Talk:Battle of St Quentin Canal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian Expeditionary Force[edit]

I thought the Canadian Expeditionary Force was a part of this Battle and Arthur Currie's tactics breached the Hindenburg Line and about two other deeper lines. Is there someone more familiar than this that can do an edit to properly address this aspect of the battle? Thanks. 139.142.75.220 04:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Kim Anderson[reply]

I put a cited post on the front page re who led the Australian troops at the front line but a 'Robertmyers' has been going around reverting anything I put up all over wik and in the process being a total vandal and if you check the history page, he also did that multiple times here.
Myanw, I added some content to this page re Hidenburg and Robert Myers keps reverting it. H ehas previously had nil to do with this page but has previously been vandalising multiple pages I have put posts on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:203.54.9.1 (talk • contribs) {|}.
Hello, can I ask you to sign your message next time? Thanks - Regarding your edits on Battle of the Hindenburg Line my problem is that the name of the Australian captain is not relevant IMHO, is he notable enough to be named in Wikipedia? If you can prove he is, I'll have no further objection - Cheers - Myanw 12:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he is not just about that he led that attack but that he also wrote many of the unit histories for the Australian Forces in WW1 and is archived in our National war museum as well as in the Battye Archives in Perth. He was also awarded an Order of Leopold (Knighthood) and Croix de Guerre for his actions in France and the Hindenburg battles. He was a noted Journalist and War Correspondent and was mentioned multiple times in the official Australian history of WW1 by Australia's official war historian.
Ok then, I suppose you already tried to create an entry for this man? If not, try to do that first and don't forget not to do any personnal attack, even if I understand you may feel frustrated by the reverts, you'd rather bring a request for arbitration instead - Myanw 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't because whatever I post here, Robert Myers or Atktos or longhair, delete. I thought the rules here were that everyone can post stuff. I have been amazed by the aggro from some admins here and how they get away with totally vandalising pages. If I try and put anything up for Cyril Longmore here it will just get taken straight down. It is ridiculous. Its not that I feel frustrated. I am under constant personal attack by the three above people. Is that how wik runs? Note the tone below re "The IP is the same Anon". I have not been blocked at all the last week. If that is because I avoid reading messages they send me, that is because the first couple I read my computer security disconnected me from wik and when I logged back on, my remote access had been changed enabling access into my computer by anyone. (i.e. there was something in the messages that my computer security objected to. As I am on a uni network of our largest Oz Uni I am obliged to not infect their system hence my computer security and my reluctance after the intrusions into my computer from wik to open many sites here that lead to the personal computers of other editors, especially given the attacks on me. There was some nonsense re me being on a uni server or something, (I am for the purpose of my communication with that uni but not for the purpose of me logging on to wik). My IP changes as I am on dial up Internet which resets regularly, not for any other reason.

FROM AWM DATABASE: Honours & Awards (Gazetted) Database See Introduction for further information. YOUR SEARCH RETURNED 1 RECORD. Longmore, Cyril Service Number: Rank: Captain Unit: 44th Bn Service: Army Honour / Award: Belgium Order of Leopold - Chevalier Date of London Gazette: 24 September 1917, page 9862, position 1 Date of Commonwealth of Australia Gazette: 24 January 1918, page 83, position 37 Honours & Awards (Gazetted) Database See Introduction for further information. YOUR SEARCH RETURNED 1 RECORD. Longmore, Cyril Service Number: Rank: Captain Unit: 44th Bn Service: Army Honour / Award: Belgium Croix de Guerre Date of London Gazette: 11 March 1918, page 3096, position 1 Date of Commonwealth of Australia Gazette: 25 July 1918, page 1594, position 2

Extract of Aussie Account of Final Battle by Official War Correspondent CW Bean from online at AWM - notes Longmore in it[edit]

29th Sept., 19181 HINDENBURG LINE %5 The right flank companies of the 44th (under Capt. Lewis and Lieut. HunP), still heading south of their proper course,had found the Hindenburg Outpost-Line south of Malakoff Wood empty. Evidently the American attack had gone through in this sector. Despite shelling and machine-gun fire from the northeast, Hunt and Lewis and their companies pushed on qrn vards to the Hindenburg Line and thence 400 yards to its rear irench and another 400 to the Tunnel mound. The mist had then cleared, some force of Americans was evidently still ahead, but field-guns near Cabaret Wood Farm on a hill straight in front shelled the companies point blank as they approached, causing heavy loss. Along the mound 50 Americans were sheltering. Recognising by a line of telegraph posts that they themselves were too far south, Hunt and Lewis turned north along the Bellicourt-le Catelet road, but machine-gun and trench-mortar fire on it forced them to shelter in a communication trench (which may here be called “Tunnel Sap”) running from the Hindenburg Line to beyond the Tunnel mound. The companies and the Americans manned this facing north. Hunt was wounded in the shelling. When the fire from Quenneniont Farm ceased, the northern companies of the Hth, also, came on to the Hindenburg Line, part of them being fed by Capt. Longmore through a more northerly communication trench, Top Lane, to avoid the shelling from Cabaret Wood Farm. Behind and between these two companies and still in the fog, Col. Scanlan was leading the 59th through the wire of the Hindenburg Line when startled by a shout from his adjutant. Thirty yards ahead a German had risen and was aiming his rifle at them. They mMaj. W. J Hunt, M B E ; 44th Bn. Farmer; of Cottesloe. W A.; h Streatham. Eng.. 8 June 1891.

966 THE A.I.F. IN FRANCE [zgth Sept., 1918 dropped in the wire. Some Lewis-gunners kept down the Germans and Capt. Roberts’6o company presently captured the post.61 Scanlan sent Capt. Dickson’so2 and Lieut. Parr’se3 companies to occupy the second trench of the Hindenburg Line. Dickson’s, moving through a sap, cleared a German post in the support line, and found there the northern companies of the 44th. Through the clearing mist, the le Catelet line, half a mile beyond the Tunnel mound, became visible. It was held by Germans, apparently 1 0 0 strong. Clearly the Americans had got no farther there. While the 4 t h and 59th were pushing through the Hindenburg lines machine-gun fire from their left had been continuous. Now at the Tunnel mound it came also from the left rear; and, as the mist cleared, anti-tank guns and batteries in the valleys behind the Hindenburg Line fired over open sights. Machine-gun bullets from the north also were striking the bottom and rear wall of the Hindenburg trench, hitting men who sat low in it. From Tunnel Sap indeed Sergeant Ingvarson of the 4 t h saw a machine-gun firing from the Hindenburg Line behind him against Australians and Americans approaching from the west. Calling for a Lewis gun to follow, he scrambled out with his men after him, and running 100 yards across the open in rear of the Germans, shot and bombed them and captured 150 yards of that trench and eight machine-guns. Col. Scanlan now realisede4 what he had suspected before, that the attack north of him must have failed. With the mist gone, the 4$h, 59th, and Americans, looking northwards down Vauban Valley, saw half a mile away string after string of men crossing westwards to Bony ridge. At first it had been thought they might be American wounded returning from the first objective, but they were soon recognised as Germans carrying bombs and ammunition, and intense fire from the Australians and Americans stopped the traffic. Presently a trench- MCapt. C. H. Roberts, 60th and 59th Bns. Electrician: of Hawthorn, Vic.; “It was at one of several German lamp-signal stations, each on high ground. OaMaj. R. J. Dickson, 59th Bn. Business manager; of Warrnambool, Vic , ns Capt. S. W. Neale (E. Kew, Vic ) had been mortally wounded by a shell. “As did Col. Clark (44th) who presently joined him. b. Richmond, Vic., IO Dec. 1892. Killed in action, ag Sep. 1916. b Warrnambool, 18 July 1869.

2gth Sept., 19x81 HINDENBURG LINE %7 mortar opened from the north, and Germans in both trenches of the Hindenburg Line attacked with bombs, rushing the barricade in the second trench and gaining fifty yards before Parr's company beat them back. Capt. Roberts of the support company was killed. Help was sent back to the first trench, where Lieut. Chambers had only a platoon. Using German bombs, the Australians retook the lost ground and rebuilt the barricade farther north. Eventually Scanlan, Longmore, Capt. Loughnan (58th) and others, with companies or platoons of the 44th, 59th, and 4rst and numbers of the 108th American Infantry, established positions facing both north and east from the Hindenburg Outpost-Line to the Tunnel. Two machine-guns of the 9th Company, being hurried forward to Scanlan by Lieut. Slater,e5 were placed in Top Lane;66 but at the eastern end of this lane the Germans held an anti-tank fort with machine-guns and a fieldgun. It was at this hour, 11 a.m., that the armoured cars for raiding le Cateau and Busigny, and their supporting whippets, came up to the junction of five roads near Quennemont Farm, and passing over the crest sped down Dirk Valley towards the hamlet of Bony on the next ridge, in the Hindenburg Line. The cars shot some Germans who had withdrawn from Quennemont Farm, but ran into intense machine-gun fire, and anti-tank guns in Bony destroyed three as they approached.

mLt. F. G. Slater, hi.C.; 9th b1.G. Coy. Warehouse salesman; of Stanmore, N S W ; b. Dulwich Hill, N.S W., zz June 1893. BBThe 9th M G Coy.. attached to the 11th Bde. had been hringing up its guns on limbers. One limber ran into shelling at hlalakoff Farm where some of the mules uere hlt. Anothtr limber was on the summit near Quennemont Farm when the smoke cleared, and three mules were killed by fire from the farm. Lt W. C. Kerr (Randwick, N S W ) had been wounded trying to release them. Lt. Slater had the mules of another section unharnessed and two guns packed on them by Sgt. J.

  • Using a primary source that won't be easy to verify for the simple fact of who commanded a force is not a good idea. Beyond that, the sentence is wildly out of place. Rewrite the sentence and find a better reference (or an online version of the source) as currently this is like using the diary entry of someone who watched Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address to reference the date he gave it. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do u have a Masters in History amd are retired adf?

well gee myanw, i read online u were an admin and copied it.

When pimply faced school kids who are still learning how to read get in here messing articles up they wreck all of wik.


I'm just a regular user, patrolling recent edits to counter genuine vandalism and don't usually get involved in content disputes, though, you asked for my help and I tried to provide it as well as I could, I advised you to cool down and to stop calling everyone a vandal, but yet, you persist, it's not that way you will gain the sympathy of the community nor will you be listened to, instead you're alienating more and more individuals who percieve you as a disruptive user, I advise you, once again, to cool down, let your peers review your references, if they're suitable, your contribution might be reinserted - Myanw 18:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by all means, remain civil, please! Myanw 18:02, 29 July 2006

run away child ... go pester some other kids


Indeed how mature you are, I tried to be nice with you, but it's just impossible, I wish you a happy posting - Myanw 18:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, never ever delete talk pages like that. Second, a single, out of place sentence sourced by a primary document (when it doesn't have to be) needs more work before being included. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle[edit]

The earliest attack on the 18th by the Aussies and NZers was a preliminary attack in the outer defensives of the Hindenburg line, outer defensives being different than the actual Hindenburg line, difference when trying to make sense of this subject and trying to figure out who attacked which defenses first.The reference “Australians in the first World war” from the article even calls it a preliminary attack.

“The British arrived at the line next, the British First Army attacking the Wotan-Stellung section of the wall (After Sept. 18th.) early in the battle followed by Douglas Haig’s forces”

The British First Army was Douglas Haig’s forces, along with the remainder of the British Armies.

In my opinion, not that anyone asked, this whole article should be deleted. The first attack on the Hindenburg line is either September 2 or September 26, myself, I say the first date. The Canadians, had already broken through the Wotan Stellung on September 2nd and continued forward to the front of the Canel du Nord. On August 28 and 29 the Canadians broke through the first defensive lines in front of the Wotan position.

The French armies and British armies all battled on, to different degrees, driving the Germans back up to and near or through the screening positions and into the Hindenburg position. During the first three weeks of September the First, Third and Fourth British armies all advanced forward over a lot of ground arriving at, or, through the outer defenses towards the main Hindenburg line. The Australians were still with the Fourth Army at this time.

The opening attack on the Hindenburg line or what has been called The Battle of The Hindenburg Line or what has been called the Grand Assault began on September 26th with following attacks all along the line in 24 hour intervals.

The first assault began with the Americans and Gouraud’s Fourth French Army. 24 hours later, the Canadians with the British First Army, and the Third Army were to break through the Canel du Nord and down into the Siegfried Position from the north. On September 28th, Plumer and his Second Army with the Belgiums and six French Divisions were to break out of the Ypres Salient and move along the Belgium coast. On September 29th Rawlinson’s Fourth Army and Debeney’s French First Army would attack by frontal assault through the Siegfried Position. Birdwood’s Fifth Army and Barthlot’s French Fifth and Mangin’s French Tenth Army were not to attack but to await developments.

The Americans suffered the first and the most due in large part to Pershing’s incompetent decisions and his inexperienced staff, primitive tactics and his refusal to take Foch’s advice. All British and some French Armies assaults were successful.

“On September 27 the US 27th and 30th Divisions launched the initial attack,”

I think this line is incorrect enough to be totally revised especially since it was another division, and others, that saved the Americans and the day and they’re not even included here.

On September 29 five divisions attacked on a nine mile front. The American 30th in the center with the 27th on their left flank and the British 46th North Midland Division on their right flank. Two more British divisions flanked the attack. The most remarkable success of the day was by the British 46th Division which crossed the obstacle of the St Quentin Canal, broke through the German defensives and captured 4,000 prisoners and 70 guns at a cost of 800 casualties.

Why,in the Grand Assault where some 100 divisions took part the US 27 and 30 are mentioned especially when they were given easier ground to attack over, didn’t follow the battle plans, set back the battle and in the end had others come to their rescue? Why not just say that it was the British 46th that launched the initial attack and made the breakthrough? Brocky44 13:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this battle around Epehy on the 18th any different from the battle around Havrincourt? In both attacks the German defenses were broken and the lines to the north and south turned which resulted in the enemy being pushed back completely into the main Siegfried line. The battle at Havrincourt was days earlier on September 12th so even if this article restates that it was a battle on the outer defences of the Hindenburg line it is not the earliest in this sector and certainly not of the whole Hindenburg Line.Brocky44 22:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

I agree with Brocky44.

This page (and many WW1 pages on wiki) are being re-written to over-emphasise the Canadian, Australian, and American role in WW1 at the expense of the British and the French.

To write an article about breaking the Hindenberg Line and not mention 46th (Midland) Div is indicative of bias and inaccuracy of the highest order.

Overall wiki is suffering as a relaible source due to partial and partisan 'contributions' by a few nationalist zealots

Roger 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it and removed all mention of individual units below the level of Army. The result is more accurate, less detailed but balanced article which doesn't give undue precedence to any nation.

Roger 83.67.126.86 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've done it again!

This was NOT a US/Australian battle, it was an allied battle.

If someone want to write up a detailed balanced account which mentions ALL the significant divisions invloved the please do so but to only mention US/Australian divisions is partisan, inaccuarate and playing games with history. Please stop doing this.

Roger

83.67.126.86 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see the bias continues even over a decade after this comment has been written; Canadian and Australian achievements are over-emphasised at the expense of all others. Wikipedia has become extremely unreliable as a historical source as a result of this...if you can source your claim, it doesn't matter if that source is itself accurate or not, it seems.

Battle questions/points[edit]

I agree with Brock and Roger (sorry if I misspell your name, Brock, I can't remember what it was originally posted as). But I must say the page still reads with a bias. It may require some major reworking, to be honest.

Also, I must question Epehy as the first major battle on the Hindenburgh Line. Havrincourt was six days prior and, according to G. W. L. Nicholson's "Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War : The Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1919" , in Appendix F on the Battle Honours, the Battles (note the plural) of the Hindenburgh Line are from the period 12 September to 9 October 1918, beginning with the Battle of Havrincourt, and ending with the capture of Cambrai 9 October.

While I quote only one source, there are two or three others worthy of note who say the same; I just don't have them close at hand at this time. If I remember to do so, I will edit this post to include them.Wikig39 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing bias[edit]

I've edited the page again!! I really don't know who keeps editing this page to highlight the Australian and US role at the expense of the British role but they are playing with history and dishonouring the memory of a fine allied effort.

It would be much better if someone could write a definitive, balanced, history of the battle and then seal this article.

Yrs hopefully

Roger 80.6.147.186 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is biased and it is written like all other Articles which involve Australians to highlight their country's role at the expence of all others,this Article doesn't even touch the sides of what happened here,but there are several important aspects left out 1]Monash planned this operation and it was highly flawed he used green US troops,they were given a massive task even for experienced soldiers,the artillery plan was almost non-existant and this battle raises a lot of questions to monashes competency as a general [these are not my words read Amiens to the Armistice] 2]Had he not been over-ruled by Rawlinson it would have been an abject failure,Rawlinson authorised the British involvement against Monash's wishes 3]The British attack of the fourth army was THE only one to achieve its objectives,AND THEY BROKE THE LINE IN THIS ARMYS SECTOR,thus this article is upside down 5]The Americans were responsible for breaking the line in THEIR southern sector 6]The nothern sector of the tunnel was a joint effort 7]Contrary to Australian mass opinion the Australians DID NOT break the line it was a British or American achievement,it was around this time that the Australians started to refuse to go into the line.8]This was the battle were an effective changing of the guard took place between the US and Australian forces they were pulled from the line on the fifth of October,the Americans went on to serve in the fourth Army and in that armys three major battles Cambrai,Selle and Sambre.So can we have these points added? instead of sychophantic and nationalisic pugwash,this was a major battle with important consequences and this article doesnt do it justice or is it the Australia show once again.Bullseye30 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The photo of the three sniping soldiers of the 45th Australian Battalion is incorrectly attributed to this battle. The photo is from the attack on the Hindenburg Outposts, 18 SEP 1918. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.180.172 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to this article that General Pershing, in his memoirs clearly credited the US 30th Div. in Breaking the line but since this is such a hotly debated topic, wanted to run it by all first. Note that the 27th ID had difficultly making it's objectives, not the 30th. Pershing, while not minimizing the 4th BEF, said that the attack of the 30th was not only where the break happened, but was ' "an operation on which all subsequent action of the 4th BEF depended..." see the wiki page for General Edward Mann Lewis for the full text of the letter. This fact is also documented in the book 'Borrowed Soldiers' by Mitchell A. Yockelson, Americans Under British Command ISBN 978-0-8061-3919-7 Copyright 2008 by Mitchell A. Yockelson.

The 30th and the 27th Division served under British Command as part of the bargain Pershing struck with General Haig and Marshall Foch, forming the II American Corps under General Read. "Old Hickory" fought with the First, Second, Third and Fourth British Armies, lastly serving under General Rawlinson. As part of the 4th British Army, they broke through the Hindenburg Line on September 29, 1918 at Bellicourt in the Battle of St. Quentin Canal winning the praise of General Pershing "... the 30th Division did especially well. It broke through the Hindenburg Line on its entire front and took Bellicourt and part of Nauroy by noon of the 29th."..[1]

Kevinakling (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pershing, John J., My Experiences In The World War. Volume II Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1931, p. 304.

Casualties[edit]

The OH didn't itemise British and Allied casualties; the 18th and 12th divisions did in general terms and Boraston covers 27 Sep to 5 Oct as The Battle of Cambrai and the Hindenburg Line (pp 280-285) and so its enumeration of 30 Br and 2 US divisions probably exceeds the scope of this article. Best I could do I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brig Jim Tanner on the battle[edit]

Hi there, I think this may be helpful to those interested in the battle: https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-latest-wwi-podcast/ep-82a-extra-episode-the-capture-of-the-riqueval-bridge-jim-tanner/ 71.220.209.71 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called "Battle of St. Quentin Canal"? As it is, the title is missing the period after the "St". Kornatice (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I did some research and apparently "St" is just as valid as "St." In that case, then shouldn't it be consistent? The title uses no period, but the opening paragraph uses one. The article uses both throughout. Kornatice (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_St_Quentin_Canal&oldid=1206182179"