Im buying this for sure right now. I also bought the Great War version .
Eagle you should also buy the WW2 and WW1 Data books. The same thing . no stories about dysentery to grandma. Just the facts. Im with you on this completely. I just want raw data for me to interpret.
Anything by Stackpole books. These are amazing. Currently reading “Tank Tactics”, next “Panzer Wedge!” Luthwaffe Fighters and Bombers was a great read of short action reports and biographies…
Only problem is that Half-priced books got a huge run of these, sold for $5-11, now they have all been picked up and only AMZN carries the full catalog of both theory books and eye-witness accounts.
One that I like is The Longest Winter by Alex Kershaw.
Just finished Burma '44 by James Holland.
It is about the largely forgotten Battle of the Admin Box, which was the first decisive victory by the allies against Japanese mainland forces. Of course, the US was already winning the war at sea and across the islands.
The Japanese attacked British Empire forces in southern Burma and for the first time were defeated. What makes this a fascinating read is the succession of tactical and strategic lessons the allies had learned, which were here deployed so effectively, despite the Empire forces at hand being “a ragtag collection of clerks, doctors and muleteers, a few Yorkshiremen and a handful of tank crews” to quote the book cover.
The later larger and better know Battles of Imphal and Kohima, followed by the Burma campaign, have rather eclipsed this battle, whose name invites relegation. But prior to the Admin Box the Japanese were perceived as unbeatable in the jungles of Burma.
@Imperious:
Im buying this for sure right now. I also bought the Great War version .
Eagle you should also buy the WW2 and WW1 Data books. The same thing . no stories about dysentery to grandma. Just the facts. Im with you on this completely. I just want raw data for me to interpret.
In case you are talking about The military Atlas of WW II by Chris Bishop, the 2013 edition from Amber Books, then I just got it, based on your suggestion. This book is good, maybe one of the best books ever to get an understanding of the conflict. But what I miss, if nitpicking, is a correct number of men in each battle. This book only deals with divisions and corps, but a division could be from 7000 men to 18000 men, and a panzer division could have from 500 Tanks in the early war, dropping to 250 Tanks for the late war division, and Bishop dont go deep into that. But nevertheless, one of the best WWII educational books ever, and absolutely short of any dysentery to grandma stories.
@ABWorsham:
Just got in the mail the book Ship 16, a story of a German Surface Raider.
Finished Ship 16, overall was a very good read.
I’m just finishing Crete 1941: The Battle and the Resistance, by Antony Beevor. It’s a great read. I’ve heard his name before but never read any of his books, but I’ll be searching them out now and highly recommend this one. Classic example, for me, of a subject on the war that I knew about generally, but not a ton of the specifics. The biggest surprise to me was Freyberg’s misunderstanding of the invasion, thinking the main assault would come by sea, thus giving paratroopers more time to regroup and take Malame airfield. Beevor has done great research and made everything very compelling to read. I loved that he prefaced with the mainland invasion of Greece first, and also went into the resistance to the occupation as well. The actual invasion is enough for a book itself, but I always love more context. Great read.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but at the end of the book… the Germans win.
after their boy scout army got shellacked, they won.
Losses;
4 paratrooper units and 2 transport aircraft for Germany,
2 infantry, 1 AAA, 1 DD, 2 partisans lost for UK
…good trade.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but at the end of the book… the Germans win.
Yea…definitely know that. As I said, if you read my post, I know the basic history of the battle. Costly paratroop operation, lacking defensive forces, etc. It was the intimate details that were new to me as someone who hadn’t read about the battle in depth before.
And if we’re being technical, they lose in the end! As I said, the book covers the resistance/end of the war as well. Don’t want to spoil WWII history for you, but at the end of the war…the Germans lose. 8-)
And if we’re being technical, they lose in the end! As I said, the book covers the resistance/end of the war as well. Don’t want to spoil WWII history for you, but at the end of the war…the Germans lose. 8-)
Ah, dammit, you ruined it for me… [closes Time-Life’s History of WWII book]… no point reading the final chapters now… :-(
Currently reading Jurassic Park
Nemesis by Max Hastings. I have enjoyed every one of his books and recommend him unreservedly.
@ABWorsham:
Currently reading Jurassic Park
Try this link for the summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh4zvQfDhi0
well this thread encouraged me to go to the library instead of just walking by : )
I’ve read this before , I think : )
How Hitler Could Have Won World War II The fatal errors that lead to nazi defeat
Bevin Alexander
well this thread encouraged me to go to the library instead of just walking by : )
I’ve read this before , I think : )
How Hitler Could Have Won World War IIÂ The fatal errors that lead to nazi defeat
Bevin Alexander
Hindsight is always 20/20… there’s many ways almost any war could have gone the other way from history if the losing side knew then what is known now.
I reccomend everyone read the Rum and the Fury!
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21878245-the-rum-and-the-fury
by our own Karl7 from A&A.org!
I recently read and would highly recommend Ian Toll’s “Pacific Crucible” and “Conquering Tide” covering the war in the Pacific. I especially liked the insight into what was going on in Japan in the lead up to war, as well as the leadership and strategy on both sides. A very good read, but for those looking for an order of battle level of detail this is not the book for you (does have some of the horrors of war stuff - - but not overdone). After reading these I went on to read Six Frigates, also by Toll, which turned out to be the best of the three - - about the founding of the US navy. Has a lot about post revolutionary war politics in addition to the naval battles and commanders, which I found really interesting but might not be everyone’s cup of tea. I would also highly recommend the “The River War” by Winston Churchill an account of the re-conquest of the Sudan. Well written with a dose of dry humor (no surprise given the author) and includes a detailed description of the battles (including order of battle and troop strengths). Very interesting to read the book and think about who is writing it at the same time.
Hindsight is always 20/20… there’s many ways almost any war could have gone the other way from history if the losing side knew then what is known now.
Agreed. It’s easy to construct “what if?” scenarios with a few throwaway sentences. A more challenging task is to develop a compelling picture of Germany’s overall economic, political, and military picture; and to demonstrate a viable military strategy within the context of that picture.
Germany had a prewar population of 69 million, as opposed to 169 million for the Soviet Union. In the key year of 1942, the Soviet Union produced 3 - 4 times as many land weapons as Germany, and nearly twice as many military aircraft. Germany lacked oil, food, and raw materials. Major Western nations were pro-Soviet and anti-German. By the late fall of 1941, the Red Army consisted of 600 divisions, compared to just 150 divisions for the German Army. (Granted, a German division was somewhat larger than a Soviet division, so the disparity was less than 4:1.) The United States had virtually unlimited industrial potential. Even if it had stayed at “peace,” the plan was to produce overwhelming numbers of military aircraft, and to send half of those aircraft to Britain for use against Germany. Moreover, the U.S. was led by a highly pro-war president, who by gradual steps was moving the U.S. ever closer to war. “Don’t declare war on the U.S.” sounds good as a throwaway line, but does not by itself constitute a strategy for preventing escalating levels of American industrial and military involvement.
My best “victory scenario” for Germany would be as follows:
Step 1: Invade Poland and France, as happened in the actual war.
Step 2: Invade Britain, as proposed by General von Manstein in his book Lost Victories.
Step 3: Grab much of the Middle East in 1940, when it was weakly defended.
Step 4: Launch Operation Barbarossa about when it was launched. Put von Manstein in charge, to achieve even better initial results than those the Germans actually achieved.
Step 5: Accept Stalin’s peace offer in the fall of '41.
Step 6: Sign a peace treaty with the remnants of the British Empire. Or, if the British government is still unwilling to discuss peace, continue conquering British colonies. Recruit large numbers of soldiers among the inhabitants of German-held colonies to counter the soldiers the British recruit from the colonies they control.
These six steps, in themselves, would not be sufficient to win Germany the war. In particular, the United States would stand unfought, with an extremely anti-German and pro-war president. The Soviet Union would also be able to lick its wounds, and harness a core of military and industrial strength to resume its war against Germany at a time of its own choosing. These dangers would be exacerbated by the American invention of the nuclear bomb.
In 1944, Germany’s military production was triple what it had been in 1942. Germany’s 1944 production was roughly the same as that of the Soviet Union, and about half that of the United States. For Germany, increased military production was a necessary, but not a sufficient, component of a strategy to defend itself against an alliance between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
Quite possibly Germany would have been well-served to resume its war against the Soviet Union in 1946. (Assuming, of course, that Stalin hadn’t chosen an earlier resumption date.) By 1946 Germany would have had better tanks than the Soviet Union, better handheld anti-tank weapons, the world’s only assault rifles. Unlike the Soviets, Germany would have had jet aircraft. Given these qualitative advantages, as well as the advantages obtained by having tripled its military production between '42 and '44, Germany’s offensive against the Soviet Union would likely have been successful. Moreover, its jet aircraft could have kept the skies clear of Allied aircraft, thus protecting German cities from nuclear devastation. This time, Germany would not make peace with the Soviet Union on any conditions other than unconditional surrender.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, and with Britain’s colonial empire either conquered or pacified, the only strategic threat left would be the United States. By itself it would be difficult for the United States to wage war against Germany. It wouldn’t have Britain to use as a base from which to perform its strategic bombing, and it wouldn’t have the Red Army to engage and destroy the bulk of the German Army. Germany’s jet aircraft would provide initial protection against American nuclear attack. Later, Germany would develop the ability to engage in retaliatory strikes. Its chemical weapons program was about ten years ahead of any Allied nation, so it could have used a devastating chemical attack as a substitute for a nuclear attack. It was in the process of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles when the war ended, and those missiles could have carried payloads to the eastern seaboard of the United States. Eventually Germany would have developed nuclear weapons of its own. Those weapons–in combination with its ICBM technology–would have provided the ultimate long-term guarantee of German security.
I recognize the above plan is not without risks. It contains a number of opportunities for things to have gone wrong. But it’s also the best, most likely to succeed plan I can think of to protect Germany from Allied invasion.
