PDA

View Full Version : 60 years on, Canada's D-Day veterans remember taste of reven



EvanL
05-23-2004, 11:16 PM
MONTREAL (AFP) - As D-Day dawned over his crammed landing craft, Romeo Boulanger looked out in awe at wave upon wave of boats and warplanes lining up to be flung at Nazi-occupied France.


AFP/File Photo



Sixty years on, Boulanger, a retired major in Canada's storied Chaudiere Regiment, is among many Canadian veterans, remembering the death, confusion, and heroism of the day when they punctured a deep hole in German defenses.


For many Canadian soldiers, D-Day was a shot at revenge, for a blood soaked-day in 1942, when British and Canadian troops launched an ill-fated bid to seize the French coastal port of Dieppe.


In that debacle, conceived as a morale boost for weary allied populations after a string of stinging Nazi defeats, 900 Canadians died, 2,000 were wounded and 1,900 were taken prisoner.


But when Boulanger, saw the formidable array of military hardware massing for the invasion on June 6, 1944, he knew D-Day would be different.


"When we took up position off Bernieres-sur-Mer, I knew right then that we couldn't fail," Boulanger, who on D-Day commanded a unit of flame throwers, which were used to torch the enemy out its trenches, told AFP.


"It wasn't like Dieppe, where I lost some of my friends. When day broke, there were so many boats around us you could hardly see the sea, and the sky was covered in planes," Boulanger, now 86 told AFP.


The regiment's 800 men, attached to the Third Canadian division, were in the the first wave of landings on Juno beach, behind the Queen's Own Rifles, from Toronto, which were to establish a beachhead with their tanks.


The Queen's Own, however, had a hard time of it, coming up against German defenses barely touched in artillery barrages laid down across Normandy prior to the invasion.


At around 8:30 am, the Chaudiere Regiment slipped off their landing craft into the water, to begin their assault on Juno beach.


"Despite taking some casualties, we were able to link up with the Queen's Own Rifles at Bernieres-sur-Mer", Boulanger remembered.


Another veteran from the same regiment, retired Lieutenant William Foy, 83, marvelled that many of his charges emerged from the landing unscathed.


"We were lucky, we hit a mine, but I didn't lose a single man in the explosion," he said.


"I just lost one man, a bit later, who drowned -- one man out of 34," he said.


Another member of the regiment, nicknamed the "Chauds" Cyril Bariau, 81, said his band of brothers had a narrow escape.


"The Germans fired a mortar at us but the rounds were falling off to the side. But when we had all got out, a round hit our barge, which was flung into the air and the two sailors on board were killed."


Foy remembers marvelling at the vast array of men, weaponry and kit, piled up and clogging the Canadian beachhead.





"It was discouraging, we couldn't move, we were piled on top of one another because the reinforcements were moving in quicker than we could advance."

But later, on the streets of Bernieres, the French Canadians of the "Chauds" got a special welcome, greeted with open arms by their French cousins liberated from Nazi occupation.

As the day went on, the regiment swallowed up the ground, so much so that by the time they stood down for the day, at 2:00 am on June 7, near the town of Colomby-sur-Thaon, the "Chauds" had annihilated the first German line.

For the loss of 105 men, they had advanced a good 10 kilometres (six miles) -- "the most of any allied unit" according to a Canadian military veterans website.

Of all the Canadian forces thrown into battle on D-Day, 340 Canadians were killed, 574 were wounded and 47 were captured at Juno Beach.

For the Chaudiere Regiment, D-Day was only the the beginning.

Over the next 55 days, until the end of July, the regiment was in the thick os the most bloody fighting of the Battle of Normandy, before advancing on to Belgium, the Netherlands and finally to Germany.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040523/capt.sge.svt71.230504222318.photo00.default-380x247.jpg

A red maple leaf, the Canadian emblem, has been painted on the parking lot of the Cintheaux Canadian War Cemetery where 2,958 Canadians are buried.(AFP/File/Mychele Daniau)

Brozozo
05-23-2004, 11:19 PM
800 man strong regiment? Seems like a low number to me...how were Canadian regiments organized back then?

EvanL
05-23-2004, 11:22 PM
800 man strong regiment? Seems like a low number to me...how were Canadian regiments organized back then?
our numbers may have been low. but we fought harder than anyone else on that day.

Brozozo
05-23-2004, 11:25 PM
800 man strong regiment? Seems like a low number to me...how were Canadian regiments organized back then?
our numbers may have been low. but we fought harder than anyone else on that day.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just interested in the organization of Canadian regiments from that period.


But I think Omaha and Pointe du Hoc may have been harder nuts to crack then Juno. p-)

EvanL
05-23-2004, 11:27 PM
800 man strong regiment? Seems like a low number to me...how were Canadian regiments organized back then?
our numbers may have been low. but we fought harder than anyone else on that day.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just interested in the organization of Canadian regiments from that period.


But I think Omaha and Pointe du Hoc may have been harder nuts to crack then Juno. p-)
I wasnt meaning it like that.
We fought the hardest, cus we got the furthest, with the lowest numbers.
Teh whole of Normandy was like the gates of hell.

Vance
05-23-2004, 11:30 PM
Evanloyd: :cantbeli:


Also a tidbit of who-gives-a-****, 50 American Rangers also participated in the Dieppe raid. I forgot what happened to them though.

EvanL
05-23-2004, 11:32 PM
Evanloyd: :cantbeli:


Also a tidbit of who-gives-a-f***, 50 American Rangers also participated in the Dieppe raid. I forgot what happened to them though.
I am well aware of that. But this is about Normandy. Not dieppe.
Only you could become irate in a thread like this.
Lets keep it civil so that we can remember these sacrifices in peace.

Brozozo
05-23-2004, 11:34 PM
So anyways? Was this regiment understrength, or was this an average strength for Canadian regiments? If so, how were they organized, down to platoon level...if someone would be so kind and knowledgable to let me know.

Vance
05-23-2004, 11:36 PM
Evanloyd: :cantbeli:


Also a tidbit of who-gives-a-f***, 50 American Rangers also participated in the Dieppe raid. I forgot what happened to them though.
I am well aware of that. But this is about Normandy. Not dieppe.
Only you could become irate in a thread like this.
Lets keep it civil so that we can remember these sacrifices in peace.
Yeah well the thread mention Dieppe, so there.

I'm not becoming irate yet, I'm just saying, making comments like "Canadians fought the hardest" might make some people annoyed.

You cannot say who fought the hardest based on statistics. Until you interview every member of every country that landed at Normandy, you are not in a position to say a thing like that.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts. (Copyright Tane Angel, 2003)

EvanL
05-23-2004, 11:36 PM
So anyways? Was this regiment understrength, or was this an average strength for Canadian regiments? If so, how were they organized, down to platoon level...if someone would be so kind and knowledgable to let me know.Im not too good with taht type of info, but im sure Yard Ape or Danjanou could give us a definitive answer on that for you.
Canada at the time only had a population of 10million ppl. with a 1million strong military.
So i guess our units were small.
But backed one hell of a punch.

EvanL
05-23-2004, 11:39 PM
Evanloyd: :cantbeli:


Also a tidbit of who-gives-a-f***, 50 American Rangers also participated in the Dieppe raid. I forgot what happened to them though.
I am well aware of that. But this is about Normandy. Not dieppe.
Only you could become irate in a thread like this.
Lets keep it civil so that we can remember these sacrifices in peace.
Yeah well the thread mention Dieppe, so there.

I'm not becoming irate yet, I'm just saying, making comments like "Canadians fought the hardest" might make some people annoyed.

You cannot say who fought the hardest based on statistics. Until you interview every member of every country that landed at Normandy, you are not in a position to say a thing like that.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts. (Copyright Tane Angel, 2003)
Well. Nobody has the right to say any of it. But it is a fact that Canadians pushed the furthest in that day. Doesnt mean everybody else there fought poorly. But to look at the situation logically. It would seem that the unit that pushed the furthest in, which just so happened to be Canadians, fought the hardest. I would say the same thing if it was an American, British or Polish unit.

Vance
05-23-2004, 11:42 PM
Perhaps they only pushed the farthest because they had the least number of Germans to bypass?

EvanL
05-23-2004, 11:44 PM
Perhaps they only pushed the farthest because they had the least number of Germans to bypass?
Well maybe you can just keep hoping that im wrong.
i will remain proud of my countries veterans because of this.
:backhand:

Vance
05-23-2004, 11:47 PM
:fork:


There, since you decided to turn it in to a childish argument with that 'slap' I think I'll stab you in the eye. Punk.

Brozozo
05-23-2004, 11:47 PM
You're both wrong.

Nobody fought harder than the Germans. There weren't many Germans manning the fortifications apart form the NCOs and Officers since the defences were manned by Russian, Polish, Czech etc prisoners. But the Germans that where did a hell of a job!

p-)

I love Rachael Leigh Cook
05-24-2004, 12:22 AM
Brozozo, if you're still interested, Comonwealth armies are organized differently from the US army, "Regiment" does not represent an actual unit on the orbat, it's symbolic, meant to represent a shared heritage or geographic region. Thus, the Queen's Own Rifles is a regiment, but only with one 800 man battalion at this battle. The battalion is the actual basic unit. Thus, the PPCLI is a regiment, with 3 battalions, but the 3 battalions don't actually fight as one unit. Rather, each battalion, with added support detachements, constitute a battalion battle group(i.e. the unit that fought in Op Anaconda is the third battalion PPCLI battle group, NOT the third battalion, PPCLI Battle group as some US journalists mistakenly reported, there does not exist a "PPCLI Battle group") . So ask a soldier which unit he is in and he will tell you "3rd battalion, PPCLI" or something similar, not just "PPCLI". Clear as mud?

I believe this is also the same for the British and Australian Armies, 1 RAR and 2 RAR are definitely distinct units, although of the same regiment. Thus, the Battalion commander, the CO, is the man in charge, while the "Colonel of the regiment" is usually some Prince or Princess, or the Queen.

Now, in the Canadian army during the war, reserve regiments were brought up to war time strength, but this is often just one or two battalions, so The Queen's Own Rifles could be referring to the whole regiment of 1 800 man battalion, although I am not familiar with the orbat of the QOR to make that assumption.

Brozozo
05-24-2004, 12:48 AM
Brozozo, if you're still interested, Comonwealth armies are organized differently from the US army, "Regiment" does not represent an actual unit on the orbat, it's symbolic, meant to represent a shared heritage or geographic region. Thus, the Queen's Own Rifles is a regiment, but only with one 800 man battalion at this battle. The battalion is the actual basic unit. Thus, the PPCLI is a regiment, with 3 battalions, but the 3 battalions don't actually fight as one unit. Rather, each battalion, with added support detachements, constitute a battalion battle group(i.e. the unit that fought in Op Anaconda is the third battalion PPCLI battle group, NOT the third battalion, PPCLI Battle group as some US journalists mistakenly reported, there does not exist a "PPCLI Battle group") . So ask a soldier which unit he is in and he will tell you "3rd battalion, PPCLI" or something similar, not just "PPCLI". Clear as mud?

I believe this is also the same for the British and Australian Armies, 1 RAR and 2 RAR are definitely distinct units, although of the same regiment. Thus, the Battalion commander, the CO, is the man in charge, while the "Colonel of the regiment" is usually some Prince or Princess, or the Queen.

Now, in the Canadian army during the war, reserve regiments were brought up to war time strength, but this is often just one or two battalions, so The Queen's Own Rifles could be referring to the whole regiment of 1 800 man battalion, although I am not familiar with the orbat of the QOR to make that assumption.

Thanks for the info! I'm familiar with the current organization of the CF. So what you're saying is that these "regiments" were actually battalions, organized into 3 or 4 companies of 3 or 4 platoons (4th platoon and company being weapons), just like in any other army?

I love Rachael Leigh Cook
05-24-2004, 01:23 AM
Thanks for the info! I'm familiar with the current organization of the CF. So what you're saying is that these "regiments" were actually battalions, organized into 3 or 4 companies of 3 or 4 platoons (4th platoon and company being weapons), just like in any other army?

I wasn't in the CF during world war II, so this is just second hand information, and I don't imagine it has changed a great deal since then. Generally, "Regiment" is not used to denote a fixed number of troops, but a unit that shares a common background or heritage, usually based on geographic proximity. So a regiment can have as many battalions as needed, although in today's CF, it's 3 battalions for infantry. Armoured, Artillery and Engineer regiments are organized along similar lines, although I believe they generally have 3 company sized units (so roughly 1 battalion all together), I'm not a tanker, so couldn't tell you.
The Canadian Airborn Regiment was actually 1 battalion, with 3 company sized "Commandos"

I believe, although I am not positive, that the USMC follows a similar system, where the marine "Regiment" is really just symbolic, and battalion is the actual unit of battle. Perhaps some Marines on this board can clarify.

As a side note, if you were *really* familiar with the organization of the CF, you'd know that the battalions are having a hard time making even 3 companies on operations. 3PPCLI actually went to the stan fleshed out with a company from 2 PPCLI, leaving 2PPCLI with only 2 companies, of which only 1 was a rifle company, for their rotation to Bosnia.

DANJANOU
05-24-2004, 02:03 PM
As noted the regiment mentioned here was a Bn, so 800 is about full strength. Cdn Inf Bns in WWII had 4 rifle companies of 3 platoons each, plus a wpns company with mortar, anti tank, carrier (bren carrier0 and MG platoons. There was also an HQ (logistics) coy.