How effective were British commonwealth countries like NZ, Australia and Canada in World War 1 compared to the UK?

How effective were British commonwealth countries like NZ, Australia and Canada in World War 1 compared to the UK?

pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=slouch hat
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Ironside
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_the_Far-Travelled
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>German camouflage isn't Felt Grau
What is this?

It's some late-war SS camouflage, I think

...

>Canada
Superior compared to the British

>ANZAC
Inferior compared to the British

Please explain

t. Canadian

The British Indian Army had the best officers, soldiers and experience of any of the Empire's territories, save perhaps from the small professional army of Britain itself. They were the first of the Empire's troops to arrive in France in 1914 and were vital in being used to plug gaps in the British line where the Germans had broken through. They suffered terrible casualties, particularly amongst the officers, because they were expected to lead at the front and not shirk from danger. That's part of the reason Indians fought so hard and often went against suicidal odds to rescue their wounded officers, they believed they had to match the bravery of their Sahib. I would rate the Indian infantrymen over the majority of British volunteers that would come to follow, as they lacked the experience, regimental history and martial honor that the Sikhs, Gurkhas, Rajputs and Pathans had.

The Indian Infantry Corps was pulled out of Europe in 1915 I believe and the Indian Calvary Corps (which was being used as trench infantry) in 1916. European winters didn't favour Indian troops and it was very difficult to replace troops when your stock is half the world away.

Im actually australian but whatever

I should mention, this was at the start of the war. Canadians were to prove amazing assault troops in the later years and the Gallipoli campaign was a real trial by fire to prove the grit of the ANZAC troops. But at the start of the war, India had more men, more experience and more history.

This is b8

Indian troops were so poor they were rarely sent into battle. Go away pajeet

Canadians used a square division model (4 units per "tier") while UK trops used triangle divisions (3 units) due to manpower constraints.

However, their frontage and objectives would have largely stayed the same. So the Canadian divisions would have an advantage and perform relatively better as they would usually be stronger by about a third when compared to regular UK divisions.

Well the ANZACs were bogged down in the pointless Gallipoli campaign thanks to Churchill that cunt.

Colonials made up for half the British army

Canada did pretty damn good at Vimy Ridge
There were also three dudes from Winnipeg who lived on the same street and all got the VC, one of them took on 20 germans alone with his officers revolver, picking up kraut rifles as he went and only suffered a bayonet wound to the leg.

Cannon fodder

>Canada gets a few missions in paft of Commonwealth campaign in CoH1
>no option to use Canadian voices in MP
I would put $5 down for a voice pack for CoH2 to do something like that

Oh man, those east coast accents were fucking heavenly

At the time of the german spring offensive 1918, the New Zealand division was the largest division on the British army (28k troops).
It was used as firefighters to plug german breakthroughs

This is revisionist as fuck

around 8/10 soldiers were from england

Can you back hat up with anything, or is that bait? Not him btw

It's bait. That's why I didn't respond to it. African troops were considered the he was saying, but that's probably an unfair colonial bias, as the King's African Rifles and French African troops did alright all things considered.

It's not bait. It's a well known fact that indians make for terrible soldiers. They were mainly used for logistical support. When they did fight, it was only as a last resort.

But in real life only 4 millions out of the 8 millions Britain used were from Britain....

That's so outstandingly incorrect that it actually baffles me. Got any proof? Any citations?

It's up to you to find the proof. I've read a lot about ww1 and i can assure you its true.

>It's up to you to find proof for my claim
Autism

Well I could start with one of the 40 Non-British Victoria Cross recipients from the Indian Army, of which 11 were earned during World War One, but that would take a very long time.

I could quote from one of the books I have about Indian soldiers during the First World War (like Sepoys in the Trenches, For Another King and Country and Short Stories from the British Indian Army) but I have a feeling you'd dismiss them as revisionist propaganda even though some were written by members of the British Military.

So with that said, what evidence can YOU show to say that they were terrible soldiers and mainly used outside of combat?

We're interested in actual battlefield numbers, chad. It's common sense to forget those who fled, to the point chances are you did it yourself.

Mobilized =/= used

Compare casualties, not soldiers

what are you even talking about

go and get a loo rasheed

Man, from what I've seen every time I come in this board, Veeky Forums really doesn't like Britain.

It's contrarianism. Everyone on Veeky Forums is a massive francophile. Meeting another user who isn't a blatant anglophobe is like finding christians in iraq.

When I picture French soldiers, I picture grown men throwing down their rifles and fleeing in terror from the Germans.

I have found no other place that is francophilic.

Honest question, what did ANZAC do in WWI besides Gallipoli?

That's because you are uneducated.

Gallipoli is more than enough, but they also served in other battles.

that's Flecktarn.

Relative to their population they were alright

>grown men

Thank for the precision, Hans

t. Fránçóìsé-Píérré

t. Bobby U.S. Lardass

Western Front (Australian Corps), Middle East (ANZAC Mounted Divison and Australian Mounted Division) mainly. The Navy did the usual convoy escort stuff, while the battle cruiser Australia chased the German squadron out of the pacific.
I think we might of help the Japanese capture some German colonies in the Pacific early on.

The might of help is stronk!

U.S. soldier could be slightly older uniform since they were the biggest player after dien bien phu.

>ww1 brits istead of france

Well the aus light horsemen commited the last great cavalry charge of history at Beersheba

They fought at battles like Passchendale, Beersheeba, Cambrai (look up John Monash), The Somme, Messines, all throughout the Palestinian and Egyptian campaigns. Everyone only remembers Gallipoli though

Eternal Anglo is just a fun meme
I love my Dad

>UK
>existing in the Medieval era

Barely even exists now, lol.

>Way that pic should go

Long bowman= Wales
Tommy, redcoat=England/Britain
Highlander, Black Watch= Scotland
Kern, Galloglass= Ireland

nothing

Kek

>Brits not redcoats

success breeds jealousy.

AUSSIES

CAN ONE OF YOU FAGGOT BLOKE CUNTS TELL ME WHAT KIND OF FUCKING HAT THIS IS?

I FUCKING WANT IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SEARCH FOR

>tfw the Caroleans did more impressive things as soldiers than the (Swedish) vikings ever did but vikings are still the biggest meme

>america
>not the GI

>anzac
>ww2
i seriously hope you guys don't think this

Arthur Currie (the first Canadian general of the Candian Corps) was the only general in World War 1 to successfully implement creeping barrages and set-piece training for a battle, which helped massively in the few remaining battles in the war, especially Vimy Ridge

American should either be a WW2 Flyboy or a Vietnam grunt.

A slouch hat, Cunt.
google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=slouch hat

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Ironside

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_the_Far-Travelled

Neither of these say much about the vikings as soldiers

you forgot one, OP.

That is some straight halo shit honestly.

tfw Caroleans will never be most iconic Swedish Soldiers due to "muh vikings"

Mostly because no one heard of them
The iconic 18th century soldiers are the Redcoats
Nope because they were great (they were average), but because American media shilled them as the greatest of the era in order to make their revolution seem more glorious

>He doesn't like SS camo

faggot

It's not flecktarn. It is the precurser to flecktarn

Flecktarn was designed in 1935 by Schick for the SS.

Also Flecktarn literally translates to "spot camo", so fuck off.

This. The guy was fucking based. They gave him command of the Canadian division. Something that had never happened before. All other colonial divisions were led by British generals.

THANKS, CUNT