What Book Are You Reading at the moment?

[Kuokkanen]

Soft covers are the cool ones

Slammers.jpg (5.05 MiB) Viewed 881 times

[warspite1]

The Fleet Air Arm and the War in Europe 1939-45 (Hobbs)

I bought this back in 2022 but never got around to reading it. Have done so (or more accurately have almost done so) now and have to say its a very good read. Its a real pity that the Mediterranean is not covered - but that is down to me for assuming rather than actually checking before purchase.

Sadly its another area where the Germans provided far more forward thinking than their British counterparts in the build up to World War II.

[ncc1701e]

I have almost finished this gem. Any wargamer must read this book.

Why between Moscow and Kiev in 1941 only one choice was possible?
Why would Rommel never have succeeded in 1941 and in 1942?
Why is the link between Germany and Japan armies in India a pure fiction?

All is explained by logistics and this book explains it very well. A must read.

Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (Second Edition)
Martin van Creveld

---

Supplying War.JPG (21.18 KiB) Viewed 573 times

[gjoshua]

Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy It’s dark, violent, and absolutely gripping

[Aurelian]

The Sacred Warriors.

[Afikkk]

Today I finished reading the book “Atomic Habits”. Quite an interesting book, especially for those who want to change something in their lives.

I’ve read Atomic Habits too It’s such an inspiring book, especially when it comes to building positive habits and how small changes can lead to big results. What changes do you plan to make after reading it?

[warspite1]

This could be interesting. I’ve not read anything previously by this author but the subject matter makes this worth taking a chance on.

The Fleet That Fought Itself - The Spanish Navy And The Civil War 1936-39 (Heinz)

This comes out in April and I’ll definitely be pre-ordering this.

[OldSarge]

I've just started to read Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. A warning from the past for the present, and I think we need the reminder. The worse atrocities in war are too often not committed by fanatics, but by ordinary men just following orders.

[warspite1]

This could be interesting. I’ve not read anything previously by this author but the subject matter makes this worth taking a chance on.

The Fleet That Fought Itself - The Spanish Navy And The Civil War 1936-39 (Heinz)

This comes out in April and I’ll definitely be pre-ordering this.

warspite1

… and just finished this and yes, this was an interesting read. Previous books I’ve read on the Spanish Civil War have, in general, skirted over the naval aspect of the war and so it was great to get a book that gives this consideration.

The author explains in sufficient detail, not just about the naval actions, but also the difficult circumstances in which both sides found themselves at the outbreak of the conflict - and what actions they took to overcome a vast array of difficulties.

If you are interested in naval warfare then this is well worth the time and money.

[gamer78]

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/econo ... 4/summary/

interesting to read Daron Acemoğlu, Simon Henry Roberts Johnson and James A. Robinson. Basicly Nobel was about economy sciences also include history. Basicly Nobel price was about progresive and destuctive institutions. Nations progress in history with good institutions (education, healthcare etc...) and go bad institutions(jail, police state and such), give an example as Haiti and Dominican Republic with same climate, religion and ethnic group but only different colonial masters as example. Too much complicated but all good books.

https://www.dr.com.tr/yazar/daron-acemo ... bwrj9o4mHv

[warspite1]

I so rarely read a book more than once on the basis that there are just soooo many to read. However, there are always exceptions to this - if the book is good enough.

Many years ago I read The Battle for Norway and The German Invasion of Norway (Haarr). Such is the incredible quality of these books, I've been desperate to read these again ever since. I finally got round to re-reading the latter earlier this year and now, after a brief sojourn to Sunny Spain (well worn torn, civil war-ridden Spain actually), I've started the former again.

If you have any interest in naval warfare, or indeed any interest in WWII, the I simply can't recommend these books highly enough. The Norwegian Campaign is absolutely fascinating, and these books ooze quality from every pore (page).

[ncc1701e]

I am reading How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II by Phillips O'Brien.
Very interesting thesis. Land warfare did not play a huge part in the Allies victory, only air and sea warfare did.

[gamer78]

The author explains in sufficient detail, not just about the naval actions, but also the difficult circumstances in which both sides found themselves at the outbreak of the conflict - and what actions they took to overcome a vast array of difficulties.

If you are interested in naval warfare then this is well worth the time and money.

I'm curious, if not copyright issue why was the fleet fighting itself?

I am reading How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II by Phillips O'Brien.
Very interesting thesis. Land warfare did not play a huge part in the Allies victory, only air and sea warfare did.

That is why I've no interest in WW'2, all about techology. Apart from German&Soviet war

[ernieschwitz]

The author explains in sufficient detail, not just about the naval actions, but also the difficult circumstances in which both sides found themselves at the outbreak of the conflict - and what actions they took to overcome a vast array of difficulties.

If you are interested in naval warfare then this is well worth the time and money.

I'm curious, if not copyright issue why was the fleet fighting itself?

There is this thing called the Spanish Civil War.

[RangerJoe]

I am reading How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II by Phillips O'Brien.
Very interesting thesis. Land warfare did not play a huge part in the Allies victory, only air and sea warfare did.

I wonder what the Allied air and naval forces used for bases if there was no land operations to capture the bases. Did the author explain that?

[gamer78]

The author explains in sufficient detail, not just about the naval actions, but also the difficult circumstances in which both sides found themselves at the outbreak of the conflict - and what actions they took to overcome a vast array of difficulties.

If you are interested in naval warfare then this is well worth the time and money.

I'm curious, if not copyright issue why was the fleet fighting itself?

There is this thing called the Spanish Civil War.

Hmm so civil war no naval power both sides. Perhaps not enough institutions. I'll wait for Warspite1 answer as he has the 'book'.

[warspite1]

I'm curious, if not copyright issue why was the fleet fighting itself?

There is this thing called the Spanish Civil War.

Hmm so civil war no naval power both sides. Perhaps not enough institutions. I'll wait for Warspite1 answer as he has the 'book'.

warspite1

Hi gamer78, the title refers to the fact that the Nationalists and Republicans each took control of various ships of the Spanish Fleet at the outbreak of the civil war. Having done so, both sides used their ships for a variety of purposes - including blockade, shore bombardment in support of ground offensives and landings, convoy duty (both troop and supply convoys), offensive sorties etc.

When you say "no naval power both sides" this was not the case. Both sides were able to commandeer units of the fleet - albeit the split of forces was far from equal - the Nationalists for example had no submarines and only one destroyer, while they did have access to the newer cruisers.

[ncc1701e]

I am reading How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II by Phillips O'Brien.
Very interesting thesis. Land warfare did not play a huge part in the Allies victory, only air and sea warfare did.

I wonder what the Allied air and naval forces used for bases if there was no land operations to capture the bases. Did the author explain that?

Just beginning the book. Currently, the author is looking at the production numbers on both sides.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Manituana by Wu Ming

[gamer78]

There is this thing called the Spanish Civil War.

Hmm so civil war no naval power both sides. Perhaps not enough institutions. I'll wait for Warspite1 answer as he has the 'book'.

warspite1

Hi gamer78, the title refers to the fact that the Nationalists and Republicans each took control of various ships of the Spanish Fleet at the outbreak of the civil war. Having done so, both sides used their ships for a variety of purposes - including blockade, shore bombardment in support of ground offensives and landings, convoy duty (both troop and supply convoys), offensive sorties etc.

When you say "no naval power both sides" this was not the case. Both sides were able to commandeer units of the fleet - albeit the split of forces was far from equal - the Nationalists for example had no submarines and only one destroyer, while they did have access to the newer cruisers.

Yes I mean by numbers. Ofcourse they've navy institutions. How many submarines and destroyers if not copright issue. And navy was that much important? Royal Navy and France let Franco cross the Gilbatar from N.Africa. Apart from navy Buenaventura Durruti's anarchists to Zaragoza interesting also to a 3rd party to civil war.