Must Read Books of WW2

[Manray9]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I'm not too sure what nick names they have in the US for artilley but in Australia we call them 'drop-shorts' :)"

"A" Battery, 10th Field Artillery, 3rd Infantry Division, U.S. Army would take exception to that name.

[Dj]

Geevee wrote: "Manray9 wrote: "Geevee wrote: "and a book just added to my TBR thank you."

Geevee: I would appreciate your views on Auchinleck. I have a copy of John Connell's bio, which I haven't read yet. It..."


He also didn't play well to Churchill and got bowled over by Monty's press after he was ejected from North Africa.

[Dj]

Manray9 wrote: "Geevee wrote: "Manray9 wrote: "Geevee wrote: "and a book just added to my TBR thank you."

Geevee: I would appreciate your views on Auchinleck. I have a copy of John Connell's bio, which I haven'..."

The degree of difference between 'Ring Knockers', ie West Pointers, and the rest of the Officer Corps in the US Army is somewhat different. Ike, Patton, and Bradly were all Ring Knockers. Marshall was not having attended VMI. Other officers of distinction also were not West Pointers.

One of the Major things that determined whether or not you got positions of command and responsibility in the early war wasn't so much what Academy you did or didn't attend, but where you stood in Marshall's little black book.

Most of the individuals that were in the book, were those that Marshall had seen in action while head of the Infantry Training School at Ft. Benning GA. Later is was more performance based. Some politics were still involved such as the face off between Bradly and De La Mesa. And personal relations were even more directly involved in regards to the Pacific were Mac was King.

[Dj]

Geevee wrote: "Indeed - in modern circles this is now not so, although many titled gentlemen (Lords, baronets etc) still serve in the Household division and cavalry regiments.

Of course inter regimental/corps ..."


And in most war games they make very spectacular road kill. Armored Cav Regiments really don't do well against Tank Armies. LOL.

[Dj]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I think you may be off the mark there Geevee, everyone knows that Infantry are 'the Queen of the battlefield' :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry"

While it is true that everyone knows that the Queen of the Battlefield is the Infantry, historically the Infantry gets what is left over. The cavalry often times had to pay for their own equipment and had to have more specialized training. So the Cavalry was filled with those of 'class' while the infantry could be gathered up from most anywhere. A situation that continues today between the 'specialized' branches, armor and artillery in comparison to the Infantry.

But it is the Infantry that holds the ground, so Queen of the Battlefield.

[Dj]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I'm not too sure what nick names they have in the US for artilley but in Australia we call them 'drop-shorts' :)"


Red Legs, and/or Cannon Cockers.

In the US the Artillery is viewed as a support arm.

[Dj]

happy wrote: "Gun bunnies, red legs - among others"

A note about US Artillery then and now.
US Artillery made a bigger bang for the buck than most other WWII Artillery forces due to the work that was done to upgrade this arm between the wars.
The US puts a primary emphasis on upgrading Artillery with the thought of fight smarter not harder.
Between WWI and WWII, the use updated the suspension on gun carriages, went to rubberized wheels instead of the steal ones (some of those old steel wheels can be seen in footage of German guns during WWII) and they developed a wonder radio network that allowed most anyone down to battalion and sometimes company level to be able to call in Artillery support so batteries that weren't occupied with fire missions could respond as opposed to only designated batteries being able for on call missions.
And of course the most devastating development in the US army between the wars was a little tidbit called ToT, or Time on Target, which would allow batteries of various calibers and distances to fire in a staggered pattern and have all the gun rounds land in the targets area at the same time as opposed to showing up like popcorn. This little doozy made the German's believe that the US had more Artillery that the Russian's on occasions.

In modern times, the research has gone into such things as the MLRS (multiple Launch Rocket System) which can be loaded and fired by as few as one person and a Counter Battery Radar that can direct rounds back to the firing battery at about the same time as the incoming rounds of the first salvo are at the peak of their inbound firing arc. (This last had an individual I knew that had been in the US Artillery saying that they should change the motto at the school in Ft. Sill to 'Pull the Lanyard and Die'

[happy]

Dj wrote: "happy wrote: "Gun bunnies, red legs - among others"

A note about US Artillery then and now.
US Artillery made a bigger bang for the buck than most other WWII Artillery forces due to the work that..."

When I was a lad, the Artillery school at Ft. Sill would do fire power demonstrations every qtr. This was during the height of Viet Nam and I guess they had ammo to burn. Anyway part of the demonstration was a ToT with 11-12 bns ( All of the graduating AIT batteries, plus III Corp Arty). The rounds of something on the order of 200 tubes of various sizes, 105mm, 155mm, 8 inch, 175mm - everything that was on base, would explode at the same time. To finish they would launch an Honest John rocket - Very impressive.

When I was there for trng in the early 80's, they had stopped doing them - unfortunaely.

My father had this poster, framed and under glass, on his office wall for most of his career. He stll has it up on the wall in his den.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sierrach...

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Nice poster Happy :)

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Gun bunnies, drop-shorts, long-range snipers :)

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I think you may be off the mark there Geevee, everyone knows that Infantry are 'the Queen of the battlefield' :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry"

;)

[Dj]

happy wrote: "Dj wrote: "happy wrote: "Gun bunnies, red legs - among others"

A note about US Artillery then and now.
US Artillery made a bigger bang for the buck than most other WWII Artillery forces due to th..."

I have always wondered about the definition of dignity when that quote came out, since it can hardly match what it is in Webster's LOL>

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Dj wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I think you may be off the mark there Geevee, everyone knows that Infantry are 'the Queen of the battlefield' :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry"

While it is true that..."

Dj wrote: "Geevee wrote: "Indeed - in modern circles this is now not so, although many titled gentlemen (Lords, baronets etc) still serve in the Household division and cavalry regiments.

Of course inter re..."

Dj my regiment was a tank regiment in all but name having converted from riding horses after some 250 years :)

On your post 57 it is interesting that many people think of the German army as fully mechanised when in fact it relied on much horse drawn equipment.
The only European army fully mechanised was the British, but sadly whilst this was done the development and purchasing of advanced equipment did not keep up. This was particularly so in tanks as you know, and with artillery where the British Army in WWI had devised and led tactical development and the use of ammunition and guns to great effect.

[Dj]

Geevee wrote: "Dj wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I think you may be off the mark there Geevee, everyone knows that Infantry are 'the Queen of the battlefield' :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry"

While it i..."


I had a friend who put the whole Blitzkrieg issue in regards to the German Army quite eloquently.

'Clippty Clop the Blitzkrieg Cometh.'

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Nice :)

[Dj]

He put that in an article he wrote about the amount of horses that were used in the German Army. It was fairly amazing to realize that the German Armor forces (including mech units) barely made up little over ten percent of the whole German Army. So the Panzerblitz was more a break out, where the follow up was pretty much the same type of units that made up the WWI German Army.

No truly Mechanized Armies hit the Field until the US hit the scene. The US Army was built from the ground up almost entirely from the blueprint Guderian put forward. Interestingly enough that isn't the only similarity between the two Forces.

A lot is made of the short time Hitler took to build his Army up to strength from when he came to power to when he invaded Russia and the German Army was arguably at its fullest strength. A time frame of little less than ten years.

The US Army started building its strength just before the actual outbreak of the War and was arguably at its fullest strength in 44 when it hit the beaches at Normandy. Again a time frame of somewhat under ten years.

There were differences with pluses and minuses on both sides but little is usually made of the fact that two of the major forces in the War were little more than police forces before it started.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Interesting on the build up and that is where the USA's industrial strength is astonishing in that it supported the two major theatres with naval, land and air assets so quickly.

Interested as to why you say no truly mechanised army was in the field before the US. The British army (BEF) that deployed to France in 1940 were fully mechanised, even if they were a small by later scales and the infantry was lorried or motor infantry in Bren gun carriers.

[Dj]

Geevee wrote: "Interesting on the build up and that is where the USA's industrial strength is astonishing in that it supported the two major theatres with naval, land and air assets so quickly.

Interested as to ..."

A part of the reason why the US was able to produce so much so quickly was the Assembly line process where it treated anything from trucks, tanks, planes and even ships like they were cars.
Germans were still building their tanks with precision and treating them like high performance machinery.
Whereas the process used to build Liberty Ships would get someone arrested if they tried to build ships like that today in the US.

[Manray9]

Geevee wrote: "Interesting on the build up and that is where the USA's industrial strength is astonishing in that it supported the two major theatres with naval, land and air assets so quickly.

Interested as to ..."

Geevee: Good of you to mention the BEF and its high level of mechanization. This is discussed in Ironside's memoirs and in:

"Fire Power" by Shelford Bidwell and Dominick Graham

"The Battle for France and Flanders: Sixty Years On." Edited by Brian Bond and Michael Taylor.

British tactical doctrine was deficient, according to Ironside, but it included heavy reliance on movement with use of Bren gun carriers.

[Manray9]

Geevee wrote: "Interesting on the build up and that is where the USA's industrial strength is astonishing in that it supported the two major theatres with naval, land and air assets so quickly.

Interested as to ..."

On our industrial capacity: In Russia I kept a file on U.S. Lend-Lease shipments to the Soviet Union. I used the info for presentations made at events honoring the 50th anniversary of WW II. Most Russians knew nothing about Lend-Lease and I cannot recall the precise figures, but we sent millions of pairs of boots, several hundred locomotives, thousands of Dodge and Studebaker trucks and almost 5,000 Bell P-39 Airacobras. This doesn't count the millions of tons of food and industrial supplies. I do recall we sent almost one million tons of grain and 199 PT boats.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Some interesting comments being posted here, very enjoyable reading.

[Betty]

Great books!! Great discussion! Thanks! I'm learning a lot here from you all!
I'm 23, and you have no idea how many of my peers know nothing about WW2! It drives me crazy sometimes! :)
My 'Must Read' book for the Battle of the Bulge is...
.
My "must watch" movie for the E.T.O. is Band of Brothers, but I have never read the book. It is on my list I just never have gotten around to it.

[Dj]

Betty wrote: "Great books!! Great discussion! Thanks! I'm learning a lot here from you all!
I'm 23, and you have no idea how many of my peers know nothing about WW2! It drives me crazy sometimes! :)
My 'Must R..."


I have the Longest Winter but haven't read it as of this date. I think I might have to move it up on my list of to reads.
The Band of Brothers Book is pretty good, but I still consider:



To be Ambrose's best work.

[happy]

Lots of good recs on here
Of recent books

IMO Rick Atkinson's trilogy is a must read for the US Army in the ETO

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Good recommendation Happy, very true.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

For some decent studies of Australian forces in combat in New Guinea I would suggest any of these titles by Phillip Bradley:

& & by Phillip Bradley

Or you could try this single title that provides a decent coverage of all the battles fought by the AIF in PNG:

by Phillip Bradley

BUT the one best book covering Australians in New Guinea during WW2 has to be Paul Ham's account:

by Paul Ham

[Dj]

happy wrote: "Lots of good recs on here
Of recent books

IMO Rick Atkinson's trilogy is a must read for the US Army in the ETO


[bookcover:..."

The only one of these that I would consider putting on a must read list is Army at Dawn, and that because nothing else I have seen covers that section of the war better.

I haven't read the Guns of Last Light and have read only the opening quarter of The Day of Battle, but set it aside for other books that took precedence. This in and of itself doesn't mean much, happens all the time in my reading.

However I find the books more starters than musts. That is my own personal opinion, but there it is.

By the by the current top of the reading list is Roosevelt's Centurions. I saw it at the library and snagged it to see what I thought of it. But since it is a loaner it moves up on the list so I can get a feel for it.

[happy]

Dj wrote: "By the by the current top of the reading list is Roosevelt's Centurions. I saw it at the library and snagged it to see what I thought of it. But since it is a loaner it moves up on the list so I can get a feel for it.

I've requested that my local library get ,
but am still waiting :(

[Dj]

happy wrote: "Dj wrote: "By the by the current top of the reading list is Roosevelt's Centurions. I saw it at the library and snagged it to see what I thought of it. But since it is a loaner it moves up on the l..."

Best of luck. I actually got this from a library on the coast where my friend lives. Couldn't get it locally. Nice to be able to make use of another library system sometimes.

[happy]

It's on order, it just hasn't come in - End of the fiscal yr money crunch or something

[Dj]

happy wrote: "It's on order, it just hasn't come in - End of the fiscal yr money crunch or something"

Can't imagine any public system having issues with Money. LOL.
So far I have found it interesting. Although it isn't considered wise to judge a book by the introduction. LOL.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Betty wrote: "Great books!! Great discussion! Thanks! I'm learning a lot here from you all!
I'm 23, and you have no idea how many of my peers know nothing about WW2! It drives me crazy sometimes! :)
My 'Must R..."

Great to see our ramblings are helping some what Betty and I think many members would agree with you on

being a good book although I've not read it myself.

We had a theme read on the Bulge recently and I and few others read this and it may be something you'd like too by Donald R. Burgett

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Dj wrote: I have the Longest Winter but haven't read it as of this date. I think I might have to move it up on my list of to reads.
The Band of Brothers Book is pretty good, but I still consider:

Pegasus Bridge

To be Ambrose's best work. ..."

Dj likewise I thought he did the story well and was able to use Major Howard's and other's input to good effect. For me the book he didn't do so well on was



And slightly off beam I enjoyed these two too

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Manray9 wrote: "Geevee wrote: "Interesting on the build up and that is where the USA's industrial strength is astonishing in that it supported the two major theatres with naval, land and air assets so quickly.

In..."

Manray9 another fascinating aspect to your own career - when do I get to read the full account?

The Lend-Lease effort in the war was truly huge in scale and benefit (granted it almost bankrupted the UK) but without it neither the USSR nor the UK could have fared so well. What is oft forgotten in the logistical part too is the part played by Canada both taking supplies into Canada and shipping them to the UK prior to the USA's declaration of war and in the convoys for Lease-Lend.
Which in turn also covers the sterling work done by the US Coastguard in supporting allied shipping prior to December 1941 too.

On figures there are also some in my UK official histories showing the arms and munitions etc the UK supplied to Russia independently of Lease-Lend, including Hurricanes (including RAF pilots to teach the Russians) and millions of pairs of boots made in the Midlands and so on.

This is an area where many people's families worked on supply or manufacturing and played as an important part as those in direct contact with the enemy.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Manray9 wrote: "Geevee wrote: "Interesting on the build up and that is where the USA's industrial strength is astonishing in that it supported the two major theatres with naval, land and air assets so quickly.

In..."

Thanks Manray9 and another two to add to my TBR. My great-uncle served with the Royal Engineers in the BEF and was evacuated from Dunkirk. He would not talk to people but once I joined the Army he would tell me his adventures, terrors and views, including good on mechanisation and dreadful on full equipment availability and poor tactics/employment of kit (and as for the Belgians...well best not to ask!).

[John]

Here is a new book on the hero of 'The Great Escape,' Roger Bushell of South Africa.

http://www.amazon.com/Serving-With-Ro...

[Dj]

Geevee wrote: " Dj wrote: I have the Longest Winter but haven't read it as of this date. I think I might have to move it up on my list of to reads.
The Band of Brothers Book is pretty good, but I still consider: ..."

I was somewhat underwhelmed by Citizen Solder, and haven't read his book on the railroad or the Lewis and Clark expedition. Of course neither of those jumps out and grabs my interest the way WWII does. And Lewis and Clark is something that we studied in school. I think I watched a History Channel special on Lewis and Clark that pulled strongly from the book.
My view on Ambrose is he is a good starter that can lead to going to bigger and better things. His books are easy to read and captivating if somewhat light.

[Dj]

Geevee wrote: "Manray9 wrote: "Geevee wrote: "Interesting on the build up and that is where the USA's industrial strength is astonishing in that it supported the two major theatres with naval, land and air assets..."






Something to take a look at regarding Canada's role in the War. A very good book.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Dj thanks I will certainly look to get this. I have all the Canadian OHs and so this will be a welcome addition :)

NB: My wife has now added you to the "suspects" list that includes Rick, Carl, Happy, Mike and others who make me buy books ;)

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

John wrote: "Here is a new book on the hero of 'The Great Escape,' Roger Bushell of South Africa.

http://www.amazon.com/Serving-With-Ro..."

Thanks John I know Rory, a group member is interested in this, and so if you do reasd then please let us know what you think.

[Dj]

Geevee wrote: "Dj thanks I will certainly look to get this. I have all the Canadian OHs and so this will be a welcome addition :)

NB: My wife has now added you to the "suspects" list that includes Rick, Carl, H..."

What I don't make anyone do that. I just facilitate the process. LOL.

[Mike, Assisting Moderator US Forces]

Geevee wrote: "Dj thanks I will certainly look to get this. I have all the Canadian OHs and so this will be a welcome addition :)

NB: My wife has now added you to the "suspects" list that includes Rick, Carl, H..."

A true "Rogues' Gallery" we are!

[Manray9]

Dj wrote: "Geevee wrote: " Dj wrote: I have the Longest Winter but haven't read it as of this date. I think I might have to move it up on my list of to reads.
The Band of Brothers Book is pretty good, but I s..."

I came across an interesting fact about Ambrose in Jean Edward Smith's outstanding biography of Ike --

Eisenhower in War and Peace.

Ambrose wrote a bio of Eisenhower too. Ambrose relates facts and perspectives stated to be from personal interviews with Ike. Smith claims these interviews could not have taken place! Smith documents well that records indicate Ike was not present at the times and places at which Ambrose claimed to have interviewed him. Smith convinced me.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

In regards to Stephen Ambrose this article may interest some members:

http://hnn.us/article/504

[Dj]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "In regards to Stephen Ambrose this article may interest some members:

http://hnn.us/article/504"

So I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I think that part of the problem lies in the way that Ambrose is supposed to have written many of his books. He wrote far to fast to have done such intensive research on his own. So in general it is quite likely that what happened was that the individual who was doing the research grabbed entire passages from others work. Ambrose than put it all together and didn't double check to make sure he wasn't actually putting in someone else's passages in his own work.

As for an Ike Bio I would suggest the new one I found by D'Este. I haven't finished it, but so far it is amazingly even handed. Maybe not quite as enjoyable a read as his bio on Patton but certainly well worth a look.

[Lilo]

To all of you: Thou shalt not tempt me.

I better quit looking at this thread.

[Manray9]

Dj wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "In regards to Stephen Ambrose this article may interest some members:

http://hnn.us/article/504"

So I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I think that part of the problem ..."

Jean Edward Smith wrote that Ambrose claimed to have interviewed Ike on dates and at times where Ike was documented to have been elsewhere. If so, that's plainly false, which is much different than sloppy research. Smith convinced me with his book.

Here's another story on Ambrose's phony interviews:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Very interesting gents...and Lilo you know you can't help reading the thread!!

[Dj]

I have, and still do, consider Ambrose to be a starter drug. He gets people interested, so for that I can forgive him a great deal. I don't think he ever missed anything up with malign intent, more along the line of shoddy research.
Although there was a tad of avarice involved in his doings. He may say that he wrote his books, but anyone who has tried to do any writing, or anyone that has bemoaned the fact that they have read everything by their favorite historian and are waiting for the next book, knows that cranking out five books in six years in unlikely at best.
He has his faults, but like Risk, he gets the attention of some who move on to bigger and better things.

[Colin]

Ambrose was a prick, I knew him. I could tell you a story, but I will not malign the dead.