Guest Rob/1 Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Its a farly good book its about the bild up and the Normany I also leaned that there were over 50 D-Days in world war two alown so there is more than one. It also covers from Normandy to the end of the war(its about operation overlord). Rob ------------------ Check out my CM web page! www.geocities.com/robisme_ca/Combat1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 If you're talking about "Overlord" by Max Hastings, yes I have. It's a bit hard on the Allied forces but it is a good read. If there's another book by that name, I would like to read it. Give the author with these titles so we know what books you're talking about. Right now I'm reading "Decision in Normandy" by Carlo D'Este which is supposed to be one of the best. "D day" was the term used by the army to designate "the" day of any attack, not just amphibious landings. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob/1 Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 So you have read it and yes its the same one I am reading it is head on the allied forces isn't it. ------------------ Check out my CM web page! www.geocities.com/robisme_ca/Combat1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobVarak Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 His journalism is good, but his pro-German bias is so silly that it almost undermines the book, IMHO. ------------------ Rob Varak Editor Site on Sound: The Web's Premier Site For Musical Discussion www.siteonsound.com CM Recommended Reading List Moderator www.siteonsound.com/CMReadingList.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: So you have read it and yes its the same one I am reading it is head on the allied forces isn't it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I will give him credit for one thing. Yes, the Allies were very green when they landed in France and they many costly mistakes but they had to learn the hard way and they did'nt stay green. They learned how to beat Jerry with inferior tanks and officers but by August of 1944 the American/British Army in France was a fit fighting machine that sliced the Germans into little pieces. If not, why did they win? Germany faced greater odds on the Eastern Front and held off the Russians longer than in France. We must have done something right. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>His journalism is good, but his pro-German bias is so silly that it almost undermines the book, IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is definitely a book worth reading but I absolutely agree with you there. Sometimes Hastings completely contradicts himself. Like he is rabbiting on about the failure of some British attack then in almost the next page he says that German counterattacks in Normandy were predominantly "crude" and ill co-ordinated. I mean what gives with that? When they are on the defensive they are "professional" and "masterful" but on the attack they are "crude". The facts are that when either side attacked in Normandy they had real trouble making headway and exploiting local successes because of the nature of the terrain. No doubt the allies had some learning to do which they did, especially at the operational level. But I seriously doubt that they could have made much more rapid progress than they did though I suspect they could have done it with less casualties. ------------------ "But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: They learned how to beat Jerry with inferior tanks and officers but by August of 1944 the American/British Army in France was a fit fighting machine that sliced the Germans into little pieces. If not, why did they win? Germany faced greater odds on the Eastern Front and held off the Russians longer than in France. We must have done something right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Allied troops in France deserve our greatest thanks & praise,(as do all troops who defeated Germany) they more then proved they could defeat the Germans any time anywhere. Simon brings up an excelent point on the problems both sides had exploiting opertunities due to terrain. I see Normandy as an learning phase for Allied troops & they passed the test of combat. Now that said, I think compareing the allied rate of advance in France to the Soviets ROA on the eastren front is an overal misleading generalisation. As it also must be considered that the Germans had 59 Divisions deployed in the West & 28 of them were in Italy, vs 165 Divisions deployed on the Eastren Front. This & other events in June Ie, Bagration restricted the Germans ability to respond & reinforce their forces in the West. One can only speculate what would have occured in June 1944 had the Germans had 165 xtra Divisions to deploy in Normandy. This is not to take anything from Allied troops in Normandy but to say their were other external factors that contributed to the overall allied achievments individual or otherwise, & show that an truly allied effort contributed overall to the victory. Regards, John Waters ------------- "Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!!." [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Now that said, I think compareing the allied rate of advance in France to the Soviets ROA on the eastren front is an overal misleading generalisation. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-31-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. Besides, in just over three years the Russians pushed the Germans back from Stalingrad to Berlin. Take a look at a map some time and check the distance, it's enormous. They also did this while the Germans were fighting a 1.5 front war more than a two front war; the vast majority of German resources were facing East until Normandy and beyond. Not knocking the U.S. military here but IMHO you just have to give the Russians their due in WWII. They earned it with the lives of millions of their people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted September 1, 2000 Share Posted September 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobVarak: His journalism is good, but his pro-German bias is so silly that it almost undermines the book, IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Private Eye, the UK satirical two-weekly calls him Max 'Hitler' Hastings, for his pro-German leanings and his treatment of staff at the newspaper. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted September 1, 2000 Share Posted September 1, 2000 I regard Hasting's book as definitive. It captures the desperation and futility more than any other book. He accomplishes this mainly by relating first hand accounts and quoting letters, comments, etc. of the soldiers involved. Too many D-Day books come accross as dry historical treatises which recycle the contents of yet other dry historical treatises and official accounts. His was the first book on the subject to really look at the nastiness of it with open eyes. I think a lot of people (not the veterans who were there of course) hated him for that, the unvarnished accounts of tragedy and the sense of hopelessness and futility in the hedgerows, for boldly showing just how pathetic and wasteful the reality was. Calling Hastings pro-german is going overboard. I don't remember any indication that he supported the german state's war effort. It's simply reporting historical accounts when you relate incidents of 5 shermans being ko'd by a lone panther, or an infantry company being wasted by incompetent officers. None of his reporting or evaluation struck me as providing an unrealistic portrayal of either side. I think Hastings does the allies the supreme honor of accurately depicting the allied citizen-soldier slugging it out to the bitter end, despite the horror of it all. By contrast you can get a pretty standard account from Stephen Ambrose that is gauranteed not to annoy anyone. A capable writer, but he likes to take the edge off the sordid reality to provide that healthy rah-rah-rah feeling. He also tends to make some technical mistakes like referring to 88mm armed panthers, etc. which is odd for someone you think would be a military facts nut. Basically he's a good guy and a good writer though so I don't want to turn you off Ambrose, I just don't think he's in the same league with Max Hastings. Ren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted September 1, 2000 Share Posted September 1, 2000 I have a great respect for the Russian soldiers in WWII. They fought under the most extreme conditions of any soldier in the war. Had it not been for the Russian Front, the U.S. and Great Britain could never have landed in France with as few casualties as they had on D-Day. Most of the German units defending the Normandy coast were units recovering their strength before being sent back to the East and they were understrength at that. My point was that the ratio of American/British troops in France opposed by German troops was probably much less than the ratio of Russian troops opposed by Germans. Conditions on the Russian Front were worse than in France, few paved roads and the scourched earth policy of both sides in their respective retreats made pursuit much tougher in Russia, but I believe the American/British forces faced tougher odds in France. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted September 1, 2000 Share Posted September 1, 2000 Hastings also wrote a pretty good book about the Korean War, called "The Korean War". I learned a few things I didn't know, and he draws some interesting parallels to Vietnam. It's written in a similar style to "Overlord", except with more coverage, of course, of political events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts