Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I like books about tanks so much that I even wrote one myself.   https://www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/product/view/productCode/15014  

I've had Lawrence's comically large tome on Kursk for four years or so and have just started reading it, having been previously intimidated a bit by its sheer size and scope. I mean, it has the word "

Check out this interview on my site with author Robert Forczyk.  We talk about his latest book "Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1943-45" as well as his career as a US Armor officer.   https://tank

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 01/04/2018 at 7:33 AM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

From a brief overview of his books they seem a bit sensationalist and more analytical than technical (even though he is an engineer), but he also opposes Suvorov/Rezun, so that's something. I can't find what book this is supposed to be translated from, it might be an adaptation of "June 1941: a pre-programmed defeat". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I picked up Sabot Publications books on the M60A2, both volume 1 and volume 2.

 

The books are mostly aimed at modelers and consist mainly of exterior shots of the tanks on exercise in Germany.  However, there are also some interior shots, and a bit of technical discussion of the vehicles.  The authors are also quite emphatic from interviews with former crew that, while the tank was in service, nobody called it a "starship!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

The local university had a book sale, so I basically swept up everything with as much as the word "tank" in it off the military history table.

 

47vLueo.png

 

But wait, there's more. Zoom, enhance!

 

nemFr1a.png

 

These books bound in red cloth are each worth as much as the rest of that stack combined. 

 

qjUtjKt.png

 

They're official histories of the Canadian army, published only a few years after the war with the backing of the Department of National Defense. As a result they have amazing photographs and maps actually drawn by military cartographers.

 

0sWSwlx.png

 

And the best part is that since they've been printed 70 years ago, so they're all out of copyright :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Just got through Guderian: Panzer Pioneer or Myth Maker? by Russell A. Hart. I was looking forward to reading it; the introduction says the book "seeks the real Heinz Guderian, not the man of legend." I was expecting a short but interesting insight into how Guderian inflated his accomplishments, much like Bond and Mearsheimer had done with Liddell Hart (and which Gat later attempted to redress). No less than Richard DiNardo proffered a decently glowing review of the book that concluded with, "This monograph is certainly not the definitive biography of Guderian, and I do not think the author had that goal in mind. As a corrective to one of the more mendacious memoirs of the Second World War, Hart's work clearly hits the mark." Looking good!

 

As it turns out, the book is a hot mess. It consists of surprisingly repetitious (and it's only 118pp), scantily-researched, poorly-evidenced, and thesaurus-driven prose that does little to convince the reader of the author's arguments unless the reader is fine with simply taking his word on things. (Of course, with the way things go on social media, this may not be an issue...). The third sentence in the introduction is, "Unfortunately, too many of Guderian's biographers have accepted Guderian's view of his accomplishments without sufficient critical scrutiny." In the endnote for this sentence Hart mentions seven such hagiographies, including two editions of Macksey's book on Guderian, Panzer General and Creator of the Blitzkreig. From this strong start, I thought with glee, clearly Hart will offer some hard-hitting, original research using novel sources!

 

Oh. :(Hart's main sources are the biographies he accused of insufficient critical scrutiny in the third sentence of his book.

6rqQ77U.jpg

 

Hart consistently makes assertions and accusations with no supporting examples, and often with even no citation. Some of this stuff I even believed going in, but if I had disagreed I would not be convinced by Hart simply saying so. E.g., people now realize Lutz had a large hand in forming the German armored forces. Hart agrees, stating. "It was Lutz more than Guderian who transformed the Mobile Troops Command into a strong, coherent branch in the late 1930s. Quietly, with much less fuss and rancor than Guderian was raising, Lutz negotiated, cajoled, listened, and compromised to push forward his command more effectively than Guderian ever could have done." What negotiations and compromises actually occurred are, like many things in the book, left to the reader's imagination.

 

Hart later says that "Guderian despised the Catholic, Slavic Poles who now [in 1939] occupied parts of his native, beloved Prussia." This is not provided with any citation or evidence. It's not that I wouldn't believe such a statement, but I would expect some evidence to accompany its presentation. Hart later says that during the French invasion, "In his private correspondence, Guderian expressed compassion for the plight of the French populace. This demonstrated that he held the 'civilized' French in much higher regard than he did the Slavic Poles." So I guess that's the evidence? Again, not that I wouldn't believe it, but that connection seems a bit of a stretch.

 

Likewise, Hart says that during the Polish invasion Guderian "earned the enmity of many a senior officer whose command prerogatives Guderian carelessly and thoughtlessly trampled over. For example, Guderian soon found himself at odds with the 3d Panzer Division commander--Freiherr Geyr von Schweppenburg--another future rising star of the armored force." What prerogatives were trampled, what odds occurred, and how those odds were resolved are not mentioned.

 

A fourth example: "Largely as a result of Guderian's insistence, these [Hummel and Wespe] were produced only in limited numbers, sufficient at best to equip a single battalion in each panzer artillery regiment during 1943-5. The lack of self-propelled guns reflected Guderian's opposition to diverting resources and production capacity to artillery weapons and his firm prewar belief that only tanks could fight other tanks effectively." This cites pp.216-22 in Panzer Leader. Unfortunately, my edition is apparently paginated differently, because there is nothing in those pages in my copy that talks about Guderian's opposition to SP arty. I did find where Guderian laid out the notes he took to his 9 March 1943 conference with Hitler et al after becoming Inspector-General of Armored Troops, which included "9.The artillery of the panzer and motorized divisions will from now on be receiving the adequate number of self-propelled gun-carriages which has been requested for the past 10 years...Tanks of latest design must be supplied for artillery observers."

 

A final example of evidenceless assertions for this post, but by no means final in the book: "[Guderian's] response to that trend [of the SS and Nazi party gaining influence and threatening taking over the army in 1944] was to more strongly identify himself and the armored troops with the national socialist worldview and agenda." No citation, no elaboration on how Guderian identified the armored troops with the Nazi worldview and agend, or even what that means, really.

 

Hart can't seem to decide how well Guderian performs as far as politics and influencing others. He variously describes him as having "political naiveté" (p.90), being "a consummate political operator" (p.92) who "continuously politicked" (p.93) those in Hitler's sphere, who executed a "calculated political neutrality" (p.102) after the assassination attempt on Hitler, yet who was again "a political neophyte" (p.115) who was "politically naive" (p.117). This list starts at p.90 only because that's when I bothered to start keeping track. It exists throughout the book.

 

I generally like historical scholarship and biographies to take a decently even-handed approach, but Hart makes no attempt to hide his bias with word choice, time and again throwing out strings of adjectives full of negative connotation: "More than anything else, it was his repeated, insolent defiance of higher authority, his insatiable and threatening demands for more of everything, his inability to understand the needs of other commands or act as a team player, combined with his inability to finesse his superiors, that cost Guderian his appointment." Jeez, say how you really feel.

 

So, in sum, I was disappointed. I went into this book believing that Guderian made more of himself than he should have re: the formation of German armored forces, but Hart did little to convince me had I not already thought so. The book is not all bad (I hadn't heard of the bribes Hitler gave to senior officers, but this research is not original to Hart, who cites others' work), but it's shallow and I feel it's not very good scholarship, especially from a history professor and PhD-holder who specializes "in the history of the Second World War in the European Theater." At least it was only like $12.

 

NPi3t6d.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 2:14 AM, DogDodger said:

Just got through Guderian: Panzer Pioneer or Myth Maker? by Russell A. Hart. I was looking forward to reading it; the introduction says the book "seeks the real Heinz Guderian, not the man of legend." I was expecting a short but interesting insight into how Guderian inflated his accomplishments, much like Bond and Mearsheimer had done with Liddell Hart (and which Gat later attempted to redress). No less than Richard DiNardo proffered a decently glowing review of the book that concluded with, "This monograph is certainly not the definitive biography of Guderian, and I do not think the author had that goal in mind. As a corrective to one of the more mendacious memoirs of the Second World War, Hart's work clearly hits the mark." Looking good!

 

As it turns out, the book is a hot mess. It consists of surprisingly repetitious (and it's only 118pp), scantily-researched, poorly-evidenced, and thesaurus-driven prose that does little to convince the reader of the author's arguments unless the reader is fine with simply taking his word on things. (Of course, with the way things go on social media, this may not be an issue...). The third sentence in the introduction is, "Unfortunately, too many of Guderian's biographers have accepted Guderian's view of his accomplishments without sufficient critical scrutiny." In the endnote for this sentence Hart mentions seven such hagiographies, including two editions of Macksey's book on Guderian, Panzer General and Creator of the Blitzkreig. From this strong start, I thought with glee, clearly Hart will offer some hard-hitting, original research using novel sources!

 

Oh. :(Hart's main sources are the biographies he accused of insufficient critical scrutiny in the third sentence of his book.

6rqQ77U.jpg

 

Hart consistently makes assertions and accusations with no supporting examples, and often with even no citation. Some of this stuff I even believed going in, but if I had disagreed I would not be convinced by Hart simply saying so. E.g., people now realize Lutz had a large hand in forming the German armored forces. Hart agrees, stating. "It was Lutz more than Guderian who transformed the Mobile Troops Command into a strong, coherent branch in the late 1930s. Quietly, with much less fuss and rancor than Guderian was raising, Lutz negotiated, cajoled, listened, and compromised to push forward his command more effectively than Guderian ever could have done." What negotiations and compromises actually occurred are, like many things in the book, left to the reader's imagination.

 

Hart later says that "Guderian despised the Catholic, Slavic Poles who now [in 1939] occupied parts of his native, beloved Prussia." This is not provided with any citation or evidence. It's not that I wouldn't believe such a statement, but I would expect some evidence to accompany its presentation. Hart later says that during the French invasion, "In his private correspondence, Guderian expressed compassion for the plight of the French populace. This demonstrated that he held the 'civilized' French in much higher regard than he did the Slavic Poles." So I guess that's the evidence? Again, not that I wouldn't believe it, but that connection seems a bit of a stretch.

 

Likewise, Hart says that during the Polish invasion Guderian "earned the enmity of many a senior officer whose command prerogatives Guderian carelessly and thoughtlessly trampled over. For example, Guderian soon found himself at odds with the 3d Panzer Division commander--Freiherr Geyr von Schweppenburg--another future rising star of the armored force." What prerogatives were trampled, what odds occurred, and how those odds were resolved are not mentioned.

 

A fourth example: "Largely as a result of Guderian's insistence, these [Hummel and Wespe] were produced only in limited numbers, sufficient at best to equip a single battalion in each panzer artillery regiment during 1943-5. The lack of self-propelled guns reflected Guderian's opposition to diverting resources and production capacity to artillery weapons and his firm prewar belief that only tanks could fight other tanks effectively." This cites pp.216-22 in Panzer Leader. Unfortunately, my edition is apparently paginated differently, because there is nothing in those pages in my copy that talks about Guderian's opposition to SP arty. I did find where Guderian laid out the notes he took to his 9 March 1943 conference with Hitler et al after becoming Inspector-General of Armored Troops, which included "9.The artillery of the panzer and motorized divisions will from now on be receiving the adequate number of self-propelled gun-carriages which has been requested for the past 10 years...Tanks of latest design must be supplied for artillery observers."

 

A final example of evidenceless assertions for this post, but by no means final in the book: "[Guderian's] response to that trend [of the SS and Nazi party gaining influence and threatening taking over the army in 1944] was to more strongly identify himself and the armored troops with the national socialist worldview and agenda." No citation, no elaboration on how Guderian identified the armored troops with the Nazi worldview and agend, or even what that means, really.

 

Hart can't seem to decide how well Guderian performs as far as politics and influencing others. He variously describes him as having "political naiveté" (p.90), being "a consummate political operator" (p.92) who "continuously politicked" (p.93) those in Hitler's sphere, who executed a "calculated political neutrality" (p.102) after the assassination attempt on Hitler, yet who was again "a political neophyte" (p.115) who was "politically naive" (p.117). This list starts at p.90 only because that's when I bothered to start keeping track. It exists throughout the book.

 

I generally like historical scholarship and biographies to take a decently even-handed approach, but Hart makes no attempt to hide his bias with word choice, time and again throwing out strings of adjectives full of negative connotation: "More than anything else, it was his repeated, insolent defiance of higher authority, his insatiable and threatening demands for more of everything, his inability to understand the needs of other commands or act as a team player, combined with his inability to finesse his superiors, that cost Guderian his appointment." Jeez, say how you really feel.

 

So, in sum, I was disappointed. I went into this book believing that Guderian made more of himself than he should have re: the formation of German armored forces, but Hart did little to convince me had I not already thought so. The book is not all bad (I hadn't heard of the bribes Hitler gave to senior officers, but this research is not original to Hart, who cites others' work), but it's shallow and I feel it's not very good scholarship, especially from a history professor and PhD-holder who specializes "in the history of the Second World War in the European Theater." At least it was only like $12.

 

NPi3t6d.jpg

 

Great review!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

I've had Lawrence's comically large tome on Kursk for four years or so and have just started reading it, having been previously intimidated a bit by its sheer size and scope. I mean, it has the word "Prokhorovka" on the spine...horizontally. And it weighs 12 pounds.

VVVMxfx.jpg

 

So far, Lawrence is definitely thorough, and there are first-person accounts to balance out the archival research. I can't really form an opinion of his analysis of the battle yet since I'm only on page 359, where the actual battle begins.

2EkwV3Z.jpg

 

I'll keep everyone posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      SH_MM once uploaed this piece of image on this thread
      and I want to know where this is from.
       
       
       
       
       
      Is there anyone who can tell me the name of the book?
       
       

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      So I thought it might be a fun project to create a list of authors who have written about tanks and armored warfare for my website.  I was going to limit the list to authors who have been published in English. I was thinking I would categorize them and provide whatever biographical info that I could.  I started going through my book collection and files collecting names.  I am not finished and I already am getting overwhelmed.  I have not included memoirs by armor officers unless they were actual tank commanders. Here is what I have so far, not sorted or organized yet:
       
      List of Tank and AFV Authors
       
      Steven Zaloga
      Richard Ogorkiewicz
      David Fletcher
      Robert J Icks
      Kenneth Estes
      Harry Yeide
      George Forty
      Simon Dunstan
      Kenneth Macksey
      Pat Ware
      Thomas Jentz
      Hillary Doyle
      Richard Hunnicutt
      Chris Ellis
      Peter Chamberlain
      Michael and Gladys Green
      Peter Beale
      A J Smithers
      Robert Griffin
      M P Robinson
      James Loop
      Walter J Spielberger
      Uwe Feist
      Norm Harms
      Charles Kliment
      Janusz Magnuski
      Bruce Culver
      Peter Brown
      B. T. White
      Dr. F. M. von Senger und Etterlin
      John Milsom
      Roger Ford
      Horst Scheibert
      Mikhail Baryatinskiy
      Robert Forczyk
      Lon Nordeen & David Isby
      John Buckley
      Bruce Quarrie (wehraboo)
      Heinz Nawarra
      George Bradford
      William Auerbach
      Orr Kelly
      Peter Gudgin
      Chris Bishop
      Armin Halle
      Ian Hogg
      Robert Jackson (hack)
      Franz Kurowski
      Robert Citino
      Richard Dinardo
      Roman Jarymowycz
      Artem Drabkin
      M. H. Gillie
      Belton Cooper
      Patrick Stansell and Kurt Laughlin
      Alexander Ludeke
      Denis Showalter
      Otto Carius
      Rolf Hilmes
      Wolfgang Schneider
      Anthony Tucker-Jones
      Thomas Anderson
      Dave Higgins
      Wolfgang Faust
      Bill Munro
      Stephan A Hart
      Francois Verlinden
      Bryan Perrett
      Joachim Engelmann
      Gordon Rottman
      W. J. K. Davies
      Wolfgang Fleischer
      Michael Jerchel
      Michael Norman
      Michael Scheibert
      James Bingham
      David Eshel
      Samuel Katz
      Michael Mass
      Marsh Gelbart
      F Cappellano & PP Battistelli
      Ralph Riccio and Nicola Pignato
      Adam Geibel
      Tomio Hara
      Fred Crimson
      Charles Bailey
      Robert Cameron
      Oscar Gilbert
      James D'Angina
      Jim Mesko
       
      More to come....
       
       
       
       
    • By SuperComrade
      About to read a (stolen) copy of



      Let the games begin!
    • By Marsh
      Hi People,
       
      Richard Ogorkiewicz's new and rather excellent book, 100 years: evolution of the tank, is currently going dirt cheap (99p) on UK Amazon as a Kindle book. 
       
      Sorry, I don't know the situation in North America or Europe, you will need to check your local Amazon.
       
      cheers
      Marsh

×
×
  • Create New...