Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: nelmsm

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

The Battles for Spotsylvania Court House and the Road to Yellow Tavern, May 7--12, 1864 by Gordon C. Rhea.

You're a book ahead of me.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: durangokid

SAS: Rogue Heroes - the Authorized Wartime History

This book is about the formation of the SAS and it's activities up to the end of WWII. It's an easy entertaining read that isn't just about heroics.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28503837-rogue-heroes?from_search=true

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

The Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan.

quote:


Okay thanks. I get the feeling there simply may not be a properly detailed book about the campaign that seeks to support or debunk the 'accepted' version of events. All authors (that I have read) touching on the subject seem largely wedded to one or more of three 'accepted facts' (with perhaps some slight variations on a theme):

- The Germans won because of a new wonder tactic called Blitzkrieg
- The British sold the French down the river and it was all their fault
- The French were rubbish and it was all their fault.

Oh well, I'll keep looking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RickEAllen
I thought this was appropriate given the destructive Trump era we're in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RickEAllen
I thought this was appropriate given the destructive Trump era we're in.

Put a sock in it. We're not interested in your drive-by political zingers at the expense of getting this thread locked up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

To loki100

The Breda variant was not a British mistake – it was Gamelin’s idea. The problem was – it used up his reserve formation……

To Chickenboy

The problem is that I want Case Yellow written in the almost forensic way that Shattered Sword was written – but then I want every book like that. Clark’s Blitzkrieg is proving to be a very good book – and he stays away from two of the three extremes I mentioned earlier (I haven’t come to the British evacuating without telling the French yet) but…..

….rightly or wrongly I still feel there are unsatisfactory gaps. For example the crossing of the Meuse has been well done, is detailed, balanced and believable in its presentation, but the activities of Army Group B and the Allied First Army Group (inc the Belgians, Dutch and BEF) is a little too high level for my liking – as is the subsequent breakthrough to the coast.

So what do I mean by forensic?
Well one small but important example is the Allied air force situation. The combination of the Allies thinking that Belgium was the key point of attack (and the Germans initially purposely concentrated the Luftwaffe over Belgium to maintain that falsehood), combined with defenders difficulty in knowing where to defend (no radar warning) and what to counter-attack (evidence of German units in the Ardennes were ignored) leads to a situation where the wrong assets were often defending (and attacking) the wrong targets. When the Allies woke up (very late) to the problem on the Meuse, they (mostly RAF in their Blenheim’s and Battles) suffered hideous losses (numbers are given) attacking the crossings that were by now defended by German fighters and a large number of flak batteries. Those losses in turn affected the lack of air activity by the Allies that was possible during the subsequent breakout. Okay. But what about some real detailed numbers? What was available? Where? What was the split of air factors over Belgium compared to the area around Sedan? Is it not possible (maybe not always possible) to get returns for the various squadrons?

So many damn questions……

quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7

quote:

ORIGINAL: durangokid

SAS: Rogue Heroes - the Authorized Wartime History

This book is about the formation of the SAS and it's activities up to the end of WWII. It's an easy entertaining read that isn't just about heroics.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28503837-rogue-heroes?from_search=true

Sounds great! Thanks for the link!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

To loki100

The Breda variant was not a British mistake – it was Gamelin’s idea. The problem was – it used up his reserve formation……

To Chickenboy

The problem is that I want Case Yellow written in the almost forensic way that Shattered Sword was written – but then I want every book like that. Clark’s Blitzkrieg is proving to be a very good book – and he stays away from two of the three extremes I mentioned earlier (I haven’t come to the British evacuating without telling the French yet) but…..

….rightly or wrongly I still feel there are unsatisfactory gaps. For example the crossing of the Meuse has been well done, is detailed, balanced and believable in its presentation, but the activities of Army Group B and the Allied First Army Group (inc the Belgians, Dutch and BEF) is a little too high level for my liking – as is the subsequent breakthrough to the coast.

So what do I mean by forensic?
Well one small but important example is the Allied air force situation. The combination of the Allies thinking that Belgium was the key point of attack (and the Germans initially purposely concentrated the Luftwaffe over Belgium to maintain that falsehood), combined with defenders difficulty in knowing where to defend (no radar warning) and what to counter-attack (evidence of German units in the Ardennes were ignored) leads to a situation where the wrong assets were often defending (and attacking) the wrong targets. When the Allies woke up (very late) to the problem on the Meuse, they (mostly RAF in their Blenheim’s and Battles) suffered hideous losses (numbers are given) attacking the crossings that were by now defended by German fighters and a large number of flak batteries. Those losses in turn affected the lack of air activity by the Allies that was possible during the subsequent breakout. Okay. But what about some real detailed numbers? What was available? Where? What was the split of air factors over Belgium compared to the area around Sedan? Is it not possible (maybe not always possible) to get returns for the various squadrons?

So many damn questions……

Yes, but these minuscule details and parsimonious factoids won't help your grand strategic "three questions" that you asked earlier, Warspite1. At some point, you've got to have enough information upon which to base a general assessment of these basic questions. At that point, fringe elements and NEW (or conspiracy) theories won't help all that much.

Shattered Sword did a splendid job of explaining what happened to the Japanese at Midway. True, much of the rationale for their defeat had to do with the ship construction, deck orientation, radio communications (or lack thereof), damage control and-yes-even the number of dollys they had to move ordnance around the deck for reloading. But even this extraordinary insight-this forensic insight-doesn't answer the grand strategic questions that you posed earlier.

So to use the Shattered Sword analogy further (and combine it with your 3 strategic questions), I'd ask:

"Did the Japanese lose Midway because of their crap ship and airframe performance"?

The answer to this is, "No. There were many other factors that explained their loss at Midway. A cumulative level of compounded strategic, tactical and operational errors that spelled their demise. Luck had something to do with it as well." Finding yet one more book detailing some novel tidbit about their ships' or crew shortcomings during the battle won't help me answer this question more fully or change my answer meaningfully. So why bother with y.e.t. a.n.o.t.h.e.r book about the same material, even if it is in a slightly different vein?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45
true"blitzkrieg"was never used by the germans rather it was"Vernichtungsgadanke"the annihilation concept.
encircling the enemy and destroying him is not true"blitzkrieg"read Fuller.
Sorry forgot to add earlier quote from chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

The Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan.

That's my book - see post 2177.

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

let me know how it ends

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

The Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan.

That's my book - see post 2177.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

let me know how it ends

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

The Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan.

That's my book - see post 2177.

They fall?

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

true"blitzkrieg"was never used by the germans rather it was"Vernichtungsgadanke"the annihilation concept.
encircling the enemy and destroying him is not true"blitzkrieg"read Fuller.
Sorry forgot to add earlier quote from chickenboy

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...

Vernichtungsgedanke (as Barkhorn says, the idea of annihilation) was developed by von Schlieffen (him of the plan fame) from principles laid out by von Moltke in the late 19th Century.

This was the total destruction of the enemy’s forces, not by means of relatively slow, costly frontal attacks, but of swift, decisive blows from the flanks and rear. Victory was seen to lie in strategic surprise, in the concentration of force at the decisive point……all of which aimed at creating the decisive Kesselschlachten (cauldron battles) to surround kill and capture the opposing army in as short a time as possible.

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...

Vernichtungsgedanke (as Barkhorn says, the idea of annihilation) was developed by von Schlieffen (him of the plan fame) from principles laid out by von Moltke in the late 19th Century.

This was the total destruction of the enemy’s forces, not by means of relatively slow, costly frontal attacks, but of swift, decisive blows from the flanks and rear. Victory was seen to lie in strategic surprise, in the concentration of force at the decisive point……all of which aimed at creating the decisive Kesselschlachten (cauldron battles) to surround kill and capture the opposing army in as short a time as possible.

...

which is why I would recommend Horne's first book (1871). You can see the Prussian campaign in exactly these terms. Once they had got between the main French army and the rest of France, they actually lost 3 major encounters (in that the French inflicted more losses and withdrew in good order). But each time the French position worsened. By conventional terms even Sedan was probably a bloody draw but it was the final failure to regain access to supplies.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805