Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]

Can-O-Raid posted:


'Afghan Guerrilla Warfare' Gives accounts of Mujaheddin tactics during the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, including firsthand interviews from the Muj themselves.


I don't think it's this one, but when I was in OTS (9 yrs ago) I read a really interesting book from a journalist's perspective about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where the guy was traveling around, talking to Afghan fighters, etc. I tried looking for it once before but nothing seemed to match up with what I remembered about the book.

Also according to the Amazon reviews this book is just a reprint of one available freely, The Other Side of the Mountain.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]

iyaayas01 posted:

Bear Goes Over the Mountain is a book put out by the Frunze Military Academy (the Soviet Union's version of CGSC at Leavenworth) about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. It was translated/edited by Grau. I doubt it's what he's thinking of since he was talking about a journalist's account or something.

The Pacific isn't based solely on Leckie's book, it also draws heavily from Eugene Sledge's With The Old Breed, as well as the experiences of John Basilone. If you haven't seen it The Pacific is worth watching...I have a few quibbles with it (not the least of which is that one episode is almost completely fabricated for no real reason) but overall it's very well done.

With the Old Breed is excellent, and my favorite one-volume history of the Pacific side of WW2 is The Pacific War.

I read plenty of e-books but for things I want to keep I buy a paper copy. I've owned a couple of Kindles but now I just use my iPad and iPhone to read stuff.

hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]

Elendil004 posted:

I am still searching for a Falklands war book as well...any recommendations?

E: This is one of the few books that I actually had to put down while reading it because it's that intense. Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda is the memoir from the UN General who led the task force in Rwanda during the brutal genocide there. I believe he is still the highest ranking office diagnosed with PTSD due to the events there. It's a really gripping book and it will make you angry because there were so many warning signs, so many chances for other players to step in, and really so many people who DID care but couldn't get anyone else to give a poo poo. Him talking about having to drive around dying starving kids in the street because he just couldn't stop and save everyone is particularly gut wrenching.

Seconding this, I have this book and it is very intense (but very good). There's also a movie version which I thought was pretty good.

hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]
Re: Atkinson, I'm near the end of An Army at Dawn and just picked up The Day of Battle. I liked An Army at Dawn but I can understand where people see flaws. It's not particularly comprehensive and tends to focus on the personalities and human side of the campaign, which is not unexpected considering Atkinson's background (journalism). I'd say it's a readable introduction to the North African campaign and I would expect about the same from The Day of Battle regarding Sicily and Italy.

Normandy and Operation Overlord have been covered way more in books and movies and so on, so I'm not surprised The Guns at Last Light doesn't stand out when you have stuff like Max Hastings' work around. I have Overlord on my Kindle, need to get to that sometime, I also picked up Das Reich a long time ago... I have too many history books on my to-read list :(

On a completely different topic, I'm about 3/4 through The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire and it's pretty good, all sorts of details about how the Romans operated, constructed fortifications, etc. I also have The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire to follow it up with. I enjoy books about how armies operate - my favorite book about Napoleon is still Swords Around a Throne. I've tried reading Adam Zamoyski's Napoleon books and can't seem to finish them. I got halfway through Rites of Peace (about the Congress of Vienna) and about 20% into Moscow: 1812 before they lost my attention.

hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]

RichieHimself posted:

I recently read Fiasco by Tom Ricks and wasn't a fan. There is some interesting stuff in there since he talked to a lot of higher up dudes but most of it is old news these days. He also uses unnamed sources quite a bit which, necessary or not, hurts the legitimacy of the book imo. My biggest problem with the book is how he verbally strokes Petraeus throughout the whole thing and claims that Mosul only went to poo poo because the 101st left and follow on units weren't big enough to control the city. More dudes would have been great but, based on studies I've read, insurgent attacks in Mosul were steadily increasing throughout 2003 while the 101st was still there and then into 2004 when the city went nuts and motherfuckers started blowing up police stations. I give this book a 2 out of 5.

I'm also reading quite a bit about German anti-partisan actions in the Eastern Theater and some stuff on the British involvement in Iraq in the 20th century for some papers I'm writing. I'll make a post later on with any good books I come across.

I got about 2/3 through The Generals before I lost interest. It was an ok book but I just couldn't get through to the end. I haven't read any of Tom Ricks' other books, although I do enjoy his blog (The Best Defense) - there are some pretty good commenters on there.

hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]

white privilege posted:

Agreed, I'm not a fan of Ricks' books (or views, to be honest. The Petraeus dicksucking is excessive) but I thoroughly enjoy his blog. I've written some guest columns, and am a regular commenter.

Nice. I have to say, Foreign Policy's recent site design is terrible. Was it just me or did the comments not work for the first week or so? None of the stories had comments on them even if I disabled all my ad-blocking extensions etc. and I've only recently seen comments come back. I wish Tom would blog somewhere else with a better comment system, because the comments are really what keeps me coming back.

hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]
Also about the Roman Empire but with a military focus (and of course, much more recent) is The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. It goes into great detail about Roman military organization, defenses (the limes), tactics, logistics, and (duh) strategy. The same guy wrote a similar book about the Byzantine Empire that I haven't gotten around to yet.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hannibal
Jul 27, 2001

[img-planes]

Godholio posted:

I haven't read this one yet (it's on my list) but just realize that he's one voice in a reasonably active debate. I know there are a couple of more recent books out that disagree with him.

Yeah, since it's from 1979 I can see the current thinking on Roman strategy being different. However there is a lot of interesting archeological/paleontological info in there too.

Might as well throw in my current reading, Richard Evans' trilogy on Nazi Germany (Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power, and The Third Reich at War) I'm halfway through the third one and they're pretty good. The first one covers the post-WW1 period and the rise of the Nazis, the second one covers the time when the Nazis were in power before 1939, and the third one covers WW2. I own Shirer's book and while it's good, it's a bit out of date with the current scholarship and really covers things more from a reporter's point of view (which is really not bad for what it is). Evans is a historian and it shows (I'd say 1/3 of each book is footnotes and references) and I think the depth of writing is better for it.

  • Locked thread