Jump to content

New Book: "Battlegroup!: The Lessons of the Unfought Battles of the Cold War" (Jim Storr)


Cpl Steiner

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

"It was such a nice thread" clucked Ethel, 89 "what a shame what happened to it."

Btw, Rinaldi, I've tried to recreate your Feierabend AAR, but for me Gnojau remains a death trap for the Red team. Tried it several times and although I managed to score a victory the Red team is always doomed.

But again, superb AAR. Really enjoyed that.

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little Cold War tidbit that applies to the book we're discussing. The first indication western intelligence had of the T-64 was, of all things, a Red Army wargame manual acquired by an agent. In it, analysts noticed something intriguing. The wargame manual gave ratings to every weapon in the wargame, with the T-62 the baseline at 1.0. This T-64 was rated a whopping 1.5, this being the Red Army's own assessment of the potency of the new tank. This account is in the CIA T-64 and T-64B assessment in the CIA's FOIA Reading Room.Per Suvorov/Rezun, who was a participant in the military peep show extravaganza Operation Dnepr, the T-64 would've appeared in the operation. He and other fellow officers (everybody was an officer, to make sure everything was done superbly) saw the tanks and talked to the crews), but evidently there was a change of mind, and the T-64s were covered and sent back. During the Cold War, GSFG was re-equipped with the T-64 (have seen overhead imagery of both the early T-64 (115 mm gun) and the later 125 mm armed one at one or more GFSG tank units, but I don't know the date for that. What I do know is that at some point before March 24, 1985, the date Major Nicholson was shot and killed by a GSFG sentry, the T-80 had replaced it.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

civdiv,

Look forward to reading your reaction to this book I clearly need to read, not least because battlegroups weren't really a thing during my Soviet Threat Analyst days--unless you wish to consider the then-dreaded OMG a battlegroup. While we dreaded the OMG, the Soviets dreaded having scatterable mines dropped smack into their OMG. Tanks might've been able to deal with scatterable mines via their not full width dozer blades, but everything else in the OMG, save for the engineers, would've been screwed. The last thing a unit critically dependent on speed, speed and more speed needs is to be suddenly mired in instant minefields with both antipersonnel and antivehicular mines in each such field. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

A battlegroup is simply another term for a battalion task force. 
 

Battalion task forces were quite prevalent in the 70s and 80s. Both NATO and Warsaw Pact forces used battalion task forces (battlegroups) extensively. 
 

 

IICptMillerII,

Appreciate the information, especially since the WW II German kampfgruppe varied so wildly in both size and composition.

Regards,

John Kettler
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2022 at 7:25 AM, Aragorn2002 said:

i agree. The Cold War wasn't some silly game, but a real threat. It cost billions and billions and many lifes, caused unspeakable misery and damage and the only reason why the Soviets didn't attack was that it would cost them more than they could pay. We in the West should learn more lessons from it, instead of neglecting our military once again and leave the initiative to an evil and merciless enemy, who never brought anything else than bad news.

I can't find the Storr's book for a normal price, but his conclusion that the Red Army never was a realistic threat also doesn't convince me to pay the price asked for it.

I object to this post.  I never said that 'the Red Army was never a realistic threat'.  It was certainly not one of my conclusions.  This post is simply ill-informed.  Incidentally the Red Army was renamed the Soviet Ground Forces (typically 'The Soviet Army') in 1946.  

I advise anyone to read the book before they comment on it.  

Jim Storr

Edited by Jim Storr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jim Storr said:

I object to this post. 

Let me offer some friendly advice. Don't get all butthurt by this kind of comment. Learn from it - it's probably given in good faith. Someone is telling you based on the snippets of information, this is the impression he is getting and his decision on when (or if) he will buy will be based on that impression. That's actionable information.

Those snippets thrown out by someone were also made in good faith. When one compresses a 312-page book into a web review or first impressions, inevitably detail would be lost. A book is also about what people take away from it. That's also a lesson.

Besides, IMO there's no point in blaming the "leakers", b/c people will get similar suspicions re the probable content of Battlegroup if they had read your immediately preceding work Hall of Mirrors.

I can't make this decision for you, but I think the best damage-control tactic at this point is not to insist on what you didn't say, but simply to cite (extensively) what you did say. You've already told us the Soviet Ground Forces will be far from the focus of the book. If that's so, you can spoil that part without ruining the sale value of your piece. At least now you know what kind of preview snippets to offer up to convince your potential buyers your rather expensive book (~US$45!) is a safe bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your advice.  I have seen too much ill-informed or simply wrong comment in blogs to believe that that sort of unthinking, poorly-expressed, shoot-from-the hip criticism should go unanswered.  

I did not blame anybody.  

Jim Storr

Edited by Jim Storr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jim Storr said:

Thank you for your advice.  I have seen too much ill-informed or simply wrong comment in blogs to believe that that sort of unthinking, poorly-expressed, shoot-from-the hip criticism should go unanswered.  

I did not blame anybody.  

Jim Storr

Sir, as someone else said somewhere, this forum is like a bunch of guys heading to the bar. Sooner or later someone is going to say something that pisses you off (Aaron Rodgers sucks) but they are not taking a swipe at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 6:11 PM, Jim Storr said:

In the 1980s the US and Bundeswehr stopped advocating fighting mounted and plated over the firing ports of their IFVs.  Enough said.  

I can't speak to UK or BW mechanized forces, but as to US (personal experience, here, so cast it as anecdotal if you like):

The decision to assault mounted or to dismount short of the assault objective is a situational decision. The main factors are cover, concealment, and time.

For the M2, the modifications brought about by the A2 variant were driven by the BMP-2's 30mm autocannon. The  basic and A1 variants were designed to stop 14.5mm and 23mm. The upgrade added heavier armor skirts to the hull flanks (as well as applique plates to the front slope and turret) and the skirts are what covered up the flank firing ports. The rear firing ports remained operational and the vehicle kit retained firing port weapons for those. 

Mounted assault was not, in my experience, dropped from either doctrine or training when the flank firing ports were deleted.

A former Bradley Master Gunner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 5:34 PM, Jim Storr said:

I object to this post.  I never said that 'the Red Army was never a realistic threat'.  It was certainly not one of my conclusions.  This post is simply ill-informed.  Incidentally the Red Army was renamed the Soviet Ground Forces (typically 'The Soviet Army') in 1946.  

I advise anyone to read the book before they comment on it.  

Jim Storr

Unfortunately the book isn't in stock in any Dutch online bookstores (including Amazon). Although that might be a good thing for you ;-).

Any idea if it will be available soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I preordered the book on December 11th. It's still listed as out of stock. I hope there will soon be a second print run, it would be a pity if I don't get the book before, well, before WW3 begins in earnest! 😬 Just kidding... about the war, I mean, not about the preorder. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 5:34 PM, Jim Storr said:

I object to this post.  I never said that 'the Red Army was never a realistic threat'.  It was certainly not one of my conclusions.  This post is simply ill-informed.  Incidentally the Red Army was renamed the Soviet Ground Forces (typically 'The Soviet Army') in 1946.  

I advise anyone to read the book before they comment on it.  

Jim Storr

After giving it some more thought I must admit that you're right. My comment was too harsh. I offer you my apologies for jumping to a conclusion. 🙂

Having said that I'm waiting for a reprint of your book for a reasonable price (it's now almost 50 Euros on Amazon Germany), so I can give some well-informed comment on it. The subject is quite interesting.

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Amedeo said:

I preordered the book on December 11th. It's still listed as out of stock. I hope there will soon be a second print run, it would be a pity if I don't get the book before, well, before WW3 begins in earnest! 😬 Just kidding... about the war, I mean, not about the preorder. 😉

Amazon? I ordered it over a month after you and it shipped the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, civdiv said:

Amazon? I ordered it over a month after you and it shipped the next day.

Helion have been able to fill most orders very quickly.  A British Army colonel I know ordered one from Amazon in October; it hadn't arrived three months later.  He then reordered direct from Helion; it arrived 3 days later.  

However, I don't know how that would work across the pond, with shipping costs and possibly import taxes. 

Jim Storr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

After giving it some more thought I must admit that you're right. My comment was too harsh. I offer you my apologies for jumping to a conclusion. 🙂

Having said that I'm waiting for a reprint of your book for a reasonable price (it's now almost 50 Euros on Amazon Germany), so I can give some well-informed comment on it. The subject is quite interesting.

That's kind of you; thank you.  

Jim Storr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Amedeo said:

I preordered the book on December 11th. It's still listed as out of stock. I hope there will soon be a second print run, it would be a pity if I don't get the book before, well, before WW3 begins in earnest! 😬 Just kidding... about the war, I mean, not about the preorder. 😉

Please see my reply above.  The problem is apparently with Amazon's shippers, not with the print run.  

Jim Storr

Edited by Jim Storr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2022 at 12:20 PM, Lethaface said:

Unfortunately the book isn't in stock in any Dutch online bookstores (including Amazon). Although that might be a good thing for you ;-).

Any idea if it will be available soon?

Thank you.  Please see my reply above. 

Jim Storr 

Edited by Jim Storr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 8:14 PM, civdiv said:

Sir, as someone else said somewhere, this forum is like a bunch of guys heading to the bar. Sooner or later someone is going to say something that pisses you off (Aaron Rodgers sucks) but they are not taking a swipe at you.

Thank you.  

A stranger walks into the bar and joins in the conversation.  One of the guys is talking rubbish.  The stranger puts him straight.  It's awkward and uncomfortable.  But, being good guys, they take it on the chin.  

The difference between a bunch of guys heading the the bar and a forum like this is that this can be seen around the world.  But, being good guys ...   

:)  

Jim Storr 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...