Talk:Battle of Vimy Ridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Decisive Anglo-Canadian Victory or British-Canadian Victory?

Would someone please justify their feelings on this? This seems to be controversial. --Zegoma beach 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the overall Battle of Arras, which was a British operation, and at least one British brigade went up Vimy Ridge itself on 9 Apr, which is not reflected on the map I uploaded to the page. Canadian nationalism aside, there were significant British assets employed in addition to the infantry brigade, including British artillery, service units, and the Royal Flying Corps who provided aerial recce.Michael Dorosh 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true but this battle is significant for Canadian history, so it's not "vandalism" when someone removes the "Anglo-" part from "Anglo-Canadian victory". We just never hear about anyone else's contribution to the battle; in fact we only learn that the British and French failed miserably before the Canadian attempt. It's just well-intentioned editing, not vandalism. I'm not sure what the British equivalent would be...Agincourt? Trafalgar? Waterloo? You probably never think of the Prussian contribution to Waterloo, right? Adam Bishop 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Importance to Canadian history does not mean that everyone else involved simply disappears, though. I'm not sure what your point is.Michael Dorosh 00:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing really, just that it's probably not vandalism, as you called it. Adam Bishop 00:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. An article on the larger Battle of Arras exists already. Feel free to label it "British victory" or whatever you will.
2. I'm not convinced that the British contribution was such as would require a modification of "Canadian victory." We ought to weigh substance against symbolism, true, but committing token forces to a major operation does not make one an equal participant (dozens of articles out there are described as "British victory" that included Canadian troops—perhaps you would like to systematically track these down and change them to "Anglo-Canadian victory"?) From my experience working with battles of different periods I'd say 1/3 is a good benchmark: When a given nation constitutes a third of an army, it is entitled to full representation. Not so in this case.
3. As for air assets, perhaps I should remind you that 24,000 Canadians served in the Royal Flying Corps (a third of RAF airmen were Canadian by 1918), so speaking of a "British" instrument, even there, is misleading. And arguing on the basis of service units, I have to add, is fairly weak. Somehow, I doubt the commissariat was involved in charging German trenches at the bayonet. Albrecht 02:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The confusion with the terms 'Canadian' and 'British' or 'Anglo' stems largely from the popular revisionist application or understanding of them in current parlance; mostly to serve the interests of a largely anti-British nationalism that regards Vimy as a 'founding mythology'. In the context of the period, of World War I, all Canadians were British. Canadian citizenship itself did not exist until 1947 and, even then, still included being 'British'. The Canadian Corps was a corps of the British Army. Canada, although a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire, remained subject to the British government. 'Anglo' is inappropriate in this context because it reduces the 'British' Army to a particular ethnicity, i.e., English, when, of course, 'Britishness' at the time applied to one's status within the Empire rather than to one's ethnic group. The 'Canadians' themselves were comprised mainly (approx. two-thirds) of soldiers native to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, whose British status and identity as members of the 'Canadian Corps'was not altered. One must distinguish between the identity of the 'Corps'at that time within the British Army and that of the identity of a whole nation in the same way that one identifies the 'Scottish' regiments as distinct from Scotland itself. There is a suggestion in the narrative that with the victory, being 'Canadian' implied no longer being 'British; as if the battle itself was won for 'independence'from Britain. There is absolutely no evidence for this even though it has been repeated so often that Canada is frequently referred to today as having been allied with Britain as they later were in World War II. It is worth noting in counterpoint that the recruitment posters and appeals in Canada for World War II continued to appeal largely to the British identity and sentiment of the Canadian population; even in Quebec, where French-Canadian nationalism and resentment toward the British in England and Canada and the notion of 'conscription' was as evident as it was in World War I. While there is no doubt that the performance of the Canadian Corps enhanced the developing 'Canadian' identity and supported the Canadian government's desire for a more distinct place 'at the table' alongside the Mother Country, the Imperial sentiment within Canada itself was sustained through the Statute of Westminster until well after the post-world war two period when successive political developments directed towards appropriating Franco-Canadian sentiment within the national identity has resulted in a re-branding of the country, its symbols and its history; including Vimy Ridge.pidd 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Done pidd! Very good overview that it very true. As a Canadian I agree wholeheartedly with your point here, and only wish that I had taken the time to make this same arguement. TrulyTory 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Albrecht on this subject. Although the Canadian "Identity" according to some didn't exist in WW2 and was a way to make the french happy after WW2 that is NOT correct. The Canadian identity was building since Confederation. As the first Canadian Prime Minister John A. Macdonald said at a time where most Canadians were devided "Let us be French, let us be English, but most importantly let us be Canadian!". Canada may have not have self goverment till the Statue of WestMinister, it may have not had its own Constitution till 1982 but the Canadian idenity started many years before World War 1, and The Battle of Vimy Ridge was one of the first things Canadians associate with the Canadian idenity that was building for many years to call their own because of the quick Canadian Victory that the French and British were not able to do. DimitriTheCanuck 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the 'Canadian'identity since Confederation, through the South African War, the First World War, the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the Second World War and until the sixties remained also a 'British' identity not an 'English' or 'French' one. The Canadian identity was transformed at Confederation from being 'French', i.e., Canadiens, to all subjects in the Dominion. Because the Canadian identity before 1968 wasn't the current sense of it (and by all accounts there remains a weaker unity in the sense of identity than those of previous generations) does not imply that they were somehow 'less' Canadian before 1982. It is just that the understanding had chanaged. Do not confuse the identity of the 'Canadian Corps' with that of Canadian citizenship. While the former was forged at Vimy Ridge, the latter was not an issue at the time; although certain anti-British and Republican sentiments did exist and have some influence.pidd 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to 'allies' as Canada and the UK were not 'allies' in the First World War. Canada was a part of the British Empire. Because the largest participant in the battle was the Canadian Corps they obviously deserve to be highlighted although it still might be misconstrued that Sir Julian Byng commanded only the UK forces when, in fact, he commanded all the forces with Sir Arthur Currie under him. It doesn't contribute to the myth that Canada was fighting for its independence like a Bunker Hill but it remains the historical fact.pidd 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian focus

Because this battle is so important to Canadians, many descriptions are from the Canadian point of view. But objectively, shouldn't there be more information on the defensive side, on the allied forces, and a less triumphalist tone? Being Canadian I probably have trouble identifying the problem areas, but I'm sure that someone from another nationality would spot the problem areas quickly.

The battle was strategically unimportant, and the greater campaign it was attached to did not have a grand effect on the outcome of the war. As far as the History of the War is concerned, it is of minor importance, but as far as the History of Canada is concerned, it is one of the defining moments. If I have any concerns, it is the fact that the British division attached the the battle disappeared in the description of the events of the battle. I also think there's too much concern about the lack of British representation in the "it's not only a Canadian victory" section. Those points might be worthy of mentioning, but on a scale of what was employed rather than pointing out that the British made a contribution. --Forgottenlord 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not a division, but a brigade of British infantry, that was attached to the Canadian Corps for the initial assault. But the point is taken.Michael Dorosh 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It says that the British assistance was sizable, but can you compare it to the Canadians commitment? In 4 days, the battle was over. Shouldn't that count for a good point? pirkid 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC) There should be a little bit of Canadian Nationalism expressed here. Either we should place Sir Arthur Currie in the Commander section or have some sort of quote attributing this battle to be intergral in the Canadian National Identity. Facepalming (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Return to Vimy

It should be also mentioned that a program to celebrate the 90th anniversary of Vimy Ridge is being planned, and it is huge. See http://www.returntovimyridge.ca/index.htm for details.

I was expecting a bit more hubbub about this. I was one of the Canadian students at the Memorial that day, and from what Ive seen, it was covered by French, English, and Canadian news channels. I thought it might be interesting to read a NPOV description of the events, as me, my peers, and several teachers in my group felt that it was somewhat... dissapointing. The news and event organisers seem to have nothing but praise for the event, but... bah, whatever. A little more info in that section would be nice, is all. 74.101.96.39 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indirrect Fire

"The Canadians also used a new technique they called "Indirect Fire", which utilized machine guns to hold German troops down in their trenches and also provide cover for their own troops..."

Indirrect Fire was not a new technique, just new as far as its application with machine guns.

Motorfix 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

strategic significance

Someone earlier said that Vimy Ridge had little, if none, strategic significance. That's not entirely true. Vimy Ridge was to be taken as a guard for the northern flank of the British forces in the Arras Campaign. The Germans also thought that it had a strategic significance. It's the highest point in the Vimy Area, it goes on for miles, and allows whoever controls it to have a view of the surrounding area that goes for miles. That seems to be a good reason for it to be a strategic position for whoever controls it.

Climie.ca 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Cam

Isn't that special?

Just watching a History Channel "broadcast premiere" doc saying wireless for art obs debuted there. Can somebody confirm? It also shows tunnels. Worth a mention? It also says, by Vimy, Canadians were the best flash spotters in the British Army. Confirm? Trekphiler 04:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

added references to Ted Barris' book

I added a few references from the Ted Barris book. Note:

• was mentioned the sound of guns could be heard from London. I thought this claim needed a reference, but Barris says it could be heard at the Hythe School of Musketry in "southern of England" so I took out "London". If anyone can find a reference for "London" then by all means...
• Barris' figures are 15,000 Canadians in the first wave and 12,000 in the second... to reconcile this with the existing "30,000" claim I changed it to "27,000". Also added that in total, 100,000 men were to take and hold the ridge. I added this since I think it's important to portray the scale of the battle. I assume this means there were more than 60,000 additional troops and support personnel to follow the first 2 waves... P. Moore 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Battle" section

Paragraph states "The first wave of about 15,000 Canadian troops attacked positions defended by roughly 5,000 Germans, followed by the second wave of 12,000 Canadians to meet 3,000 German reserves. Nearly 100,000 men in total were to take and hold the ridge."

This would seem to mean that 27,000 troops attacked 8,000 yet the German/Austrian casualties add up to 20,000 dead, and 4,000 captured, i.e. 24,000. I can understand why the intial strength may be "Unknown" but these numbers should make a bit better sense. DAG 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

150,000 French killed?

I requested a citation for this (in Background). Ted Barris' book "Victory at Vimy" page 256, says "During the spring and summer of 1915, the French Army had attempted to take the ridge with the loss of 40,000 men killed." Maybe there were 150,000 casualties & 40,000 killed? I'll leave this for about a month, then if no one responds I'll make the change citing Barris' book. P. Moore 12:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the french losses were not strictly the result of attempts to take the ridge but casualties related to all operations along that front during the Battles or Artois. The vast majority of casualties were suffered in taking nearby east-west ridge just north of Vimy Ridge, were is now located Notre Damn de Lorette, and in attacks on the Labyrinth. It would be more appropriate to cite Barris' source rather than Barris himself. If he does not provide a source the citation should not be included.

If you would like a more appropriate source from which to cite casualties I would suggest Battle of Vimy Ridge 1917 by Jack Sheldon and Nigel Cave, both of which are considered leading experts. --Labattblueboy 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Strategic advantage, or not?

The attack and objective had more limited grand-strategic significance as the simultaneous British and Australian attack to the south was unsuccessful.

More limited grand-strategic significance? Does that mean more significance, or less significance? Commking 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It means that, although strategically important, the Battle of Arras to the south ended largely in stalemate. In addition, the French offensive north of Verdun failed as well. So although the Canadians won, their allies were in no position to capitalize on it.

Climie.ca 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Cam

I've found full clarification. Vimy Ridge was strategically important for a simple reason, both sides had deemed it to be strategically important. The German's had used massive amounts of resources to fortify it, and the British were ready to assault it with four divisions [Canadian Corps], 1200 guns, and an additional brigade.

There's a fair amount of over-simplication going on here. The first is to see Vimy as a stand alone battle. It wasn't. It was a component of the Battle of Arras, which was in turn part of the Nivelle Offensive, which was in turn part of a stragegy for the War decided at Allied government level.

The ridge was symbolically important because of the blood spilled unsuccessfully trying to take it. It was important because it dominates the plain of Douai (with coal resources) and could be (and was) used for artillery ranging on Arras town. It was not of great strategic importance and was certainly not the natural fortress from which the big push that ended the war came a couple of years later (as a couple of editors have claimed here). Militarily Vimy was important because it tested new Allied (no, not exclusively Canadian) tactics that were eventually to break the trench deadlock.

It is not true to say that the Brits and the Aussies failed in their attacks on the Canadian flanks. They took and held nearly all of their (admittedly limited) planned objectives. What they didn't do was to achieve the long-dreamt of breakthrough (which means moving in force right through ALL the German lines, including the deep reserve ones) into the open country beyond and then engaging in conventional - as opposed to siege/trench - warfare. However the breakthrough had only ever been a fond hope: it was never part of the battle plan. Finally, Haig was forced to press the attack well after its sell-by date in order to stop the Germans reinforcing the their divisions at Champagne/Aisne where the Nivelle Offensive was floundering. Roger 07:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality please

I know that Vimy Ridge is important to Canada but that doesn't mean this article can be as gung-ho as it is or air-brush away inconvenient facts. For instance, the oficial Canadian war history places heavy blame for the loss of the ridge on German failure to have (a) its front line sufficiently manned; (b) its counter-attack divisions close enough to be effective and (c) its counter-attack made earlier enough. None of this gets a mention. I should also mention that Byng was an exceptional commander who recognised Curry's logistical abilities and sent him to Verdun to study French methods. Roger 17:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Roger. In particular, the failure to properly employ the "elastic defence" (which would work quite well on the Aisne) is frequently (and correctly) cited as a major factor in the success not just at Vimy Ridge, but in the entire northern part of the Arras offensive. Carom 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

canadian wounded figure

We can't seem to agree on whether it was 7104 wounded Canadians or 7004 Canadians. Could someone come up with one or the other and firmly reference it? Cam 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)User:Climie.ca

Nicholson in the (Official War History p239)) says "Canadian casualties in the two days' fighting totalled 7707, of which 2967 were fatal". Roger 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume those dates are April 9 and 10, in that case. However, the battle didn't actually end until April 12 (When "The Pimple" was taken) and the fatal casualties were, by that point, 3,598. Significantly heavy casualties were taken attempting to wrestle "the pimple" from German forces. Cam 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge (Osprey) gives the same fatalities figure as you (3,598) and Central Powers about 2,000. No calculation of casualties though. Roger 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

German Casualties

The figure of 20,000 casualties seems exceedingly high considering that there were probably well below that number of men defending the Ridge, including the reserves that were brought up. Kscheffler 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We really do need sources every time for casualty figures. We do have sources for fatalities: it makes sense here to quote them in the absence of anything better Roger 06:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sound of the Guns

Is there any reference that can be cited for the statement regarding the sound of the battle being heard a hundred miles away in England? 24.168.5.87 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is well attested. It's associated with drumfire. The poet Edmund Blunden wrote about hearing the Somme barrage in Kent: "in Southdown villages the schoolchildren sat wondering at that incessant drumming and rattling of the windows". If you have access to the Times Digital Archive there was considerable correspondence about it in mid and late August 1917. There's a scientific explanation too (The Times, Tuesday, Aug 21, 1917; pg. 9; Issue 41562; col C Gunfire. A Paradox Of Audibility. GEORGE F. SLEGGS, B.Sc. Category: Letters to the Editor). Hope this helps. ROGER ^TALK 08:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Commander section tab - re: Sir Arthur William Currie

Currie became 1st Canadian Division on 13 September 1915 and Canadian Corps commander on 9 June 1917 (after Sir Julian Byng's elevation to command of Third Army in June 1917). Given Currie was a division Commander for the attack I do not think it would be prudent to include only 1 divisional commander and not the others, if any are to be included at all. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, except Currie, by that time, served the informal role of Strategic Planner for the entire Canadian Corps. Him and Byng effectively planned the entire offensive, and then simply relegated the roles to the other divisional commanders. So, yes, we should probably include the other divisional commanders, I think that Currie has slightly more emphasis because of the major role he served in developing the offensive. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Currie played a more senior role, vis-a-vis the other divisional commanders, during the planning process and without doubt served as the "#2" of the corps. However it was certainly not a strictly Byng-Currie planned operation, there were a good number of hands in the cookie jar. The other divisional commander were certainly not simply delegated roles. In fact, Byng gave his divisional commanders a great deal of operational and planning freedom. When it comes right down to it, Byng was the unquestionable commander of the corps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Currie should be included. Canadians have a lot of respect for Byng (heck we made him Governor General) but when you ask anyone who commanded the Canadian corps into battle that day, you mostly hear Currie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facepalming (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Currie was the most senior Canadian divisional commander, no question. He was not however given command of the Canadian Corps until Byng's promotion to commander of Third Army in June 1917. Currie is sometimes noted as the leader in sources that intent to present the battle's achievements within a strictly Canadian nationalistic point of view (ie Historica Minutes and sometimes Norm Christie). Lastly, no First World War corps sized battle articles, that I have seen, note divisional commanders and I can't see a reason to do so in this instance.Labattblueboy (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the summary quote by Brig. General Ross? Even though it was made a long time after the battle, the Battle of Vimy Ridge is integral in the Canadian identity. TheStarter (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested that it be removed as par of the A-level and FA-level work currently being conducted. The influence of the battle has been made much more clear through the creation of a influence section that outlines the importance of the battle. I am currently working on the Vimy Monument page and I am incorporating the quote there as it was made during the monument unveiling and is most appropriate there. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TheStarter (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Union Jack/Flag

I have heard that on land the British flag is called the Union Flag, and only at sea is it the Union Jack. Also, would Canada not have fought under the Red Ensign, or was that just WWII? 70.54.126.60 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They did fight under the Red Ensign, as per photographs of the 2nd Canadian Division available at the Library Archives Canada. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this line, then, from this article: "Alternatively, it is most historically accurate to note that the Canadian soldiers of the First World War fought for the British Expeditionary Force, and therefore under the Union Jack, rather than any Canadian flag." 70.53.109.112 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this article? MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

About the flag, in WWI Canadians did fight under the Union Jack but had shoulder flashes and cap badges identifying them as Canadians with maple leafs and all. In WWII, Canadians fought under the Red Ensign, which had the Union Jack in the Canton on a red flag with the Canadian Coat of Arms. Note that the Red Ensign was an unofficial flag. Although it was unofficial, when Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson decided to give Canada a new flag, the proposal was vehemently opposed by the Royal Canadian Legion. Canada's new flag since 1965 is that instantly recognizable red-white-red with a red maple leaf in the middle! Facepalming (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about the line "Canadian soldiers of the First World War fought for the British Expeditionary Force" (well, about the whole line really, but I must pick my battles). What, then, is the Canadian Expeditionary Force? If my understanding of Nicholson is correct, yes, for a large part of the war, the CEF was under under British command (including Haig by the end of the FWW), but really, saying the Canadian Corps fought FOR the BEF is a rather ludicrous statement. Wikig39 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikig39, I wouldn't worry too much. Ultimately the entire 90th anniversary of the battle section needs to be scrapped, rewritten and properly cited. I am in the midst of working my way through the article, when I have time, but it may be a bit before I get that far.--Labattblueboy 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs)

I share the concern about the statement by MelicansMatkin that "Canadian soldiers of the First World War fought for the British Expeditionary Force." While the Canadian Corps was a corps of the British Army, it is commonly stated that Canadian soldiers enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force[1]. As to the flag: While the Union Jack was officially the flag of Canada, the Red Ensign has been widely used since confederation and was carried by the troops at Vimy. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish Canadian, New Zealand and Australian units (each of whom have their own version of the ensign flag) from British units. Sunray (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Equipment & Staffing Section

Equipment

The Ross Rifle. Abandoned in favour of the Lee-Enfield by the end of 1916.

Insisting on the utilization of Canadian manufactured equipment, Canadian Minister of Militia and Defence Sir Samuel Hughes presided over the deployment of equipment that was often inappropriate for the Western Front, or of dubious quality. Previous to 1917, this had negatively affected the operational performance of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The Ross rifle, MacAdam Shield Shovel, boots and webbing (developed for use in the South African War), and the Colt machine gun were all Canadian items which were eventually replaced or abandoned due to quality or severe functionality issues. The management of spending for supplies was eventually taken away from Hughes and assigned to the newly formed War Purchasing Commission in 1915. However, it was not until Hughes' resignation in November 1916 that the Ross Rifle, which often jammed in trench warfare conditions, was fully abandoned in favour of the British standard Lee-Enfield rifle.

Staffing

Canadian staff officers possessed an extremely limited level of experience and competence at the start of the war, having been discouraged from passing through the British Staff College for many years prior. Compounding the issue was Sir Samuel Hughes' regular attempts to promote and appoint officers based upon patronage and Canadian nativism instead of ability, an act which not only created tension and jealousy between units but ultimately negatively affected the operating performance of the Canadian Expeditionary Force as well. Byng eventually became so incensed with the continuous interference on the part of Hughes that he threatened to resign. Criticism from Field Marshal Douglas Haig, King George V and from within his own party gradually forced Canadian Prime Minister Sir Robert Laird Borden to tighten control over Hughes. However, it was not until Hughes' political isolation, with the creation of the Ministry of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada and subsequent forced resignation in November 1916, that the CEF was able to concentrate on the task of the spring offensive without persistent staffing interference. Decreased political involvement in staffing eventually permitted Byng to develop an organizational climate which principally rewarded military merit. This allowed the true quality of senior commanders and staff to emerge well prior to the battle.

refs.

• Haycock, Ronald (1986). Sam Hughes: The Public Career of a Controversial Canadian, 1885–1916. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN 0889201773.

• McInnis, Edgar (2007). Canada - a Political and Social History. Toronto: McInnis Press. ISBN 1406756806.

• Dickson, Paul (2007), "The End of the Beginning: The Canadian Corps in 1917", in Hayes, Geoffrey; Iarocci, Andrew; Bechthold, Mike (eds.), Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp. 31–49, ISBN 0889205086

---

I originally wrote the staffing section but have really begun to feel it should maybe be included in the Canadian Expeditionary Force as it feels rather out of pace here. Thoughts? Labattblueboy (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Combined use of forces

What I miss in this article is the fact that the allies used all the parts of their force COMBINED. So, the airforce, artillery, infantery and cavalry worked in unison for a set of common objectives. So the line: "The success of the Canadian Corps in capturing the ridge is attributed to a mixture of technical and tactical innovation, meticulous planning, powerful artillery support, and extensive training." doesn't capture the whole thing. Something entirely new was done. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Wereldburger758 (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The main focus in the battle was the coordination of artillery and infantry. The cavalry were not part of the plan. Byng did request cavalry at one point to exploit the success of his right flank. But due to the lateness of the request, the cavalry division was not available. [2]. Likewise, I don't believe the air force played much of a role in the battle. Certainly air force units were not a part of the plan and I can find no mention that they took part in the attack. Sunray (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I though the article did a pretty good job in showing the combined effort of various forces. Artillery supports infantry, air support infantry and artillery, small armour detachment supports 2nd Can. Div, ect.
Air - A small section of the article (Battle in the air) already discusses the support played by the air force. Also note that the article mentions air units that were attached to the Canadian Corps and for what purpose they were employed. In the artillery section it is also mentions the employment of fixed wing and balloon units for observation.
Cavalry - As Sunray mentioned, Byng made an attempt to employ cavalry to exploit the gains made but the order came too late and as a result it did not succeed. A line could/should likely be included about this and I will see what I can do.
Artillery - Already extensively discussed, in great detail. No more detail needed.
Infantry - Already extensively discussed.
If you could provide detail on how you think the article could be improved to show the links that would be appreciated--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As the air support was in the form of reconnaissance rather than close air support, I wasn't crediting it as playing a role in the actual attack. Labattblueboy is right, though, that the air support was significant in preparation for the attack. We might comment on the evolution of air support in connection with Vimy if there are sources that discuss this. Sunray (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I began reading this article after seeing a documentary about this battle on tv. So my knowledge is very limited. What I thought is that some kind of blitzkrieg had taken place. Coordinated efforts of the forces. After reading the article I can only conclude that this has taken place just in a limited way. Also was I mistaken in the way tanks were used in this battle. What I could remember from the documentary was that it was used extensively. The article says otherwise. Since I don't know much about this battle nor do I have any articles that claim otherwise, I will regard what is being written in this article as true. Thank you for your comments. Wereldburger758 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As a Wikipedia good article, you can have some confidence that it provides a balanced and accurate account. I think your reference to "blitzkrieg" is descriptive of the creeping barrage, which consisted of waves of artillery fire directed progressively towards the target, followed by infantry advance. However, the blitzkrieg wasn't employed in its full form until WW II. Sunray (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why this is not a featured article?

I mean, it's well written, well referenced, clear, seems comprehensive etc...Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was peer reviewed in September. A number of suggestions from that process have yet to be implemented including improving the commemorative section and adding additional German perspective. I am hoping to do so when I get some free time over the Christmas break. I would agree though, it's certainly on track for FA in the future. Labattblueboy (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree too Wereldburger758 (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We're getting there ... TheStarter (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Promoted to FA status! Great work! Special kudos to Labattblueboy. Sunray (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FAN work needed

Additional incorporation of German material is needed to improve the article to FA quality. Fi any parties have access to either of these sources:

1. Sheldon, Jack (2007). The Battle for Vimy Ridge. Barnsley (UK): Pen & Sword Military (Battleground series). ISBN 9781844155521. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
2. Sheldon, Jack (2008). The German Army on Vimy Ridge 1914-1917. Barnsley (UK): Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 9781844156801.

Could you please incorporate additional information on the German side. Areas of identified as needing improvement include

• German artillery strength and strategy
• German casualty figures (dead and wounded)
• German responses during the offensive
• German tunneling
• German trench raids of actions against the Canadian Corps prior to the attack. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

More precise description of physical features is required

"Vimy Ridge is a gradually rising escarpment 8 km northeast of Arras on the western edge of the Douai plain. At approximately 7 km in length and culminating at an elevation of 145 m, the ridge provides a natural unobstructed view for tens of kilometres." To me this is meaningless. gradually rising from where to where ? in which direction ? from what height to what height ? elevation of 145 m - the elevation above its surroundings is what matters, not above sea level. Needs to be made explicit which is referred to. Unobstructed view of what, in which direction ? The description needs to contribute to the reader understanding why it was worth 3600 dead and 7000 wounded, and why it took a brilliant campaign to capture it at a relatively low cost for the times. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. A reader needs only understand that the attack was uphill and the defenders had a more advantageous point of view. To be frank, it's actually a pretty detailed description of the battlefield. Coupled with the maps provided and those in the commons a more than sufficient background is provided for comprehension. Nevertheless I have expanded the description a bit.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your addition of a few words made a big difference (to me anyway) ! Thanks. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Creeping Barrage image

Is it worth adding an image showing how the effects of the creeping barrage tactic used by the Canadian corps continue to exist today? There this image at Commons which I took and uploaded that could be used to illustrate it if so. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The photo would likely do better as a general image of the memorial site landscape. The image is not of damage caused by artillery but that cause by an underground mine explosion. Was this photo taken at the road intersection on site, because it looks like the Broadmarsh crater. If it was taken at the road intersection you might me interested to know Richard Basil Brandram Jones won his VC on the far lip during the minor German offensive in May 1916. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was taken alonga road though not at an intersection. There was a whole series of rises and dips just like that which ran along the whole road to the main memorial site. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the word "decisive"

I personally disapprove of the use of the term "decisive" X victory in infoboxes to battles because the correct use of the term is usually very hard to pin down and loaded with POV. Yes this was a famous victory for the Canadians, but seen in the bigger context of the Battle of Arras and the Nivelle Offensive, I can't really call it decisive. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada was part of the British empire

so why does it say allied victory? wouldn't british-canadian victory be more appropriate? canada wasn't england's ally as such, Britain still had dominion over Canada Jimmysales7 (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian issue

My Grandfather served at Vimy Ridge alongside the Canadian army. He always described it , "The first army raised by Canada, paid, fed, armed by Canada and led by Canadian officers and NCOs".AT Kunene (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue?--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)