tom@usblues.ingres.com (Tom Markson) (04/18/91)
From: tom@usblues.ingres.com (Tom Markson) I posted a few weeks ago asking for recommendations on military books for beginners. This is a summary of the books which were recommended: How to Make War, James Dunnigan * this was recommended twice Evolution of Weapons and Warfare, Trevor Dupuy Understanding War: History and Theory of Combat, Trevor Dupuy The Face of Battle, John Keegan Strategy, Edward Luttwak * This book was recommended 3 times. Thanks to everyone who responded. [ Add a third recommendation for Dunnigan! And if you can find it, B.H. Liddel-Hart's _Strategy_ is very highly recommended. --CDR ] -- tom markson tom@usblues.ingres.com
cmort@ncoast.org (04/19/91)
From: cmort@ncoast.org >From: tom@usblues.ingres.com (Tom Markson) >I posted a few weeks ago asking for recommendations on military books for >beginners. This is a summary of the books which were recommended: Let me add "A Military History of the Western World" by J.F.C. Fuller. It's in two or three volumes. I highly recommend it. It was our first year ROTC text in the '70s. I picked up volume 2 at a library sale last week. cmort@ncoast.org --- Chris Morton "These opinions are mine, MINE, ALL MINE!!!!"
tedrick@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (04/22/91)
From: tedrick@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) ->Let me add "A Military History of the Western World" by J.F.C. Fuller. Hmmm. Good to know Fuller is included in some official courses. He's so "to the point" that he makes some people squirm. If you like Fuller's style (I do), check out "The Generalship of Alexander the Great". -- "Science demands victims" -High Soviet Apparatchik after Chernobyl
video@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry J. Cobb) (04/22/91)
From: video@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry J. Cobb) B. H. Liddell Hart's "Strategy" (The indirect approach) came out in paperback in 1967. SIGNET 0-451-14326-4 $4.95 [Yep, that's the edition I have. Much to my joy I discovered my tiny local library has a copy of his 1948 "The German Generals Talk." And thanks for the Wilmott lead. --CDR] He also put out a "quote" book to back up his thesis. Clausewitz meets USAtoday? "The Sword and the Pen." B.L. and A.L. Hart, 1976 ISBN 0-690-00052-9 Harback $10.95 Its a page or two from everybody from Thucydides to Mao Tse-Tung. My favorite Naval writer is H.P. Willmott, for a quick intro look for: "Sea Warfare" H.P. Willmott, 1982 ISBN 0-88254-696-1 Hardback $20.00 -- Henry J. Cobb video@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu SFB Tyrant Ph# (512) 447-8957 1400 Rabb Rd. Austin, TX 78704 "The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present" -Hobbes
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (04/22/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> In my opinion, the most fundamental and basic warfighting tome was left off: "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. Also, there's "A Quick and Dirty Guide to War"--I don't remember the author. [James Dunnigan, the author of the also-mentioned "How to Make War." Sun Tzu is a must, of course. --CDR] Allan
marsh@miles.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) (05/17/91)
From: marsh@miles.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) I'm about halfway through "Strategy: The art of the indirect approach" (or some similar subtitle) by B. H. Lidell-Hart (sp???) It proposes the thesis that a "direct" approach is never the correct one, and gives numerous examples from the dawn of history on to back it up. I don't know if I completely buy his analysis, but it is a good overview of a large number of relatively well-known military conflicts. [Much of the German Blitzkrieg was inspired by Liddell-Hart's writings. After WW II (1948) he interviewed numerous captured German Generals as to how things looked from their side of the hill, in a book called "The German Generals Talk." Unfortunately its probably out of print, but its an excellent read. Note that he doesn't quite say that the direct approach is never correct - if you have a sufficiently overwhelming advantage in men and material you can sometimes get away with it, if you don't care how long you take doing it. Montgomery is an excellent example. --CDR] -- Ralph Marshall (marsh@linus.mitre.org) Disclaimer: Often wrong but never in doubt...
eallen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ed Allen) (05/22/91)
From: mtxinu!sybase!eallen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ed Allen) I was very impressed with Liddell-Hart's Strategy on first reading, but less so as I read other perspectives on some of the example battles and wars he uses as support. I particularly find his comparison of Grant and Sherman to be very flawed. He lauds Sherman's indirect approach in the March to the Sea and lambasts Grant for running a meatgrinder campaign in the East. He totally misses the fact that these two generals were working together on ONE strategy, and that Sherman was only able to do what he did because of the power of Grant's force to pin the majority of the Confederate army. His evaluation of Grant as the inferior general for lack of using the indirect approach is strange in light of Grant's campaign against Vicksburg. Just maybe he should have considered that Grant was good enough to adapt to the situation he found on the scene, instead of going at length to push a single strategic concept as the only viable one and its users as the 'best' generals. Ed Allen eallen@sybase.com [Meatgrinder campaigns always deserve lambasting. A general who has no better use for good men than turning them into sausage deserves no praise, successful or not. --CDR]
turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Bob S Turner) (05/23/91)
From: turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Bob S Turner) > [Much of the German Blitzkrieg was inspired by Liddell-Hart's > writings. After WW II (1948) he interviewed numerous captured > German Generals as to how things looked from their side of the > hill, in a book called "The German Generals Talk." ... -CDR] Yes the book is execellant. My father had a copy he bought in the seventies, and I finally got around to reading it. It came out under the title of "The other side of the Hill" but it was the original book. If anyone care I can publish the reprint info. [Yes, that was the original title, and a much better title it was. --CDR] -- Bob Turner Network Manager, School of Engineering 513-229-3171 turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu Univ. of Dayton, Engineering Computing Center-KL211, Dayton OH 45469
afarkas@phoenix.princeton.edu (Andrew Farkas) (05/23/91)
From: afarkas@phoenix.princeton.edu (Andrew Farkas) >> [Much of the German Blitzkrieg was inspired by Liddell-Hart's >> writings. After WW II (1948) he interviewed numerous captured >> German Generals as to how things looked from their side of the >> hill, in a book called "The German Generals Talk." ... -CDR] > Beg to differ CDR. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has put this claim to rest (with a stake through the heart). This is a scholarly book, with excellent documentation from Liddell-Hart's papers. In brief, Mearsheimer shows, "although it is not widely known, he [LH] abandoned his theory in the mid-1930s and adopted the opposite argument that even with tanks it was extremely unlikely that an attacker would succeed on the battle field." Don't take my word, though interested parties should see: John J. Mearsheimer, _Liddell-Hart and the Weight of History_ (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1988). U42 .M38 1988. As to the captured generals, the interviews come off as self serving. In exchange for supplying him with letters that he influenced their thinking, LH used his influence with British politicos to get the generals off the hook for war crimes. Ditto for later Israeli soldiers: they told (wrote) LH that he was brilliant, he got them acceptance. Andrew Farkas Princeton University AFarkas@PUCC.Princeton.EDU (internet) AFarkas@PUCC (bitnet)
ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.OZ.AU (Geoff Miller) (05/24/91)
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.OZ.AU (Geoff Miller) mtxinu!sybase!eallen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ed Allen) writes: >I was very impressed with Liddell-Hart's Strategy on first reading, but >less so as I read other perspectives on some of the example battles >and wars he uses as support. I read his Histories of the First and Second World Wars, and while the first book gave a fairly clear and objective history the second seemed to be basically a series of "If I had been running this it would have been done much better" comments. Similarly, my recollection (from several years ago) of his "Other Side of the Hill" is that a large part of it was devoted to showing that the German generals had read his own earlier works. >I particularly find his comparison of Grant and Sherman to be very flawed. >He lauds Sherman's indirect approach in the March to the Sea and lambasts >Grant for running a meatgrinder campaign in the East. [...other cogent comments on Grant's strategy deleted...] > [Meatgrinder campaigns always deserve lambasting. > A general who has no better use for good men than turning > them into sausage deserves no praise, successful or not. > --CDR] A somewhat simplistic analysis from our worthy moderator. Grant's job was precisely to bring the forces of the Confederacy to battle and defeat them using the Union's superior resources of manpower and materiel. Union generals who had tried to defeat the Confederacy by maneuver rather than actual fighting had failed, and Grant's own record shows that he could use other tactics where appropriate. [ I'm not saying it was a *bad* strategy, since given the Union's superior forces and material attrition was on their side. But I wouldn't call it praiseworthy. But I'm a simple kinda guy. :-) --CDR] Geoff Miller (ghm@cc.adfa.oz.au) Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy