Book Recomendations?

[Speedbump]

I just finished Ken Touts, Tank! I enjoyed the read and am looking for similar fare. Any suggestions?

Speedbump

[Ex Bellator]

A Fine Night For Tanks by - errr - Ken Tout

[Speedbump]

Thanks, Rex. Unfortunately, the Cleveland Public Library only carries Tout's Tank.

Others?

Speedbump

[Funker Vertinox]

I would recommend "Soldat" by Alfred Knappe if you haven't read that yet. Not a tanker but an auto-bio on a artillary officer who served in France, Russia, and Italy who later ended up working as a general staff officer during the defense of Berlin in 1945.

Even though it's not all about him at the front lines (long parts about the POW in russia from 46-49) he does explain a good detail about operations and technical aspects of how the Wehrmacht deployed artillary and troop movements and other tactical goodies.

[Conscript Bagger]

Since you didn't ask specifically for books about the ETO, I'll recommend Dick O'Kane's "Clear the Bridge!" as an eye-opening read on sub warfare.

[dfgardner]

How about "Steel Inferno: Story of 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy".

It's an interesting read for CM players.

[Viceroy]

For small unit action If You Survive: by George Wilson a Lt in the 4th Inf Div is good.

For the view from a Private who became a Lt at he end of the War Roll Me Over: Raymond Gantter is great. His book was written from notes and letters that he had with him while in France and Germany '44-'45, so it has a freshness and intensity that other books written long after the war sometimes lack.

Both should be available from your public library.

[AndrewTF]

I just finished Death Traps by Belton Cooper. It's a memoir of his experiences in an armored unit in the ETO, where he arrived in July, 1944. He worked in an armor maintenance and recovery unit, working at the front line looking for knocked out tanks to recover, repair, and reissue. It's a fascinating and sometimes gruesome (gotta clean out the inside of a knocked-out tank) look into the workings of US armored units, and a great read.

[Stacheldraht]

Another vote for Death Traps. That's required reading for anyone interested in the nitty gritty of WWII armored warfare. Lots of interesting details and observations from a man who knows what he's talking about from first-hand experience.

[Speedbump]

Thanks, all! Keep them coming, I am always looking for more ideas.

Speedbump

[Spanish Bombs]

There is a very good suggested reading list on the CM HQ website, although I always forget where to find it w/in the site.

I just started Brazen Chariots by Robert Crisp, about the tank war in Northern Africa. I had read it probably 20 years ago as a kid and didn't really understand the British element to the writing, but it now it has really caught my imagination. So much so that I fell asleep during Game 5 of the World Series last night, but when I finally got off the couch to read before bed, I ended up polishing off about 30 pages.

[Andreas]

The other side of time by Brendan Phibbs.

A great rant, and he was the combat surgeon of CCB in 12th US Armoured. Wrote it in 1987, and boy was he ever bitter.

[Mattias]

"Company Commander" by Charles B. MacDonald should do the trick (US army in western Europe).

"Closing with the Enemy" by Michael D. Doubler is one of the best books written when it comes to explaning under what tactical and strategical conditions the campaign in the west was fought (by US forces), but it is not as personal and low down as Tout and MacDonald.

M.

[Rupert_2]

Errrrr....Another Ken Tout book, The Bloody battle For Tilly !!!!! 10/10

Or Guns of War by George G. Blackburn......Or even Marching to the Sound of Gun Fire by Patrick Delaforce.........

[Neutral Party]

Apart from some of great suggestions already made I would recommend "With the Jocks" by Peter White ISBN 0750927216. It's the newly but postumously published journal of a platoon leader in the 4th battalion King's Own Scottish Borderers - part of 52nd (Lowland) Division in the British Second Army. The book covers the period October '44 to wars end and details the battalion's progress across Europe from their first action at Walcheren Island to Bremen, where they ended up. There are no great descriptions of major battles just the day to day account of a junior officer caught up the maelstrom of war. It's available from Amazon.co.uk but I don't know about the US sites.

[Lawyer]

Speedbump, assuming you learn to read before asking for book recommendations, I repeat what I posted elsewhere. Another FREE service from Lawyer.

---------

A really great site that deals mostly with WWII books and videos, expecially ones not normally seen in US, is

www.rzm.com

Check it out. I've spent a lot of money there, but the books, especially the "Then and Now" series, are excellent. Many east front titles too.

[bodman]

I know it has already been mentioned but Company Commander by Charles B. Macdonald is one of the best I have read. Don't forget Donald Burgett He wrote Currahee!, Seven Roads to Hell, among others. He was in the 101st Airborne.

God those men had courage

Bodman

[Sheck]

Books about Eastern Front:

* german battle tactics on russian front 1941-1945. Steven Newton

* combat history of Sturmgeschuetz bridage 276. edited by heinz fleischer

* with our backss to berlin. tony le tissier

* in the firestorm of the last years of the war - II. ss panzerkorps...wilhelm tieke

* the nazi war against the soviet partisans 1941-1945. matthew cooper

* tragedy of tehfaithful - a history of II.ss panzerkorps...wilhem tiecke

* decisivie battles of the Soviet army. progressive publishers - originally by vakim novikor

* east front drama - 1944. r hinze

* retreat from leningrad. army group north 1944/1945. steven newton

* scorched earth. paul carrel

* ostfront 1944. alex bucher

* army group north. werner haupt

* comrades to teh end - 4th ss pzgr reg. otto weidinger

* hitler's last bastion. franz kurowski

* campaign in russia. leon degrelle

* gotterdammerung 1945. russ schneider

* gebrigsjaeger im kaukaus. leipold stocker

* decision in the ukraine summer 1943. george nipe, jr.

teh german defeat in teh east 1944. sameul mitcham

Many books people recommend are not terribly historical being first person accounts (notoriously inaccurate), based on third hand or worse documents, subjective accounts, etc. They are not based on primary documentation - most of the books above are based on primary documentation. If you wnat more titles - I can provide another 30 or so titles.

Good publishers for 'better quality history' are Schiffer Military History and JJ Fedorowisc Publishing.

regards,

Stefan Sheckells

[RobVarak]

See my sig for a list compiled by suggestions from forum members.

[rogue male]

"Many books people recommend are not terribly historical being first person accounts (notoriously inaccurate), based on third hand or worse documents, subjective accounts, etc. They are not based on primary documentation - most of the books above are based on primary documentation."

Are you saying that some or all of the first person accounts mentioned in other posts on this thread are based on third hand documentation? If a first person account is actually written by the person who experienced the events, wouldn't that be primary documentation? For example Lt So and So was at Action X and this is what he saw happen. That's a primary source as far as I know. It seems by their nature first person accounts are subjective. Am I way off here?

[Sheck]

"Are you saying that some or all of the first person accounts mentioned in other posts on this thread are based on third hand documentation?"

Yes and No. I was saying that first person accounts are notoriously inaccurate. They are good accounts for feelings, expereinces, etc. but often have facts wrong or mixed together. Human memory is very subjective. Which also brings in that many first acccounts subliment details from other sources - so they are often not completely / solely a 'first person account.'

You are correct - a first person account could be considered a primary source. However, most history is based on an account of facts most best persented by a non-bias source. First person accounts are incredibly bias, so they are usually lableled as first person accounts rather than a 'primary source.' Hence my differentiation between teh two.

[Simon Fox]

I do beleive the first post on this thread said: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Speedbump:

I just finished Ken Touts, Tank! I enjoyed the read and am looking for similar fare. Any suggestions?<hr></blockquote>Which just happens to be a well written first person account (though I understand the author interviewed a number of his fellow veterans to fill out his own account). I would suggest that most of the responses have attempted to answer this question. If Mr bump wanted dry historical analysis based on archival documentation then I suspect he would have said so.

[Rupert_2]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I do beleive the first post on this thread said: Which just happens to be a well written first person account (though I understand the author interviewed a number of his fellow veterans to fill out his own account). I would suggest that most of the responses have attempted to answer this question. If Mr bump wanted dry historical analysis based on archival documentation then I suspect he would have said so.<hr></blockquote>

I agree, plus looking at Sheck's list I see some of the books he has recomended are writen by ex-SS officers, i.e. Leon Degrelle for one...And I would think some of these books are hyped up accounts too and not just hard facts he talks about.

:confused:

[Sheck]

Gents,

This is why I rarely comment here because too often things are skewed. I did not write first person accounts are not good history or should not be read. I did point out that first person accounts typically contain inaccuracies and are bias (which is not necessarily a bad thing - just something to be aware of...).

I would say that many 'commonly' read books (and where many, but not most, people seem to get their history from) are first person accounts which provide a skewed version of history.

IMHO a well rounded approach is the best where 'dry facts' are read and first person accounts are also read. Too often people just read the mass printed stuff, which must sell 10,000s of copies and often is a 'dramatic' first person accounts.

And yes, several of teh books listed are first person accounts - I left off some of teh russian authors/books because people would not recognize them or be able to get them. Also was trying to point out that there is a more history (better selection of material) out there than your local Border's or B&N can usually provide.

I applaud Bump's desire for more books and IMHO provided a fairly good list for the EF.

[rogue male]

I guess my point was it seemed like your list was recommending several first person accounts, then in your last paragraph you seem discount the first person account as not being history. Just seemed contradictory. Now I'm not pickin' a fight, just talkin'. I agree that personal accounts are subjective and likely contain some degree of inaccuracy. They also convey a sense of urgency and drama if written well. But I am not sure they are less a legitimate representation of history than a work that is based on primary sources written by a third party. Isn't an historian likely to introduce their own bias once the start presenting the set of primary sources they've gathered? As historian you could interview Lt SoandSo who was at a battle and he would be a primary source. If Lt SoandSo writes his memoir his account of the battle becomes "first person" and is now less historical? I guess I would say that first person accounts are historical but some are bad history, but then the same can said for books some supposed authorities publish.