Leaving aside "living standards" as a parameter - just think of viet-cong successively beating French and US armies -, and only talking about what I don't utterly ignore (ie: WW2), training and doctrine did vary across Dominions. Australia, NZ and Canada couldn't see much threat on their home countries and did not invest in their land armies. Take Canada: they didn't have a single tank until the late 30's (AFAIR), and what they received were vintage British tanks. Go learn modern warfare with that. Dominion navies were also of limited size and scope (no battleship, no carrier, and I wonder whether any had submarines).TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑22 Oct 2021 18:42One idea for exploring: impact of higher Canadian/Aus/NZ living standards on Empire unit's performance in WW1. Each Dominion had significantly greater average height than the UK. I don't know a ton about WW1 but it seems likely that the training/doctrine of Imperial units was fairly consistent across UK-Dominions (even if varying by among units of national contingent)? If so, that might be a good candidate to isolate the effect living standards (proxied by height) ----> raw human material capabilities -----> military system ------> combat effectiveness. The Canadian/ANZAC seem to have been the shock troops of Empire, seemingly of higher combat effectiveness than British. Seems a decent candidate to isolte the effects of raw human factors from human factors added by military systems.
Although some circulation of ideas existed thanks to handed-picked officers attending advanced courses in the UK, it didn't change home habits in the Dominions.