Kapyong

If Hill 677 got even 1/4 of the media that Vimy did....:(

Exactly.:agree:

From what i read about Korea if i was a UN soldier and had the Canadian's on my left and the Australians on my right i'd feel my flanks wouldn't fold. Certain regiments have been know in different wars and battles to hold their ground and not fold. I remember Cliff Chadderton of the War Amps(Old RWR wounded on Juno) saying the true test of an Infantry Regiment is what it could do in defense against overwhelming odds. And these Canadians sure showed what thats all about on 677 and the Vandoos on 355 later on.:)
 
One question for you. When you joined in 64 did you wear the new combats or the old battledress first?:wave:[/QUOTE]

In 1964 the Army still pretty much looked like it did in the Korean war era.
Combat clothing was just coming on line. It was very scarce and was reserved for people in field units, and was only authorized for wear in the field, and not in garrison.

Field dress for us trainees and other ash and trash at the time was either black coveralls and/or bush clothing with the 1951 pattern webbing, which was exactly the same as the wartime pattern 1937 webbing except that it was OD in colour and had eyelets on the belt to attach the basic pouches and canteen and mess tin carriers. Footwear was the ankle boot with puttees-always a great delight.:eek: I think the puttees, along with other Brit-like things like the Canadian Guards, was a Guy Simonds thing. Simonds was the Chief of General Staff, had been born in England, and rose to his wartime heights under British command and generally continued to ape the Brits-not necessarily a bad thing in some ways. From fall to spring we wore the standard wool battledress in garrison and in the field. This continued until the CF green uniform was issued to the Regular Force in 1969/70. The Militia got theirs later.

Bush dress included OD cotton trousers with 2 metal buckles and button fly with 3 loops for the P37 web belt with regimental buckle. You wore an open neck shirt with rolled sleeves and an armlet with rank badge and regimental flash. The bush jacket was the standard Korean War era style with 4 pockets and had regimental flashes and was even worn with medal ribbons. Both the Bush Dress and Battledress were made into things of beauty for wear in garrison. You would do things like starch the sh&t out of the bush pants and shirt and then chin yourself on the door so your buddy could slip on the trousers w/o breaking the crease before morning parade.:confused:

You kept different sets of uniforms for parade and the field. Ditto for the ankle boots. One pair of boots was made over into parade boots with pebbled leather surface buffed or spooned off, toecap inserted and a triple sole added with steel horseshoe heel cleats and a metal toecap for snappiness on the parade square. The damn things must have weighed 5 lbs each. Some guys would cut and have zippers put into the puttees to cut the time spent wrapping them every morning. To top things off, you would wear a set of lead weights in your trousers above the boots to give them a spiffy bloused look. Forage caps with corps colors were worn in garrison with both Battledress and Bush Dress. The other funny one was the Bush cap which had a folded up neckshade in the back, like the Foreign Legion or something. You had to buy a "birdcage" to insert in them to give them a squared away look.

Battledress was identical to what my dad wore in WW2, except that the collar was open and pressed down for wear with shirt and necktie. It was a pretty good looking uniform. I recall seeing one of our old WW2 Privates dressing up in his BD to get his release back around 1967 ( soldiers could continue to serve as a Private forever until the "Hellyer Cpl" thing came in and made them all into Cpls). He had been shot up during the war and spent many years on garrison duties, such as mess steward, cook's helper, hut slut, etc. I recall seeing him wearing a white shirt and black trousers or TW summer dress, but I had never seen him in Battledress. Anyway, he did show up to go for his release in his wartime battledress blouse, which fastened at the collar, and got a final tongue-in-cheek arse reaming from the Sgt-Maj for his idleness.;)

Our winter field gear was essentially Korean era, but it was good, especially the 1950 model parka with nylon shell and removable pile liner for drying. The parka which replaced this one was a disaster. It was intended to be worn over the combat coat-a very bad idea as the accumulated moisture would freeze in the non-removable liner. They went back to what was essentially the 1950 parka after this.

I refuse to comment on the CF Workdress/ Coca-Cola man abortion which came after this.:puke:
 
Thanks to all who have posted on this thread, especially robAK who started it and cantom (post #3). I have pre-ordered the book and recommend that as many as possible do the same. This important part of our military heritage must be given the widespread distribution it deserves.
 
Thanks to Purple, being a great contributor of facts on the Canadian Army as it went through many changes during the Cold War era.
I was in PLf in 1980 Purple and my son is in right now. In fact he just got back from an ex in New Hampshire today and i was showing him your post and got him curious into various dresses and combinations before his time.

We have Vets from all our wars, including our latest young men returing from Afghanistan. I also never forget the time and training and deployment at the front lines of the cold War of people like Purple and my brother who did 4 years in Germany as part of 4 CMBG and has served the last 30 years.
"Cold War Warriors!":canadaFlag:
 
In the minds of a lot of people the Cold War was a massive non-event and a footnote to history because it didn't happen.

The most disturbing thing about it was, of course, the nuclear scenario. The ironic thing was that we in the west most likely would have initiated tactical nuclear release which would have then rapidly escalated to the strategic nuclear exchange that we all feared. Nukes were something of an economy measure for us in the west as they allowed us to maintain a deterrent against the Russkies without maintaining a hugely expensive standing Army on the ground.This was very attractive to our voters and politicians and let us enjoy the consumer societies that we all seemed to want.

The only option to our maintaining a nuclear response was strong conventional forces, something that our political leadership was not prepared to grasp. This was something that our unilateral disarmament people, like Trudeau, would either not act on or admit to, although I'm sure the bugger was smart enough to have realized this.

The Soviet Army, which we faced in Europe from the 1950s thru the 1980s, was lavishly endowed with armour and artillery , and their tactical doctrine was based on continuous high tempo offensive action which would have effectively over-run West Germany and put them on the Rhine within a week of crossing the startline. In this scenario we would most likely have initiated the tactical use of nukes with all of the follow-on effects. Fortunately, the penny seemed to drop in the 1980s with a basic shift in US Army operational doctrine to the Airland Battle and a build up in conventional capabilities, incl force multipliers like air/artillery delivered anti-tank mines, MLRS, attack helicopters and other deep targetting and attack systems. As it worked out, we basically spent the Soviets into bankruptcy while their own rotten regieme collapsed from internal decay.

We took this stuff very seriously at the time and, in the late 1950s, adopted the idea of the dispersed battlefield and highly flexible and mobile self-contained Brigade Groups to cope with our and their use of tactical nukes. We were trained in nuclear targetting and chemical protection became a major concern as chemical weapons were organic to Soviet units, and they were expected to use it from the start. I attended the US Army Command and Staff College and served an exchange tour in the US as the US Army was re-vitalized and re-equipped after Vietnam to focus on the Airland Battle concept in Europe. It was a very dynamic and interesting time. As it turned out, we did get to play out the Airland battle, but it happened in Iraq, rather than in Europe.

During the course of one of my last duty trips to Europe before we closed out in 1993, I took the opportunity to travel along the old Inner German Border in the Fulda Gap area to have a last look at the terrain that we had prepared so long to fight over. By that time all of the towers, minefields, and obstacles had been removed. I stayed in a Gasthaus there and was surprised to hear three very attractive young Russian girls chatting away at a table next to me. I smiled to myself and thought, "well the Russians have come, but never in the way that we expected them". Thank God for that.
 
In the minds of a lot of people the Cold War was a massive non-event and a footnote to history because it didn't happen.

The most disturbing thing about it was, of course, the nuclear scenario. The ironic thing was that we in the west most likely would have initiated tactical nuclear release which would have then rapidly escalated to the strategic nuclear exchange that we all feared. Nukes were something of an economy measure for us in the west as they allowed us to maintain a deterrent against the Russkies without maintaining a hugely expensive standing Army on the ground.This was very attractive to our voters and politicians and let us enjoy the consumer societies that we all seemed to want.

The only option to our maintaining a nuclear response was strong conventional forces, something that our political leadership was not prepared to grasp. This was something that our unilateral disarmament people, like Trudeau, would either not act on or admit to, although I'm sure the bugger was smart enough to have realized this.

The Soviet Army, which we faced in Europe from the 1950s thru the 1980s, was lavishly endowed with armour and artillery , and their tactical doctrine was based on continuous high tempo offensive action which would have effectively over-run West Germany and put them on the Rhine within a week of crossing the startline. In this scenario we would most likely have initiated the tactical use of nukes with all of the follow-on effects. Fortunately, the penny seemed to drop in the 1980s with a basic shift in US Army operational doctrine to the Airland Battle and a build up in conventional capabilities, incl force multipliers like air/artillery delivered anti-tank mines, MLRS, attack helicopters and other deep targetting and attack systems. As it worked out, we basically spent the Soviets into bankruptcy while their own rotten regieme collapsed from internal decay.

We took this stuff very seriously at the time and, in the late 1950s, adopted the idea of the dispersed battlefield and highly flexible and mobile self-contained Brigade Groups to cope with our and their use of tactical nukes. We were trained in nuclear targetting and chemical protection became a major concern as chemical weapons were organic to Soviet units, and they were expected to use it from the start. I attended the US Army Command and Staff College and served an exchange tour in the US as the US Army was re-vitalized and re-equipped after Vietnam to focus on the Airland Battle concept in Europe. It was a very dynamic and interesting time. As it turned out, we did get to play out the Airland battle, but it happened in Iraq, rather than in Europe.

During the course of one of my last duty trips to Europe before we closed out in 1993, I took the opportunity to travel along the old Inner German Border in the Fulda Gap area to have a last look at the terrain that we had prepared so long to fight over. By that time all of the towers, minefields, and obstacles had been removed. I stayed in a Gasthaus there and was surprised to hear three very attractive young Russian girls chatting away at a table next to me. I smiled to myself and thought, "well the Russians have come, but never in the way that we expected them". Thank God for that.

Great share purple. I'm sure your last statement was from the heart because you knew what you faced if it was on your posting when the Bear decided to roll. This one thing i feel ive missd something by not going Reg, and doing a posting to Germany like my Brother did in 84-88. Purple i worked with another guy for many years who said he was former RHRC when the Hillier thing took place in 68 and i believe went PPCLI after that when the reg force battalions stood down.. He was on Cyprus i think when things were getting pretty hot between the Turks an Greeks. Can't remember the year i'm thinking 1970 but its been 25 years since he told me, and i dont remember if it was with Black watch or PPCLI. Did you do alot of the Peace Keeping deployments? I know my brother has done more than i can remember from Cyprus to the Golan, Gaza and everything in between. Hes on his second marraige, an unseen casualty of the stress Regular Force families faced and still face. I wont bore or bug you anymore after i promise and thanks for sharing its like being able to select the chapters from a book of your interests thats not even in print yet lol. :)
 
The big event on Cyprus was the full scale Turkish invasion which occurred in 1974. The Airborne regiment was deployed at the time and sustained a number of casualties. We were in Cyprus from 1964 to 1993. There was some purpose in it because it kept two NATO allies away from eachother's throats during the worst of the Cold War. The situation there has pretty much fossilized with no prospect of political resolution any time soon.

The 1968-71 period was very chaotic for the military with the implementation of unification/integration. The Forces were reduced substantially with our NATO forces in Germany slashed and reduced to essentially a reserve role. We also took on the "political" roles of the AMF and the CAST Bde contingency deployments in Denmark/Norway. A lot of us saw these ones as unrealistic and another Hong Kong waiting to happen. Thank God we never had to do them for real. The Army suffered the loss of several regiments, incl the Queen's Own Rifles, The Black Watch, the Canadian Guards and the Fort Garry Horse. The Corps structure was also eliminated and everyone was expected to be "all singing, all dancing" greenies, as they used to say. I can remember some of the old Queens Own diehards who re-badged to the PPCLI and still wore their black puttees on parade underneath their trousers. There was a lot of spadework done over the years to get the Army re-focussed after all of this self-imposed misery. I suppose one good thing that came out of unification was that it provided our allies with a model that they all chose to avoid.

Most of us did our ration of peacekeeping duty during this period. I spent 31/2 years on UN service in the Middle East and had a lot of weird, wonderful, and not so wonderful experiences in the process. I have continued my affiliations with the Army as a contract trainer since retiring 15 years ago. Time passes quickly and you really know you have joined the "over the hill gang" when you work with senior officers who are the sons of people you once served with. It is satisfying to see the young troops of today carrying on in the best traditions of professionalism and motivation. They are as good or better than we ever were. The one thing that is very evident is how thinly stretched they are versus the tasks at hand. That does create a lot of havoc for them in their personal lives. I hope that people appreciate what a sacrifice this is for them.
 
Thanks Purple. :agree:

As a footnote to an earlier post. I just remember my co-worker Don who was from the Windsor area in N.S., was actually RCR 56-58 because i remember he said Wolsely Barracks and i guess thats in London, Ont. I'm sure it was 2nd Bn.

Wish i could find where another chap relates the same story.:wave:
 
Nothing to compare with the history related here, but on a lighter note, was on a CF tour of school guidance counselors. We left Sudbury on a bus for CFB Borden. Stopped for lunch. We had a captain and a corporal in Hellyer green. When the captain went to pay for our lunch, the cashier told him he didn't have to pay because the bus drivers got free lunch. There was a laugh at his expense but I felt sorry for the poor guy. Good trip - got the tour of Borden and flew out of Trenton to Shearwater. Got to tour a DDH 280 in Halifax. I think it was the Huron that they sunk for target practice off BC. Bussed to CFB Cornwallis, got to shoot an FN.
Bill
 
Nothing to compare with the history related here, but on a lighter note, was on a CF tour of school guidance counselors. We left Sudbury on a bus for CFB Borden. Stopped for lunch. We had a captain and a corporal in Hellyer green. When the captain went to pay for our lunch, the cashier told him he didn't have to pay because the bus drivers got free lunch. There was a laugh at his expense but I felt sorry for the poor guy. Good trip - got the tour of Borden and flew out of Trenton to Shearwater. Got to tour a DDH 280 in Halifax. I think it was the Huron that they sunk for target practice off BC. Bussed to CFB Cornwallis, got to shoot an FN.
Bill

God that made me laugh out loud, about the greens. If i had a mouth full of coffee i'd needed a new keyboard. I worked on the Tribals for years , my favorite warship.:canadaFlag:
 
There aren't many Canadian books on Korea, AKA "the Forgotten War".
A couple of good reads are:

Blood on the Hills, The Canadian Army in the Korean War, by David Bercuson, published in 1999, and

Find the Dragon, The Canadian Army in Korea 1950-1953, by Robt Hepenstall, published in 1995.

Both of these are quite comprehensive and contain a fair amount on the tactics and weapons which were employed. Both books make the point that the No4 Lee-Enfield was found to be hopelessly inadequate due to it's low firepower in the face of the Chinese masses. Bercuson talks about large scale aquisition of US automatic weapons by the troops, incl Garands, Carbines, and Thompson SMGs in order to make up the firepower deficiencies.

I find these books particularly interesting as both contain first person accounts of Korean vets who I had served with. The Bercuson book actually features a photo of then Lt Bob Peacock armed with an unofficially aquired Thompson SMG. Bob Peacock later commanded a PPCLI bn and, along with 3 other Korean vets, was on the Directing Staff of the Army Staff College when I was a student in 1974. He also wrote his own account of the war from a platoon commander's view.
 
I was with the 2nd and had the privilage of have a chat and a pint with some of the vets at the 75th held at "Kapyong" Barracks. Very humbling expeirence. We were very proud to wear that "Swimming Pool" on our tunics. I remember we had a diarama of the battlefield as you entered the eating mess.
 
Back
Top Bottom