anywhere. Of course the SAs has suffered significant losses in NA, not least when they lost Torbruk, the remnants of both divisions were withdrawn home and a new volunteer armoured division formed for Italy.
Commonwealth military contributions/cooperation was, as various posters have described, a complex subject.
Speaking for my own country, Canada maintained two of what might be called "national representative" headquarters in London -- one for the Canadian Army (CMHQ, mentioned by Martin Schenkel) and one for the Royal Canadian Air Force ("RCAF Headquarters Overseas", commanded by Air Marshals Edwards then Breadner). Neither appeared in what we would today call the "operational chain of command".
It should also be said that the Canadian Army was more distinct than the RCAF. Indeed, notwithstanding RCAF HQ in London and the very title "RCAF", in a very real sense there was no such thing as a distinct RCAF, seperate from the RAF.
Fundamentally, the RAF was a single entity, the only thing Canadian was that those squadrons titled "RCAF" were recruited primarily from Canadians, at least as regards aircrew. But in many cases a majority of the ground crew were non-Canadian (primarily British) and the equipment (including the aircraft) often "belonged" to the British (not Canadian govt).
And neither were the RCAF squadrons grouped together. The Canadian bomber squadrons (obviously) served in Bomber Command; eventually they were all collected together into a single group (6 Group), but even then that group was simply one of the constituent groups within Bomber Command, and many of the group level staff were RAF. Other squadron types served within their respective commands.
As someone remarked earlier in this thread -- during WWII "citizenship" was pan-Emperial. Some pre-war regular RAF officers were in fact from the dominions (most notably "Mary"Conningham, the eventual commander of 2nd Tactical Air Force, and from Canada Raymond Collishaw). Despie their nationality, those men were RAF not RNZAF/RCAF etc officers. During the war itself, especially in the early years, many dominion citizens travelled to the UK and joined the RAF, rather than their respective dominion air force (often times, after failing to gain admission to their respective dominion air force). In at least one case, Canadian personnel in the RAF were collected together into a "Canadian" squadron (242 Sqn), but as those were Canadian personnel in the RAF, rather than RCAF personnel, 242 was an RAF squadron, not an RCAF squadron. Confused yet?
Once the war was underway, most aircrew were trained in Canada (under the British Commonwealth Air Training Programme, or as Churchill always called it, the Empire Air Training Programme), regardless of where they came from or whether they were "RAF", "RCAF", "Canadian in the RAF" or "Brit in the RCAF" (all possible combinations and permutations, depending upon who one was and what recruiting station one walked into). The resulting stream of new aircrew were fed into units as required, the only distinction between RAF and RCAF personnel being that they tried to send RCAF personnel to RCAF squadrons. Tried. You know how military personnel systems go.
Further complicating the issue was the way personnel were allotted within the RAF's personnel management system, which was by modern standards highly decentralized. One of the Canadian governments beefs with the RAF was that because personnel were not centrally tracked, they didn't even know where all of their citizens were with the RAF. There was not even a system for notification when they became casualties, other than that the address for next of kin with the squadron orderly room would happen to be in Canada rather than the British isles.
Wrestling with this issue was the chief activity of the RCAF HQ Overseas, an issue that came to be termed "Canadianization." For some excellent online references on this obscure fray, see:
"Manpower Problems of the Royal Canadian Air Force during the Second World War"
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/downloads/ahq/ahq067.pdf
Speaking for my own country, Canada maintained two of what might be called "national representative" headquarters in London -- one for the Canadian Army (CMHQ, mentioned by Martin Schenkel) and one for the Royal Canadian Air Force ("RCAF Headquarters Overseas", commanded by Air Marshals Edwards then Breadner). Neither appeared in what we would today call the "operational chain of command".
It should also be said that the Canadian Army was more distinct than the RCAF. Indeed, notwithstanding RCAF HQ in London and the very title "RCAF", in a very real sense there was no such thing as a distinct RCAF, seperate from the RAF.
Fundamentally, the RAF was a single entity, the only thing Canadian was that those squadrons titled "RCAF" were recruited primarily from Canadians, at least as regards aircrew. But in many cases a majority of the ground crew were non-Canadian (primarily British) and the equipment (including the aircraft) often "belonged" to the British (not Canadian govt).
And neither were the RCAF squadrons grouped together. The Canadian bomber squadrons (obviously) served in Bomber Command; eventually they were all collected together into a single group (6 Group), but even then that group was simply one of the constituent groups within Bomber Command, and many of the group level staff were RAF. Other squadron types served within their respective commands.
As someone remarked earlier in this thread -- during WWII "citizenship" was pan-Emperial. Some pre-war regular RAF officers were in fact from the dominions (most notably "Mary"Conningham, the eventual commander of 2nd Tactical Air Force, and from Canada Raymond Collishaw). Despie their nationality, those men were RAF not RNZAF/RCAF etc officers. During the war itself, especially in the early years, many dominion citizens travelled to the UK and joined the RAF, rather than their respective dominion air force (often times, after failing to gain admission to their respective dominion air force). In at least one case, Canadian personnel in the RAF were collected together into a "Canadian" squadron (242 Sqn), but as those were Canadian personnel in the RAF, rather than RCAF personnel, 242 was an RAF squadron, not an RCAF squadron. Confused yet?
Once the war was underway, most aircrew were trained in Canada (under the British Commonwealth Air Training Programme, or as Churchill always called it, the Empire Air Training Programme), regardless of where they came from or whether they were "RAF", "RCAF", "Canadian in the RAF" or "Brit in the RCAF" (all possible combinations and permutations, depending upon who one was and what recruiting station one walked into). The resulting stream of new aircrew were fed into units as required, the only distinction between RAF and RCAF personnel being that they tried to send RCAF personnel to RCAF squadrons. Tried. You know how military personnel systems go.
Further complicating the issue was the way personnel were allotted within the RAF's personnel management system, which was by modern standards highly decentralized. One of the Canadian governments beefs with the RAF was that because personnel were not centrally tracked, they didn't even know where all of their citizens were with the RAF. There was not even a system for notification when they became casualties, other than that the address for next of kin with the squadron orderly room would happen to be in Canada rather than the British isles.
Wrestling with this issue was the chief activity of the RCAF HQ Overseas, an issue that came to be termed "Canadianization." For some excellent online references on this obscure fray, see:
"Manpower Problems of the Royal Canadian Air Force during the Second World War"
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/downloads/ahq/ahq067.pdf