Quote:
Originally Posted by peter simundson
I deal with fact. Not Part 2 orders. Or coffee table books. Simundson
|
Wow. I have never been accused of that before.
All of my books are based on historical record and I would prefer to rely on that than on the 60+ year memory of a veteran. Further, any individual CO may order or condone changes to Orders but it is the study of these Orders that tells us what the Army's intent was. It is Part 2 Orders that are fact - not the reminiscences of a veteran or the provenance of a uniform. I respect your knowledge and experience but your sweeping statements about wholesale replacement of all categories of materiel is hard to swallow.
There is written support that all units, prior to embarkation, were to report shortfalls in their War Establishment. In all cases material was supplied at the embarkation point with British material - this included motorcycles, vehicles and smal arms and allowed for the replacement of material which was lost on the way to the embarkation point. Obviously the "Continuing Canadian Supply" policy was not observed in these cases.
I don't understand the comment about British-made Canadian uniforms. The reason the Brits were making their economy pattern was because of their shortage of wool. If they were to re-clothe Canadians they would either do it with stocks of Canadian BD or they would issue British pattern BD, not a Brit-made Canadian pattern - and in which colour, British or Canadian?
In any event, until I see documented evidence or other primary sources I will file this one as an interesting story.