What are
/r/WarCollege's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/WarCollege:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/WarCollege:
World of Tanks
Creative Commons
SemanticScholar
Project Gutenberg
Meduza
The Great Courses
JS Paint
Scribd
Google Images
Windy
Weatherspark
SlideShare
Flipkart
Adblock Plus
Wikipedia
The most popular Android Apps mentioned in /r/WarCollege:
The most popular reviews in /r/WarCollege:
> I guess paratroopers weren't used in the Pacific, but otherwise...
In fact, there were quite a few parachute drops in the Pacific War. It's just that most of them were by the Japanese! The Imperial Japanese Army had what they called "raiding brigades", which were trained as paratroopers. In the usual duplication of effort, the Imperial Japanese Navy had marine paratroopers as well.
Used mostly in the opening phases of the war, the best known and most successful operation was in the Dutch East Indies, during the Battle of Palambang, where Japanese paratroopers managed to take an airfield from the British and Dutch defenders, then advanced to capture intact a nearby oil refinery. A counterattack drove them off, but the attackers were mauled so badly they were unable to destroy the refinery as planned.
The best American airborne operation in the Pacific was the recapture of Corrigidor by the 503rd Parachute Regimental Combat Team in 1945.
note: a fantastic, little known book on parachute operations in the Pacific is the poetically titled <em>Blossoming Silk Against the Rising Sun</em>
If the enemy is shooting at your relatively static position, its because they already know where you are. There are two reasons why you'd return fire even if you're not expecting your fire to destroy the enemy.
Firstly, the presence of any outgoing fire that hits close can greatly reduce the accuracy of the enemy's fire. Humans aren't good shots in general, and when there's a general level of suppression even what little skill they have goes out the window. If you can do anything to help suppress the enemy, you make their fire much less effective.
Second, even more than reducing the effectiveness of the enemy's fire, the presence of outgoing fire means that the enemy cannot freely start moving units towards you, since infantry are very reticent to advance over open ground in the face of machine gun fire for some reason.
Thus, there are two very good defensive reasons to return fire even if there's no real expectation of destroying the enemy with your fires.
A decent primer if you want to read more on why infantry can and do fire without much hope of hitting their target, I suggest John English's On Infantry, or the well-sourced but somewhat finicky "The Rules of Infantry Combat" web article which floats about.
It's the kind of thing that might be more complicated than you think, there's not a lot of room in there, like the gunner and commander are already right up against the wall. It also might get in the way of stuff, just like trying to line your car with a big thick blanket might cause issues.
Still I imagine its more an issue of funding and priorities and they definitely could put in some form of one if they wanted to.
As to how well they work; really pretty well. It's a huge decrease in the amount of spall and the area that it hits. Ideally you want it spaced out away from the main armor, it doesn't work as well if its pressed right against it.
There's this one by Pierre Razoux having an in-depth overview of the war and there's this one by Kevin M. Woods and Williamson Murray which uses a lot of unclassified Iraqi documents found after 2003.
Indeed, just like the Israeli-, the Rhodesian military history is usually romanticised, instead of seriously and critically reviewed.
It's not only 'bullet-related war crimes' that are simply ignored: there's no end of praise for 'Fire Force tactics', although the Egyptians developed their own version already in Yemen of mid-1960s, and the Rhodesian deployment of chemical weapons was entirely ignored until only recently (for details, see Dirty War).
Similarly, and just like in the case of the SWAPO in Namibia (i.e. South Africans), it seems that nobody out there 'wonders' how comes - or why - the insurgents were receiving such a steady stream of thousands of recruits, regardless how 'successful', indeed, 'murderously effective', the 'highly successful security services' were, or should have been...
Strongly recommend Michael Foley's Confronting the War Machine which covers draft resistance but also continued apathy, discontent, and insubordination when in Vietnam.
To add to this, a surgeon general of Napoleon's Grande Armee (Larrey) examined several units following an undescribed battle and found that amongst all the casualties, only 5 were wounded due to bayonets. General Lejeune also commented that bayonet charges are "very rare in modern warfare, for as a rule one of the corps is demoralized to begin wth by the firing, and draws back before the enemy is close enough to draw muzzles"
The examples listed by OP show that bayonet charges do sometimes result in seemingly extraordinary results for the attacker, but you can't forget that the Japanese Banzai charges (such as the one on Guadalcanal) were met by prepared fires which completely destroyed them. If you need another example, look at the Battle of the Frontiers during the opening months of WWI, it was characterized by unsupported charges of French infantry aiming to close with the enemy in order to use the bayonet. The 200,000 casualties suffered by the French army from August to October serve as a testament to the fact that massed bayonet charges, while definitely glorious, are relics of another era.
Sources:
-The Art of Warfare in the age of Napoleon (Rothenberg)
-Paths of Glory: The French army 1914-1918 (Clayton)
>What is this based on? Who are you sourcing?
Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of 20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization. There are the 1984 version and a subsequent book version. I paraphrased that out of the book version off the top of my head, but doesn't seems to be in the 1984 version. Since I borrowed that book and read it over 12 years ago in a different library from where I am right now, I can't give you the page number, or exact line. It discussed the experience that WWII special forces were more effective in situations where the enemy didn't expect to be attacked or were not on high alert but suffer heavy casualties when commanders used them as shock troops.
The heavy casualties probably refers to how the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Ranger battalion were nearly wiped out and disbanded following the North Africa and Italy campaign. 2nd and 5th had 90 of 225 standing after 2 days action on Normandy beach.
While one may tend to think that being short-heighted would be an advantage in modern warfare the trend in reality is opposite. It has been seen that the bigger & taller soldiers are more likely to survive a war compared to shorter soldiers.
Here is a study where it was found that in WW1 the soldiers who survived were 3.3 cm taller than those who died And if such a survey is carried out now I am sure the results would be similar.
Both. Wellington said it about Waterloo and the British Commander in the Falklands referenced Wellington's quote when referring to the British experience there. It was often quoted afterwards. There is even a book about the Falklands with the quote as a title.
Very much so. The reporter was embedded in a truck with a specific Squad Leader. You end up seeing the whole invasion over-the-shoulder of just that Squad Leader. Gen Mattis is just a cameo and the whole US Army doesn't exist except for a brief mention of Jessica Lynch's convoy getting captured. It's a very narrow (albeit uniquely and redeemingly indepth) view of the invasion.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the Platoon Leader, Nathaniel Fick, published his own account if you want to contrast the view from literally just one echelon higher.
https://www.amazon.com/One-Bullet-Away-Making-Officer/dp/0618773436
I can highly recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141020792/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Which examined most aspects of the warring countries in order to analyse - why did Germany lose, and why were the Allies willing to stop when they did.
New book announcement...sort of...
So, the situation is this. Last week I sent the first volume of A British Attaché in the Russo-Japanese War - my edition of Sir Ian Hamilton's A Staff Officer's Scrap-Book - to both Kindle and the printer, with the aim that both would go live today. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell (and this is at best an educated theory), Amazon's Content Review Team managed to piss off a lot of other small publishers in the same way that they pissed me off, and my printer (Lightning Source, owned by Ingram), ended up swamped with titles. So, I'm still waiting for the book to make it into pre-media so that I can approve it and a listing can go live on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.
All of this means that I'm afraid that I don't have a print book to point everybody towards (with around 35 maps and photos that I spent hours restoring). However, the Kindle book edition IS available for sale right now, and can be found at:
US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B097F7X4L5 UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B097F7X4L5
Throw in <em>Sunburst</em> for the aerial side as well. It was originally supposed to be a chapter in Kaigun, but they realized the IJN's naval air side was too important to be limited to 30-40 pages.
The few times they actually launched from the carrier during operations in Syria (for details, see here), Su-33s were carrying a pair each of R-73s and R-27s, and a pair of RBK-500 CBUs. MiG-29s were usually loaded with a pair of R-73s and FAB-500M-54s each.
That said, they were soon disembarked and flew most of their 420 combat sorties (official figure) from Hmeimim AB.
Carl von Clausewitz was born in late 18th century Prussia. Access to every book written before his time is a completely unfounded assumption, regardless of the magnitude of the work and relation to his own.
Clausewitz's access to libraries, the makeup of those libraries, whether his contemporary society placed enough value on ancient Chinese theories to study them, etc. - all impact Clausewitz's awareness/reading of The Art of War. The Art of War was only translated from Chinese (into French) by a French Jesuit missionary living in China in 1772, eight years before Clausewitz's birth. In a precursory search, I can't find any references suggesting that Clausewitz read or referenced The Art of War.
I own and study two versions of The Art of War. The translation you want is dependent on what you desire from the text.
A comprehensive, clear translation that focuses primarily on the military application of The Art of War is one translated by Yuan Shibing. It features a very simple translation that focuses on providing sentences that are made to be understood, as opposed to interpreted. It also features various accounts of Chinese military history, with historical battles and diplomatic dilemmas that were solved by applying principles that were written in the Treatise.
A more philosophical, interpretative translation is the Denma translation. It features a more poetic translation, essays written by the translators regarding the content and applying it as a way of life, as well as commentary by the translators in order to help understand (but leave open to interpretation) the language.
If you intend to use it for strictly understanding military outcomes and principles, go for the Yuan Shibing's translation. If you look to apply it in a more general and philosophical way, the Denma Translation is the way to go.
Hi,
I can recommend "Understanding Modern Warfare", which had it's second edition recently published:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Modern-Warfare-David-Jordan/dp/1107592755
For a formal textbook to be used in universities, it is highly readable and provides a good high-level overview of how currently armed services are organized and what doctrines are applied. Mainly focuses on US, UK and likewise militaries.
Somewhat strange to see all the recommendations for the Military Ballance by the IISS etc., when they in turn are using the following one as a source - with addition of lots of their own guessing, 'because they know better':
Iraqi Air Power Reborn: The Iraqi Air Arms Since 2004, by Arnaud Delalande.
Sure, that's not really looking like a 'book' when one is holding it in his hands, even less so like an 'academic study', and it's already a few years old and thus not entirely up-to-date. But, you've got all the info about all the units (air force and army aviation), all the types operated, capabilities and intentions. And if Dr. Knights from the WINEP finds it worth attention, well, I would say: one shouldn't ignore it.
Tim Cook wrote a very good book titled The Secret History of Soldiers - basically, what soldiers got up to in the Great War when they weren't fighting and dying: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Soldiers-Canadians-Survived/dp/0735235287/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
(Full disclosure: Tim Cook was on my thesis defence committee.)
When you look at something like, say, the British Army in WW1, a lot of thought goes into keeping the men sane. That scene in 1917 where an officer in the front-line trenches has lost track of the date is utter nonsense - British infantry weren't kept in the front-line trenches for more than 5 days or so. Their remaining time was spent on leave, in training, doing labour behind the front, etc. What they did in their spare time is what Tim Cook's book is about.
(My favourite anecdote in there is the anatomy student who was assembling a skeleton under his cot, and worrying that it had a mix of German, French, and British bones in it. No idea if he ever figured out how to get the thing home...and kinda hope he DIDN'T, actually...)
But, a lot also depends on the war and the army in question. On the Western Front, for example, a lot of impromptu actions WEREN'T happening after 1916, because the British army had realized that to make any progress at all with minimal casualties, you needed a combined arms battle. So, trench raids involved artillery support, days if not weeks of planning, etc. A commander deciding on their own to "straighten the line" became fairly rare as the war went on and the learning curve progressed. On the Eastern Front in WW2, Soviet commanders in the field in 1941-1942 were given very little authority to act on their own initiative, while the opposite was true for the Germans (and in 1944-1945, this has switched, with the Soviets field commanders now given proper authority, etc.)
I think yes. It's very short and easy to understand, so there's really no point in not reading it. You can knock it out in a couple of hours.
The first couple of chapters are far more useful than the stuff about arranging renaissance armies. But even then I'd recommend "The Prince" over "The Art of War", because politics and warfare are usually integral to each other.
The popular term for what tanks did in the jungle when they did operate there was jungle busting. Basically you just line up the tanks and go forward pushing down trees as you go along though it only worked to a certain level of jungle denseness. Blackhorse Riders covers it a bit and so does an autobiography of a M48 commander but I don’t remember the name of that one.
If you are enjoying A Bear Went Over the Mountain, my first suggestion is its companion piece The Other Side of the Mountain based on interviews and after action reports from Mujahideen commanders and leaders.
This is convoluted, but if there is no other way of getting access to a transcription, you could try downloading a speech to text app and then play the audio through a speaker.
If you have an android device, this is supposed to be a good free speech to text app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.speechnotes.speechnotes
People have already mentioned Petersburg and I will shamelessly plug an older professors book on the topic.
But outside of American there were other instances of trench warfare. Since the time of Vauban, trenches had been used during sieges. At around the time you are looking at, the Crimean War say the use of trenches while at the same time as the American Civil War, the Prussians were fighting the Danes during the Second Schleswig War where the Danes utilized trenches at the Battle of Dybbøl.
Submission statement:
Citino gives a wonderful lecture here, along the lines of his previous lectures covering the contents of the previous books on the German army in the 2nd World War. This one is on the topic of the final book in the series (I guess his daughters are all out of college), the german campaigns of 1944-45. Overall a high quality lecture, and a reasonable abbreviation of an excellent book.
David Hobbs, a military historian of some note, has a book entitled <em>British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories</em>. It's exactly what it sounds like with the added bonus of multi-page fold-out blueprint-style drawing of the classes.
It's marvelously complete, including cancelled designs and even a section on the new QE carriers. Sure, that last one is a little out of date... the book came out in 2014... but it's been an invaluable resource for me for years.
I mention this because it's literally the only book of this sort that I've seen that treats the Habakkuk seriously.
But that chapter is the shortest in the book. The one you linked looks potentially interesting... $8.00 is welcome. Sadly it's a CreateSpace book, but again, the price isn't bad, it might be worth a flyer! Thanks for telling me about it!
This study lacks in term of Russian operation in the Arctic, near the border with Norway. (Petsamo-Kirkines offensive) If you wnat, here is a study by US historian James F. Gebhardt on this subject: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Petsamo-Kirkenes-Operation%3A-Soviet-Breakthrough-Gebhardt/0ef72afc9917e5b5d77f5e61f0b3fdcfb8254b7e
It's an odd format, but The Great Courses has an audio course called "Masters of War: History's Greatest Strategic Thinkers". Lectures 13-15 cover Mahan and Corbett, and then compare the two's ideas together. The lecturer, Dr. Wilson, makes the same comparison to Jomini and Clausewitz. You may enjoy it as further research.
One of the Western volunteers, a Norwegian gentleman, did write a book. He served with the Kurds for a few years. He himself was born in Kurdistan but then his family fled the area during Saddam’s rule.
It’s a short book just chronicling his experiences but it’s good. Link for those interested.
For an Egyptian perspective there is the "The Crossing of the Suez" by "Lt. General Saad El Shazly" who was the Egyptian Chief of Staff during the campaign.
Sadly the information I can provide is limited due to lack of 2/3 texts that can be relevant on the topic.
Bull Run to Boer War: How the American Civil War Changed the British Army has a section on artillery. In it, it quotes the British compiled Mahon Report which states, “‘Want of skill in the management of their artillery’ was considered ‘the chief cause of failure in the Federal Army, the guns being manned principally by men who were but little versed in the principles of gunnery’. The regular batteries were thought to conduct ‘firing that was well sustained and seemed effective’, but while volunteer batteries were well horsed and performed simple maneuvers well enough their general efficiency was considered ‘not good, and the firing made by them was generally inferior’.”
I have a book back at my parent’s house that is a dairy of a Confederate Artilleryman who served under Jackson and then on to the end of the war, but it’s name escapes be at the moment. From what I remember reading of that, it seems to correspond with the British opinion as there wasn’t much talk of training and the men only know what to do because of repetition. There was also a lot of talking about carrying for the horses.
Lastly, On Gunnery: Field Artillery Cannon Gunnery from the Civil War to the 21st Century might have some of the answers you seek but I do not own a copy so I can’t give you a definitive answer on if it does or not.
It’s knocking on a bit (well, ‘a lot’ really), very narrative in nature and probably a little off in regards to our current understanding of the USCW, but Bruce Catton’s <em>This Hallowed Ground</em> is simply a wonderful read. It’s entirely from the Union’s perspective but it takes in the whole war and is just beautifully written. I’ve read it three times now, just for the enjoyment of it and while there are many more rigorous histories available, this will give a good grounding of the conflict as a whole while also being an absolute joy to devour.
> It is over 25 years old and quite dated by now since there have been more documents that have come out since then.
Take Citino then.
I could also recommend Niklas Zetterling, Anders Frankson - Korsun Pocket: The Encirclement and Breakout of a German Army in the East, 1944 Available in many formats on Amazon
Iran-Iraq War, Volume 1 - which was meanwhile sold-out (Amazon might have a few copies left). A completely re-worked re-print is to follow in September-October this year.
I can not recommend Steel Wind: Colonel Georg Bruchmuller and the Birth of Modern Artillery enough. Even though I went through FA BOLC I still had trouble understanding some of what was taught. This book gave real world examples of the theories and ideas and the planning that Durchbruchmüller came up with are still used in the US Army at least.
There is also On Artillery though I haven’t read it yet it focuses on French and German artillery before WWI up to WWII.
I can also suggest some books from artillerymen and their experience in war but those are from WWII so idk if that’s of interest.
Lastly there are the US Army FA field manuals. To quote Yoda “Page turners they are not.” but they do have theories and principles.
In addition to what others have said,
Would recommend Claus Telp, Evolution of the Operational Art: 1740-1813, From Frederick the Great to Napoleon; it has a kind of scientific clarity that makes the revolutionary changes in warfare much easier to understand than I saw in other works treating the period.
The Military Revolution and The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, while more covering the period before the 18th century, are good for setting up a theoretical framework for understanding the period.
The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough and Military Experience in the Age of Reason are both good too.
I'm afraid not, although the book "The Art of Warfare in the age Napoleon" by Gunther Rothenberg contains a lot of information regarding Napoleonic tactics in general, as well as how skirmishers were used.
"The Roman way of War" by Chris McNab touches upon the use of skrimishers by the Romans throughout their history too.
However, none of these books deal specifically with skirmishing itself.
For my part, I'd recommend The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough and Marlborough as Military Commander by the great David Chandler, and Wars of the Age of Louis XIV, 1650-1715: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization by Cathal J. Nolan to get familiar with the period and its military technique.
Here's a pdf of the science article: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lelia_Watamaniuk/publication/298437241_Buck_and_Ball_Identification_and_interpretation_of_buckshot_injuries_to_the_pelvis_from_the_War_of_1812/links/56e9906708ae3a5b48cc7587.pdf
I was looking through Fuller's The Rifled Musket the other day and the results of the 1860 tests are sort of interesting. Each weapon had three different tests at each range, one where 10 soldiers were told to fire 5 shots by volley, one where they were told to fire by files, and one where they were told to fire as skirmishers. For the volley test at 100 yards the single shot scored 37 hits while the buck and ball scored 36 hits with the ball, which is pretty similar accuracy. When told to fire as skirmishers however the single shot hit 43/50 times while the buck and ball hit only 33/50 times, even worse than the volley fire. Since just about every single other weapon tested achieved higher accuracy when skirmishing rather than volleys I'm kind of tempted to write that off as an outlier though, especially since the buck and ball was back to matching the single shot smoothbore for accuracy in all three 200 yard tests. That would seem to suggest that the buck and ball load didn't have much of an effect on accuracy. It also doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on rate of fire, since US soldiers were still expected to achieve 2-3 shots per minute with buck and ball cartridges.
So it doesn't seem like there was much reason not to use buck and ball. But it's still curious that other nations don't seem to have been interested in it.
Here are some interesting articles from the Chieftain.
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/
For a detailed look at the Royal Navy's anti-submarine warfare tactics, I would recommend The Royal Navy and Anti-Submarine Warfare 1917-49.
There isn't much, I knew the reference from Hans van de Ven'sWar and Nationalism in China but from a Google this is an informative and cited article. It turns out less than 10,000 were produced which shows how small domestic production was.
While not directly relevant to your question, Antiaircraft Action Summary · World War II by the USN contains a number of insights and tables that I've found to be interesting and occasionally enlightening. Hopefully it provides a useful bit of background to the state of AA during this period.
Personally, I wish someone would publish a thoughtful and professional study of the European air war similar to The Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions Kindle Edition
So, early notification - my translation of The Memories, Letters, and Documents of Moltke the Younger is now available on Amazon Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09644C248
...and for the print version, they are pressing me for the information on the translator of the book (aka, ME). They haven't started holding it hostage yet, but this is not a good sign.
John English's <em>The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign: A Study of Failure in High Command</em> is probably the book you want.
I read it a quarter century ago so don't expect a detailed exegis but his main thesis is that the Canadian army in World War II did not achieve the same high standard of proficiency as it had in the First World War and, as the title suggests, this was largely a failure of the army's senior leadership. He attributes the lackluster performance of the army at Falaise to this shortcoming. I would add that the perception that the Canadian army underperformed in the Normandy breakout was likely a factor in it being shoved to the extreme left flank of the Allied advance on Germany.
He includes as an appendix a memo sent by Field Marshall Montgomery to General Harry Crerar, who would command First Canadian Army, after inspecting Canadian troops in (if memory serves) 1943. It is very apparent that Montgomery had serious doubts about Crerar's aptitude for preparing an army for war, as he provides extensive practical points on how to conduct training and evaluate subordinates (e.g. can officers explain the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals under their command? If not they are at the very least insufficiently engaged, and possibly ill suited to their assignment).
I recomment you the Book NATO in Afghanistan for this. While it doesn't go into operations it self it summarizes which countries actually were active and which weren't.
For Germany I don't have exact numbers but there are two well known offensive operations.
One was Operation Oqab and the other was Operation Halmazag.
There's also this book, which was a nice read:
SOG by Maj. John Plaster has a chapter devoted to psyops and other unconventional tactics used by SOG teams "across the fence".
...and an 'add-on': for a really good insight into Egyptian military preparations, planning and conduct of the October 1973 War, here another much ignored book
- Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippur War: an Analysis by Dani Asher.
This is none of the usual stories coloured by 'political atmosphere', filled with battlefield heritage, or published for PR puposes, but a military history based on captured documents and excerpts from 'intercepted' Arab (Egyptian, Syrian etc.) military publications. And then written and presented in a readable form and format too (i.e. neither dry nor boring).
Simply excellent, and a true 'eye opener (just like 'Taking Sides' and/or 'Arab MiGs' series).
...and an exception from the rule, then although having only one review on Amazon, this is 'right on the money'.
BTW, the sole potential 'alternative' to such topics would be the two massive volumes by Israeli author Pesach Malovany: one is 'The Wars of Modern Babylon', covering the history of the Iraqi armed forces, and the other is 'Out of North, an Evil shall break Forth', covering the history of Syrian armed forces.
Sadly, both of these are available in Hebrew only - precisely like such factual and in-depth Israeli books like 'Phantoms over Cairo', '30 Hours in October' (the latter is Benny Peled's story of the IDF/AF at war in October 1973), or few others...
Well, at least there is a rumour that Mallovany's 'Wars of Modern Babylon' is in the process of being translated, and planned for publishing in 2017 or 2018...
It’s not available on the web, unfortunately, as unlike the Army’s history, Morrison kept the copyright.
Here’s an Amazon link though: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009N3O6FU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_J1nzBbDECF4C4
The usual academic answer is from various archives and military academies. Pay your dues and do the necessary legwork for research.
But I personally find that answer very behind the times. The Internet may not have a central repository for military articles, but it doesn’t need to have one thanks to Google especially if you understand how to properly tune your search results.
For instance, when searching about the Rhodesian Bush war, I simply added the search term “PDF” into the query and got this as my first result:
And note that when you get your first long article, it’ll usually include a very long bibliography which you can then search for, like this:
Cox, Chris. Fireforce: One Man’s War in the Rhodesian Light Infantry. Johannesburg: 30 Degrees South, 2006.
Which you can then try to find copies of, perhaps by purchasing an ebook from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Fireforce-Mans-Rhodesian-Light-Infantry/dp/0958489092
(Though in this case it seems only the paper version is available).
I would caution though that most military history accounts are terribly one-sided, so it pays to also enter search queries about the other side, and to look at sources covering the opposition.
Don’t be afraid to search in Google adding “reddit” as a search query. A lot of wars often have a few English language experts who show up in reddit, and they very often can give more details that a normal paper would not cover.
David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard is a great account of Allen Dulles’ rise to the top and is packed to the rafters with all manner of shady shit. Deffo worth a read.
I apologize for the late addition to what I previously commented but looking at books for future classes I’ll take reminded me of Heavenly Warriors: The Evolution of Japan's Military, 500-1300. That should be of interest to you.
>reading Glantz’s “In Pursuit of Deep Battle.”
Read primary source about Deep Battle, it's free online - (PDF) G. Isserson - The evolution of operational art - translated at Ft Leavenworth.
I would also recommend A. A. Svechin book on strategy as a bridge from WWI analysis toward new strategy concepts. Svechin taught Isserson and many others theorists as well as best practitioners of Deep Battle (including Zhukov).
I am assuming you are talking about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan prior to the US/NATO war in Afghanistan.
If you want to know more about Soviet tactics in Afghanistan and the reasons behind them I highly suggest reading The Bear went over the Mountain as it details the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. Chapter 4 specifically talks about their use of outposts.
They made those tactical adjustments by 1776.
They didn’t lose because of tactics. They lose because they were trying to suppress an insurgency 40-90 days sail away in an area the size of Western Europe with low tens of thousands of men. Oh, and all their peers were supporting the rebels.
>In the 1930's there were senior US Army officers saying we'd never stop using man's best friend, the horse because automobiles were too unreliable and tanks didn't have the ability to travel at distance.
I mean... https://www.amazon.com/Horse-Soldiers-Extraordinary-Victory-Afghanistan/dp/1416580522
Battle Studies by Ardant du Picq: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7294/7294-h/7294-h.htm
​
Obscure today, but this is probably the only major work that focuses mainly on morale.
There are many, as has been said.
One that comes to my mind is We Were Soldiers Once... and Young written by then Lt. Col. Hal Moore, commanding 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry at the battle of the Ia Drang Valley. This was the primary source of the movie We Were Soldiers, though as far as I remember the movie was about 90% sensationalized battle scenes.
In his book the “Bear Trap”, Pakistani Colonel Mohammad Yousaf, who directed ISI’s support to Mujahideen, gave this analogy. The suppliers wants the water to be very warm. If it is cool, the enemy country gets too comfortable. If it becomes boiling hot, the enemy will strike out at you. If it’s warm, they will be in pain but won’t hit out too much at you.
https://www.amazon.com/Afghanistan-Bear-Trap-Defeat-Superpower/dp/0971170924
Yes. The USAF F22 flew in exercise against them back in the 2000s and from what I have read they were quite a handful to deal with.
On the issue of Pakistan and the fighter Mafia, there is an interesting bit in the book "Cutting Edge" by a former PAF Chief of Staff. He talks about how he shared his war experience with the USAF personnel as well as defence contractors. He does touch on fighter Mafia a bit and how he thinks they over read somethings.
https://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Chief-Marshal-Anwar-Shamim/dp/9694025400
Richard Overy wrote a fantastic book on the air war in WW2 called...wait for it...The Air War.
His central thesis is that (generally speaking) the Allies employed a "general air strategy", whereas the Axis used a "limited air strategy." The key difference (by his definition) is "the limited use of air power was confined to one major role in support of the other services. In the case of Germany, it was used in support of the army; in the case of Japan in local support of the navy. Certainly in the German case a general strategy had been attempted in 1940 but was repudiated precisely because of it's effectiveness in the Battle of Britain and the Blitz."
I'm biased, but one of my undergrad mentors was a Clausewitz specialist. We used the Michael Howard/Peter Paret translation in our Clausewitz-focused seminar.
And hey, I'll plug my prof's book as well ;)
> Because you translated it? (I have no idea why you're feeling the need to make that bold, are you serious or is this some parody attempt at being humble?). I could just read the thing in German lmao
See for yourself: https://www.amazon.com/Memories-Letters-Documents-Moltke-Younger/dp/1927537576/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
And, while your ability to read the thing in German is good for you, that ability doesn't exist for anglophone students who can't read German.
> But again, lots of words to not even adress the point, which is rifles, just a few paragraphs of self-congratulating nonsense. Try addressing the actual point at hand instead of selling books.
So, let me get this straight: I talk about my primary source research. You demand sources. I provide over 30, most of which are articles by professional military officers from multiple countries about how to deal with trenches written between 1905-1914. And this is your response.
Now it goes to the mods.
In essence, it was "wishful thinking". The British and French military leaders spent a lot of time digesting the lessons learned from WW1 and preparing their forces for the same situation. The Germans, in contrast, did not have the option to adjust their military to WW1 lessons learned, because of the limitations resulting from the Versailles treaty. Therefore, the Germans were forces to "think out of the box" and were more receptive to new technologies and new doctrine.
For more on this, you can read "The Fall of France" by Julian Jackson: https://www.amazon.com/Fall-France-Invasion-Making-Modern/dp/0192805509?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=1b61b2b8-7309-4700-9db0-e367f3decaa8 Of course, many other books go into this topic as well.
I can recommend two works. Artillery in the Great War is the best book I've read on, well... artillery in the great war. It is obviously focused on WW1 itself, but spends a fair bit of coverage on developments leading up to the war. The second book is much closer to what you're looking for, On Artillery by Gudmundsson. It claims to be a broad coverage of all artillery, but in practice focuses basically exclusively on the Germans. This was more than a little frustrating when I read it, but should actually be right up your alley.
> Dr. Dieter Kapell in 'Die Deutsche Kurzpatrone' claims its a groundbreaking innovation
Without being too harsh... I'm not surprised that the author of a book about a specific caliber is claiming that specific caliber is impressive and groundbreaking. The overall concept of the Assault Rifle as shown in the StG-44 is an important step in the history of creating more "intense" and effective infantry firepower, to be sure... but the 7.92 Kurz round is the least impressive part of the package. There is a reason that large-caliber intermediate cartridge rounds have died off, and 7.92 especially was the product of severe wartime compromises, eg keeping the 8mm Mauser case head.
> necking of cartridges only impacts feeding performance.
Well, not quite. For a fixed caliber and cartridge length (important for mags and weapon size), necking a cartridge gives you more case capacity than a cartridge without necking. People refer to the bottlenecked nature of 7.92 Kurz since it represents the fact that it has notably more case capacity than .30 Carbine (34 grams H2O vs 21 grams), and is more a "small rifle round" than a big pistol round. (Yes, I know 7.62 Tokarev is bottlenecked.
Finally, you should check out the Military History Visualized translation of the Sturmplatoon manual if you like the StG-44. It teaches a lot of good lessons on how the StG was used at the platoon and individual level, bringing out the positive characteristics of the weapon and placing some of the technical features in better context. A small ramble on the book here.
New book time!
It is my great pleasure to announce that volume one of my translation of Joffre's Memoirs is now available for sale on Amazon.com.
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B4VBDPFN
So, what is special about this translation? The main thing is that it is complete. The original translator, T. Bentley Mott, excised around 15,000 words from volume 1 alone, deciding that things like details on training camps and artillery procurement would not be of any great interest to the reader. As a result, the original 10 chapters of the pre-war section of the book was reduced to 5, with a couple given 1-2 page summaries in appendices in the second volume.
Well, everything is here in this translation. And, wherever possible, when Joffre quotes an English-language source, I chased down the original source to avoid the translation-of-a-translation phenomenon.
So, please enjoy! I have already done the OCR for volume 2, and I expect to start cleaning it up for translation shortly.
Absolutely! Door kicking is all well and good, but there is something to be said for a battalion of guys who can infiltrate your country and literally tip it on its head.
If you want a great book recommendation, check out Black Ops by Rick Prado. He was an ex USAF Pararescueman who joined the CIA as an intelligence officer. His family was driven out of Cuba by Castro, and lost everything... So he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder with regards to communism. You could say he flourished when he was given the chance to train the Nicauraguan Contras...
He covers a lot of it in the book, it's the best book I've read regarding this sort of stuff in the last few years.
You might enjoy Grunt by Mary Roach. She heavily touches on medical techniques including reconstructive surgeries.
All right - everything is sorted, so new book time!
This week's offering is Battle Tactics of the German Army 1914-1918 by William Balck. Before WW1, Balck was one of the heavy hitters of German military science. His textbook on tactics saw several editions, was translated into English, and considered essential reading by the leadership of the United States Army. When the war started, he got a field commission, and ended up winning Prussia's highest military honours, as well as being wounded in combat. This book was originally published in German in 1922, and translated into English in the same year by the American army staff school.
So, not only does this book take a detailed look at how the Germany Army fought the First World War and how its tactics developed over time, it was written by the man who was arguably Germany's top tactical expert until the day he died.
The USA was resource-rich and protected from invasion. We didn't need to import iron, coal, oil, wheat, etc. The Axis powers had to import/conquer in order to fuel their war economy, and their supply lines and industry were vulnerable to attack.
The USA could train its pilots in total safety, with a seemingly unlimited supply of fuel, aircraft, and time. Since it wasn't under the threat of sustained attacks, it could take its time building and training its forces. The USA then deployed those forces slowly, which gave them time to learn and the early losses didn't have long term consequences because of the excess resources.
Because of these advantages, the USA could afford to rotate its pilots, taking advantage of their experience before they were lost through an accumulation of mental stress, physical fatigue, or bad luck. The best fighter pilot in the world is still only one man, and they can have an even greater effect by teaching and thus improving the overall skills of new pilots. In other words, it's better to have 50 decent pilots, than one amazing one.
This book has a comic from WWII depicting an aristocratic German ace who has just been shot down by a young American pilot. The German addresses the American saying something like, "I am Major Ritter, the Count of Neu Braunhausen, holder of the Knight's Cross, and I have 97 aerial victories. How many do you have?" The American replies, "One sir!"
Well, Kindle might be delayed - Amazon is holding it hostage at the moment.
The print edition listing, on the other hand, is starting to appear: https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Tactics-German-Army-1914-1918/dp/192753769X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=PILK0BMLLZN4&keywords=Battle+Tactics+of+the+German+Army+1914-1918&qid=1649622493&s=books&sprefix=battle+tactics+of+the+german+army+1914-1918%...
Not really an academic source, but Rick Atkinson does some of the best written pop-history. His WW2 series is a must-read, and he's begun a three volume series on the American Revolution
https://www.amazon.com/British-Are-Coming-Lexington-Revolution/dp/1627790438
I haven't read them, but Thomas Whigam is concerned the pre-eminent scholar of the Paraguayan War. Check these out:
Have you read Fitzpatrick’s recent book about Upton? It won a national military history writing award a couple of years ago. It is in my opinion, a must read for students of Upton. I highly recommend it.
https://www.amazon.com/Emory-Upton-Misunderstood-Campaigns-Commanders/dp/0806157208
Currently reading Danby, Men of Armor: The History of B Company, 756th Tank Battalion in World War II: Part One: Beginnings, North Africa, and Italy. Part One. (Actually the first volume of a two volume work.)
This work may well set the benchmark for the training and combat operations of a company level tank unit at the "foxhole" level.
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Armor-History-Battalion-Beginnings/dp/1636240135
Here is an excellent academic work that does an excellent job in laying out Eisenhower’s mistakes and predilection for avoiding making decisions. https://www.amazon.com/Beetle-General-Walter-American-Warrior/dp/081313658X
New Book I’ve preordered about an OUTSTANDING African American WWII combat unit, the 614th Tank Destroyer Battalion. To my knowledge it’s the first book length scholarly treatment of this unit. Can’t wait to read it. https://www.amazon.com/614th-Tank-Destroyer-Battalion-Fighting/dp/1399008684
the book cited that incident from Robert E. Herzstein, Waldheim: The Missing Years (New York: Arbor House/William Morrow, 1988), p 88. I'm not familiar with post-Cold War European politics but I'm guessing that's the Waldheim you know.
The logistical failures in the East and the effect they had on 6th Army are, as you indicated, well known. Jobie Turner’s "Feeding Victory" includes an excellent case study on German logistics in Stalingrad and the Eastern Steppes. He goes into considerable detail in the German efforts to overcome the logistical challenges and their significance in the failure of 6th Army at Stalingrad. I recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about this topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Feeding-Victory-Innovative-Military-Logistics-ebook/dp/B08WHGRQMW
I found Alan Moorhead's March to Tunis in the donation pile and it's great. The chaos and wild fighting in the desert superbly reported on. Gives you a real feel of what life was like. Someone else reviewed it hereand it's pretty accurate.
I would recommend the following novel as it does a great job describing action in the Northern German Plain from a Soviet perspective and helps to understand why the North would have been the main effort versus Fulda. Probably one of the best WWIII books written, but not very well known.
Sources from the Hellenistic Empires are *incredibly* thin on the ground, so a lot of work has to be done with very limited material. There is no surviving pike phalanx manual from any period, much as there is no surviving Roman manual until well into 400AD. The best modern syncretisation of sources and experimental archaelogy is Christopher Matthew's An Invincible Beast.
There’s an excellent historical fiction book about a soldier in Alexander the Great’s army in Afghanistan called <em>The Afghan Campaign</em>
The reality is, before 9/11, in the rural areas especially, many people lived and fought little different than their ancestors had 2000+ years ago when Alexander the Great invaded.
Then why it is suggested as something other than obsolete?
Much more thorough (while being a digest of several academic volumes) David Glantz's book is pretty recent and acknowledged as one much closer to archival documents by russian historians too - but it's Beevor's haphazard semi-fiction that still brought on.
I get lectured by this gentleman and his book on the subject won prizes. He's got a more recent publication on Colbert and the British way of War which might also be of interest.
The book above discusses Athens, Carthage, Venice, the Dutch Republic and Britain as "sea powers" and what that means.
Good on you for mentioning the importance of a robust financial system to overall power. It calls to mind this book for me: https://www.amazon.com/Fragile-Design-Political-Princeton-Economic/dp/0691155240
If I may be permitted a shameless plug, through my little publishing company I had the pleasure of publishing a book on the Franco-Prussian War authored by my friend (and independent historian) John-Allen Price. It's called The War that Changed the World: The Forgotten War that Set the Stage for the Global Conflicts of the 20th Century and Beyond, and you can find it here: https://smile.amazon.com/War-that-Changed-World-Forgotten/dp/0978465210/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+War+that+Changed+the+World&qid=1639582048&sr=8-1
>"Finland, for example, would be wiped out by fallout from US ground-burst explosions on the Soviet submarine pens in Leningrad"
It would? The winds don't seem to blow that way.
> The Cruel Sea-including the film
For those interested, it's available on BBC iPlayer for the next six days. Well worth watching.
You sound better read than me on WW1. I've read a few of Holger Herwigs books that I thought were good and didn't come off (to me) as brit centered.
https://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-Austria-Hungary-1914-1918/dp/0340573481
And his book on the Marne battle.
This was a very good book written that covers US politics in the Middle East up until 2015'ish. Chas Freeman was the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the 1st gulf war and a lifelong diplomat. He's very critical of the war and some of the relations the US has with other countries which has led to a lot of criticism about him.
https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Continuing-Misadventures-Middle-East/dp/1682570053
Harper's Ferry Armory and the New Technology is one of the most important works of American industrial history. It follows the history of the Harper's Ferry arsenal, the black sheep of the early American arms industry, from its founding to its end in 1861. Especially if you have a background in industrial machinery (I was a bit in over my head), this is exactly what you're looking for
>What would you say is the battle with the most writing produced around it? (either just research on the matter or both fiction and nonfiction) Note that with an English-speaking bias, my guess is D-Day, or maybe Waterloo.
Stalingrad takes the cake: a brief search showed at least 100 books covering every facets from the experience of a single division to every single day of the battle. Every major big name in the history field at least has to have a book on Stalingrad like Beevor and Glantz and it was one of the few battles to have a literary giant (Vasily Grossman) writing about it. And we have yet to talk about the Russian sources. There were also more films made about it than any battle with at least 3 German films and 5 Soviet/Russian films.
Nomonhan: Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat, 1939 focuses on one IJA battalion of the 28th Infantry Regiment during the Battle of Nomonhan.