The Canadians used artilery to lay fire ahead of their advance, and the ground troops walked at a steady pace so as not to get ahead of their own artillery. I recall reading that Byng begged for the task (he was the general in charge of the Canadian forces) because he thought the new tactics would work. They did. The cost was about 10% of the men. I understand that Canada was given the go-ahead because the central command figured that even though the plan might not work, it was better than what they'd been doing. The cost in life of the Vimy battle(s)--which lasted far longer than the four days in April--was approximately 250,000 German, British and French dead. I expect that adding the wounded would more than triple that figure. The Canadian loss (about 11,000 dead and wounded) was equally high in terms of percentages. In fairness to history, the British and French tacticians were instrumental in helping to devise the plan, and while certainly much credit can be given to Canada and the 'Canadian attitude', it must be recognized that many of the troops were recent immigrants, first generation Canadians.

I also think that other countries learned from Canada in terms of shaking off Colonial status. Some historians have posited that had Vimy Ridge been 'won' by any other country, it would likely receive little more than a footnote in history books. (Canada lost about 25,000 dead at the Somme for example). But there was an attitude amongst the Canadian troops that they could do it, and it is partly that attitude that made them successful, despite the cost. (They also trained for weeks using maps and mock-ups of the fields they'd be crossing--practice runs as it were.)

Canadian troops were not really 'respected' prior to Vimy. After that it was a different story. (And unfortunately it was Vimy that gave rise to the notion that Canucks were good to use as shock troops--lead elements in tough battles, and because they were in the lead they took very heavy casualties.)

A neat little aside: Canucks used tumplines (a strap that goes across the forehead, thus allowing the wearer to bear a heavier pack on hie/her back). It was an innovation developed and used during the fur trade, and even today it is not uncommon to see Canucks hiking hills with heavy packs supported by straps and tumplines. (It is a 'rule of thumb' that 50 pounds is the heaviest load a person can carry for any length of time without collapsing. The tumpline allows that load to increase by about 30%. [Full fire gear weighs about 70 pounds (exclusive of anything else the guy/gal is carrying)--that's bunker gear, lid, boots and SCBA, but even the strongest firefighters can only wear and work with that load for around 45 minutes. When that five minute low-air alarm sounds, I know it's greeted with a warm welcome)] Other countries scorned the Canadian 'adaptation' because it was a reminder of slavery years in the Commonwealth. For Canadians, it was just the way it had to be done. As memyself noted above, we are a much 'softer' people today, although I expect the country could easily raise a guarter million folks who know how to shoot accurately. But some of the 'toughness' just wouldn't be there.