Inspired by FlaviusX and others comments i am interested in buying a book or two on the subject. i read Mansteins Lost Victories and Panzer Battles by Von Manteuffel. i got tired by these personal accounts (both were of course victims in a political sense and their brilliant ideas were ignored by Hitler).
i really would like to read more and stuff writen by historians.
I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game :) and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.
_____________________________
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game :) and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.
I second this recommendation. Glantz may be dry, but it is all there. You can read two other Glantz books to cover the whole period covered by the game: After Stalingrad (which actually covers after Little Saturn) -- which is pretty easy to find -- and From the Don to the Dneipr -- which I've only seen in academic libraries, but which gives the only complete account of Little Saturn I've ever seen.
Yes Vic, it's the same mantra with Manstein, Guderian and Von Manteuffel: the Wehrmacht got hijacked, they didn't know anything, they opposed secretly the Kommisarbefehl and the defeat was all Hitler's fault. And after all as soldiers they had to obey orders, whatever they were.
I would suggest "Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War" by Chris Bellamy
That one is a great read. Along with the glantz books. The new series on the battle of smolensk and his views that this was really the battle that lost the war for hitler. It was the battle that bled the germans and threw all their plans for victory by winter off course.
_____________________________
-Alpha Tester Carrier Force -Beta Tester ATG - Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's WAW mod - Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's GPW mod -Beta Tester WITE -Alpha Tester WITW -Alpha Tester WITE2 -Alpha Tester Wif -Beta Tester Command
I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game :) and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.
I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game :) and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.
Great book series. I'm half way into the first and own the second. IMO Glantz is the top authority on the war in the east.
As an example in the one on Kursk. He says on one page that the luftwaffe says they shot down x number of Soviet planes but to not believe the number because it is totally inflated. Two pages later he says that the Soviets destroyed X number of German planes and pretty much says take it for gospel.
The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.
Too many others to cite.
_____________________________
Windows 7 home premium 64 Intel quad core I7 16 gig AMD R9 200 series
I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game :) and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.
I don't think that lines up with the first two books of the trilogy. The Third book of the stalingrad trilogy should cover Uranus and the After Stalingrad book doesn't. I would hope Little Saturn would be in the Third Book as well since it isn't in the After Stalingrad book either.
I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game :) and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.
I don't think that lines up with the first two books of the trilogy. The Third book of the stalingrad trilogy should cover Uranus and the After Stalingrad book doesn't. I would hope Little Saturn would be in the Third Book as well since it isn't in the After Stalingrad book either.
Yes, After Stalingrad is actually an earlier book of Glantz's on roughly the same period--- the third volume of the trilogy is still to come.
ORIGINAL: sulla05 The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.
I don't doubt that Glantz often dismisses German sources (the particular aircraft numbers probably are suspect since Russian aircraft steadily gained in strength and coordination over the Kursk battlefield).
But he may often be right to do so. For example, why would Hoth want to take a detour to Prokhorovka when the high road to Kursk is 20-30km WNW of there? Hoth may have thought before the battle that he might have to take a detour, but then that makes you wonder if Hoth thought the whole plan to get to Kursk at all was just not going to work at all.
ORIGINAL: sulla05 The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.
I don't doubt that Glantz often dismisses German sources (the particular aircraft numbers probably are suspect since Russian aircraft steadily gained in strength and coordination over the Kursk battlefield).
But he may often be right to do so. For example, why would Hoth want to take a detour to Prokhorovka when the high road to Kursk is 20-30km WNW of there? Hoth may have thought before the battle that he might have to take a detour, but then that makes you wonder if Hoth thought the whole plan to get to Kursk at all was just not going to work at all.
Actually, you're exactly right in your thinking. According to Zamulin's recent excellent book on Kursk, Hoth realized by May that the overall plan for Kursk would never work. He therefore anticipated that the best he could hope for was to engage and destroy the Soviet mobile reserves and thereby weaken the Red Army's summer offensive, and decided that the most likely and favorable place to do so was around Prokhorovka in the gap between the Psel and the northern Donets. He cites Hoth's contemporary diary and field orders the Prokhorovka diversion, so it's highly unlikely there's any post-war self-justification there.
< Message edited by map66 -- 8/9/2012 7:14:16 PM >
ORIGINAL: sulla05 The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.
I don't doubt that Glantz often dismisses German sources (the particular aircraft numbers probably are suspect since Russian aircraft steadily gained in strength and coordination over the Kursk battlefield).
But he may often be right to do so. For example, why would Hoth want to take a detour to Prokhorovka when the high road to Kursk is 20-30km WNW of there? Hoth may have thought before the battle that he might have to take a detour, but then that makes you wonder if Hoth thought the whole plan to get to Kursk at all was just not going to work at all.
Actually, you're exactly right in your thinking. According to Zamulin's recent excellent book on Kursk, Hoth realized by May that the overall plan for Kursk would never work. He therefore anticipated that the best he could hope for was to engage and destroy the Soviet mobile reserves and thereby weaken the Red Army's summer offensive, and decided that the most likely and favorable place to do so was around Prokhorovka in the gap between the Psel and the northern Donets. He cites Hoth's contemporary diary and field orders the Prokhorovka diversion, so it's highly unlikely there's any post-war self-justification there.
Wow! That's a brilliant bit of analytic work by Hoth. Prokhorovka is not only in the gap, but exactly where Russian reserves would be (and did) move up and they were almost caught before they could deploy.
In effect, Hoth played out the battle in his mind and foresaw the Russian moves to block the high road, so Glantz isn't exactly wrong since anticipated Russian moves forced Hoth to undertake plan B, whereupon the Russian Plan A reserves turned up as expected by Hoth, but they switched to their own plan B very quickly and Plan A blocked plan A and plan B blocked plan B.
< Message edited by MengJiao -- 8/9/2012 7:40:04 PM >
Glantz sounds good. But how detailed is Glantz? i don't need to know how many bullets of each calibre was delievered.
The narrative is pretty detailed. Some of the detail is astounding (those Phone calls from STAVKA are wild) and some are mind-boggling in their excess. There is some Glantz book that lists all the communications gear deliveries (as well as bullets and what not). I think sometimes he just put in what he had raw from his sources since it seemed revealing to him. But you can skip most of the excessive detail I think.
I wouldn't call it prescience on Hoth's part. German planes still had the run of the eastern front until after kursk, and the invasion of Italy, so the Germans had detailed reconnaissance of the Soviet formations.
It is not whether Glantz is right or wrong. He is stating unequivically that the Soviets forced Hoth to turn northeast. But we know Hoth was talking to Manstein in May about going that direction. If a writer wants to interject his own ideas that is fine. However he should state " this is what I think happened " not saying " this is what happened and here is the proof".
There are many stories about Kursk that have been put forth by writers years ago that many people still believe are true. Most people are shocked to find out the the panzer divisions in AGS actually gained in tank strength and Kursk was not the death of the panzerwaffen. The real reason the battle was called of was because of the invasion of Sicily and the movement of troops from AGS and AGC.
All I am saying is that there are books out on the eastern front that have slants. Many have a German slant to the history, many have a Soviet slant. Glantz's books are great reads and full of information and I am very glad that I have purchased a lot of his works.
< Message edited by sulla05 -- 8/9/2012 10:13:20 PM >
_____________________________
Windows 7 home premium 64 Intel quad core I7 16 gig AMD R9 200 series
On a lighter note, you might find "Russia's War: Blood on the Snow" a TV Documentary series using lots of archival footage, lots of interviews with participants and etc. and from the Russian side, an interesting view. The 3 DVD set allegedly covers 1924-53, but 7 of the 10 episodes are about WW2.
The companion book, by Richard Overy (same title) is also good, and sumarises a lot of the material released from the Soviet archives to that point (1999).
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD) ---------------------------------------------- Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au
Most books have already been listed after 20 posts.
Must say I was especially influenced by Citino's 'Dead of the Wehrmacht'.
2 more titles that are worthwhile:
-Stopped at Stalingrad , Hayward (on the role of the Luftwaffe)
-The Red Army Handbook, Zaloga (on the Soviet OOBs)
I used to consult Feder von Bocks and Franz Halders war diaries a lot for Case White and Yellow but they are only of limited value for Case Blue as both generals are quickly retired after the start of operations.
best, vic
_____________________________
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
I wouldn't call it prescience on Hoth's part. German planes still had the run of the eastern front until after kursk, and the invasion of Italy, so the Germans had detailed reconnaissance of the Soviet formations.
It is not whether Glantz is right or wrong. He is stating unequivically that the Soviets forced Hoth to turn northeast. But we know Hoth was talking to Manstein in May about going that direction. If a writer wants to interject his own ideas that is fine. However he should state " this is what I think happened " not saying " this is what happened and here is the proof".
There are many stories about Kursk that have been put forth by writers years ago that many people still believe are true. Most people are shocked to find out the the panzer divisions in AGS actually gained in tank strength and Kursk was not the death of the panzerwaffen. The real reason the battle was called of was because of the invasion of Sicily and the movement of troops from AGS and AGC.
All I am saying is that there are books out on the eastern front that have slants. Many have a German slant to the history, many have a Soviet slant. Glantz's books are great reads and full of information and I am very glad that I have purchased a lot of his works.
You are entirely correct of course. I would just note a few things that might be worth considering. One is that Kursk is a pretty odd book even for Glantz and I think one of its problem is that somebody (perhaps his co-author) suggested that he put some interpretive narrative into his (dry) summaries of the fighting. Normally, Glantz separates his opinions and interpretations very strictly from his basic narrative which is why he is usually so dry. In Kursk there is a lot of interpretation and some of it is pretty enlightening (eg. that Kursk was not all Hitler's fault and that many commanders thought it would work), but in other places the interpretation intrudes disturbingly and misleadingly.
The end of the Kursk offensive remains obscure even in Glantz's book on it. It may be worth noting that the northern attack didn't do nearly as well and was hit by a counter offensive against the entire Orel salient, though I'm sure it cannot have helped that troops were pulled out of the AGS to deal with problems in the west.
I was just wondering about the northern flank the other day.
I was asking myself if Model had ever had any success at higher command levels in an attack. I know he did very well in defense but maybe the northern attack at Kursk wasn't just too few forces. Maybe he had one eye all the time on the Orel salient and didn't want to bloody his troops too much.
_____________________________
Windows 7 home premium 64 Intel quad core I7 16 gig AMD R9 200 series
Posts: 262
Joined: 6/11/2002 From: Columbus, Ohio USA Status: offline
I'd like to add the book Black Cross Red Star, Vol 3 by Christer Bergstrom. It covers the air war over Russia during the Case Blau time period. It has a lot of detail on air war during this battle (plus some over other parts of Russian Front). I just finished reading it and it appears the aircraft are way undermodeled in DC2. The author makes it appear that air attacks were vital in supporting and defeating attacks during this period. My brief play with second Kharkov (just got game last week) makes me wonder if air attacks are worth making. In a recent attack, I lost 20 109's in one battle versus 20 Soviet fighters and the book shows that no German JG lost 20 aircraft is a single month. Germany killed between 3x and 10x as many aircraft as the soviets (depending on month).
And regarding some earlier posts on optimistic victory claims, the book shows that from July through November, the Germans claimed about twice as many kills as actually occurred while the Soviets claimed about 4x as many as actual.
A great what if scenario would be Mansteins backhand blow strategy instead of Kursk forehand attack. Or his idea to attack early after the capture of Kharkov
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns Series >> Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue >> Books on Case Blue and the soviet side of WW2 
Books on Case Blue and the soviet side of WW2 - 
I'm half way into the first and own the second. IMO Glantz is the top authority on the war in the east. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread