Tango2Bravo,
Let me first say that I found your post extremely facinating. As I mentioned before I have zero depth of knowledge with the Japanese/Russian war nor the effects it had on doctrinal development of European powers during the Great War, so I look forward to seeing that paper. I think you raise some good points about the manner in which various armies chose to interpret the lessons learned from that war. In my view it is certainly an area worthy of much more study as we are bound to run into the same sorts of situation in the future as we observe other wars unfold and attempt to keep pace with tactical and technological developments.
As for my observations about the offensive prowess of the Canadian Corps during the Great War...
I do contend that from 1917 to the end of the war the Canadian Corps was the single best army on the offensive, but I am not alone in that argument. Again, as I've mentioned before, scholars from a variety of different countries have made the same conclusions.
Let me also clarify a few points that I made earlier...
Again I am not trying to argue that the Canadian Corps invented tactics within its own void or bubble and then went on to destroy the Germans single handedly. What I am saying is that the Canadians took the lessons learned from Verdun and the Somme, and the rest of their own experiences on the front and translated that much better and more efficiently into new training, tactics and doctrine that allowed them to be more successful on the offensive.
Were the Canadians the only ones doing this? No. Were the British putting into practice the very same recomendations that Currie made for the preperation of the assault on Vimy Ridge, into their own plans for the wider Battle of Arras? Absolutely. The Canadians were not the only ones doing this, but they did do it better then any other army. I concede that my knowledge and background is not as in depth on the British and French side as it is the Canadian side, but that does not mean that it is non existant, simply not nearly as specialized. When it comes to the Germans, I have spent alot of time studying their tactics on the defence, but not so much on the offence during the Great War.
The reason that I support the arguments of several other authors much more experienced and wiser then I, that the Canadian Corps was the best offensive army on the western front is simply because of the results. I am a firm beleiver that the results speak for themselves. Again lets not forget that the Germans were much more fearful of the Canadians then they were any other formation for a reason, they delivered results. Thats not to say that other armies did not, it is however to say that the Canadians were doing it better. Does that mean that the British and the French had zero role to play in Canadian performance? Absolutely not. The Canadian Corps could not have engaged in the battles that it did without the immence logistical support of the BEF. Moreover the multitude of British staff officers assigned to Canadian units were an absolute necessity. The lessons and innovations provided by the French were also invaluable. However, when all is said and done, and H hour approached, it was our guys at the sharp end that had to go do it, and their results speak for themselves.
A few other points...
The Canadian Corps became known as Storm Troopers because that is what the Germans started calling them, and no I am not saying that because I saw it on the Passhendaele movie! Several correspondences from German soldiers to their families that I have been going over for the past few months reveal that same fact.
During the 100 days offensive the Canadian Corps is credited with destroying over 40 German Divisions. That is quite the tall order for 4 Canadian Divisions, granted they were much larger then conventional ones, so lets be generous and double the size. 8 Divisions destroyed 40, Im no mathematician but that looks pretty good to me.
During all of 1918 Currie was summoned to consult various other British formations and give them advice on the offensive. Why would that be the case if the Canadians were not out performing?
Although the British and the French were attempting to employ the same tactics as the Canadians, they were not nearly as effective at adopting a more decentralized style of command and control. This is something the Canadians implemented much better. Perhaps it was because there was a tiny bit of truth to the myth of the militiamen, or maybe it was due to cultural differences in Canadian society from those of the older European nations. I dont have the answer to that, but I do beleive the ability to push battlefield authority down to the lowest possible level is what gave Canadians the edge.
Again I am not an expect in the Great War history of the British or French armies, but I do know enough to know that they were not doing things nearly as well as the Canadian Corps on the offensive in the latter part of the war. The French had mutineed and refused to participate on the offensive until much later on, the British had battered beyond comprehension, the Americans never got it together in the Great War the way the did in the Second World War, and the Germans, although they displayed mastery of combined arms operations in their spring offensive of 1918, took the completely wrong approach. They went for a breakthrough, and actually succeeded partially before it was brought to a stop, but that was their undoing. By Contrast the Canadian Corps launched a series of successive, deliberate, limited aims objectives and systematically pushed the Germans back. Not nearly as sexy as a breakthrough, and most costly in lives then a breakthrough (assuming the breakthrough succeeds anyway) but it did get the job done.
