A Military Book List

[Bishop746]

Well Done, Mobhack.
While I'm not well read enough on the American Civil War to back up or dispute your claim.(One reason why I'm looking into Griffiths books) I respect that your argument was based on logic and evaluation of actuall field conditions and not text book enviroments.

From what little I have read, I agree that a ACW firefight would have occurred at ranges closer to 150 yards than the the Springfields maximum range. There is a big difference between a weapons maximum range and its combat effective range.

One thought did occur to me while reading your post concering entrenchments and the ease that these could be overcome by a more aggressive force. A regiment fighting in 1860 is not the same as the same regiment fighting 2 to 3 years later. Casualities were high but a core of veterans would survive who could deliver a murdurous fire to an advancing force. Would this account for the heavy entrenchments towards the end of the war?

Excellent post because it made me think.

More book recommnedations:

The Myth of the Great War by John Mosier. Mr. Mosiers book generates controversy and passion by calling into question many accepted beliefs concerning the Great War. Not a good book to start with if you have no background in World War One but a must read if you do. I'm not educated enough to speak to all of the books themes but it is backed up with documentation and it is a fasinating read.

Military Experience in the Age of Reason by Christopher Duffy. I dont read books twice very often; there are just too many good books out there I have to read, but this is one of the few that I have. Learning how wars were waged with the technological and buruacratic limits of their time is fasinating. One example, Prussian cavalry units were not formed based on need but on the types of horses that were available that year. If it had been a good year with no droughts then big horses were available to form heavy cavalry squadrons. No rain, sparse feeding resulted in horses only suitable for scouting.

[Mobhack]

One thought did occur to me while reading your post concering entrenchments and the ease that these could be overcome by a more aggressive force. A regiment fighting in 1860 is not the same as the same regiment fighting 2 to 3 years later. Casualities were high but a core of veterans would survive who could deliver a murdurous fire to an advancing force. Would this account for the heavy entrenchments towards the end of the war?

Griffiths notes an increase in average range from 120 or so yards early war to 150 later war (68 in the pines and so on, but that was close country). Coukd be that some veterans influenced this, but maybe in the "we have been here before, let's hang back" sort of way?. i.e these guys may have been to the well a few times too often.

Cheers
Andy

[Mustang]

Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden

Also, has anyone read Thunder Run? It's a very interesting Black Hawk Down-style story of the American tank assault into Baghdad. If you ever want to make a scenario on this battle, buy this book.

Another good read would be Threat: Soviet capabilites in the mid-90's by Steven Zaloga. Zaloga must be one of the most knowledgeable people on tanks in the world, and his book covers a hypothetical NATO vs. WarPac war around 1993-95 in central europe by walking through a few fictional battles novel-style. It has a lot of interesting insights, like how the Warsaw Pact logistics system was poorly defended against chemical warfare and how the BMP-2, with a height of only 2 meters, would probably not be able to shoot over its own soldiers and would kill them if they got in the way.

[pdoktar]

I second that Mark Bowdens book. Very good IMO.

So that´s why tanks have to be 2,5 - 3 meters tall. That you wouldn´t kill your own soldiers.. But what if those russian mech inf guys would dash and crawl and crouch and run.. hmm [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Teddy.gif[/img]

Okay if they got in the way. But you can get into way of almost anything, so how does that make a bmp-2 more dangerous than, say, a bradley?

[Bishop746]

Another book suggestion:

Simialar to Mustangs suggestions of Threat: Soviet Capabilities in the Mind 90 is "Future Wars" by Trevor Dupuy except it looks at the next places in the world which are most likely to erupt into conflict and plays out plausible scenarios of how the war may go.

The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War by David G. Herrmann. If you have an interest in WWI this is a great look at the arms race and events that preceeded the war. It deals with organization, mobilization, strategy and the available weaponry. I had always heard that nations passed on Hiriam Maxums machinegun because they didnt see a purpose for it. Thats not entirely true. The military establishment could not see the machinegun being used in an attack, which they all beleived a nation had to stay on the offensive. They dismissed the slaughter of the Russo-Japanese war as an aberration due to the poor leadership and training. They believed a European army would carry the day by overrunning machineguns.

[markgame]

I had to search for this thread to avoid a new one to tell you about the book I just picked up.

It's Vietnam Tracks: Armor in Battle 1945-75 by Simon Dunstan

Here's the Amazon.com link

I got the original hardback 1982 edition since I like older books. A pretty decent amount of text and lot of photos.

[thatguy96]

Good to hear, just picked up a copy on Ebay, expect it here end of this week beginning of next.

I also recently picked up a copy of th Squadron Signal book "Airmobile" from their old Vietnam Studies Series.

[Marcello]

Mustang said:
It has a lot of interesting insights, like how the Warsaw Pact logistics system was poorly defended against chemical warfare

Now, my memory is bit fuzzy but if I recall correctly the soviets had contingency plans for attacking NATO airfields with ballistic missiles fitted with chemical warheads. It was found out that that servicing the planes under such conditions slowed down sortie rate considerably. Therefore there was very little enthusiasm for starting chemical warfare by NATO, lest it could trigger such response.