Two part question here:
1. I'm pretty much a n00b at land warfare. I'd like to learn more about it, specifically modern-ish land combat. Figure starting today and working backward to about WW2, but I'm more interested in 80s-today than WW2. I'd like to find a book or two, one similar to Fighter Combat by Shaw that describes how to fight land combat (something that explains, for example, mutually supporting fire, or where to put a minefield, stuff like that); and the second book I'd like is something that describes armored vehicles, like an Encyclopedia of Armored Vehicles or something of that nature.
2. Once I have part 1 answered, I'd like a reference that gives me some creative ideas for making scenarios in ARMA2, Steel Beasts, Combined Arms, etc. I'm really weak at what happens on the ground while I'm cruising along at 20k feet.
the kind of book your looking for are mostly manuals. I have run across an armored/combined arms book written like Fighter Combat. I still remember my favorite passage from that book. use cluster bombs against low flying helicopters. ;D
the encyclopedia type book can usually be found in the on sale sections of barnes and noble where they keep the history stuff.
I have these two and think they would be good for what you're looking for. Can be had relatively cheap on Amazon.
Combined Arms Warfare in the 20th Century by Jonathan House
Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles by Chris Foss
you also might want to google Steve Zaloga and browse his book list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Zaloga
Modern American Armor: Combat Vehicles of the United States Army Today (1982) ISBN 0-85368-248-8
Modern Soviet Armor: Combat Vehicles of the USSR and Warsaw Pact Today (1980) ISBN 0-13-597856-4
Red Thrust: Attack on the Central Front, Soviet Tactics and Capabilities in the 1990s (1989) ISBN 0-89141-345-6
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 11, 2013, 05:49:56 PM
you also might want to google Steve Zaloga and browse his book list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Zaloga
Modern American Armor: Combat Vehicles of the United States Army Today (1982) ISBN 0-85368-248-8
Modern Soviet Armor: Combat Vehicles of the USSR and Warsaw Pact Today (1980) ISBN 0-13-597856-4
Red Thrust: Attack on the Central Front, Soviet Tactics and Capabilities in the 1990s (1989) ISBN 0-89141-345-6
You can't hardly go wrong with any of Zaloga's book. I'd also recommend Tank Warfare Central Front - NATO vs Warsaw Pact by him.
Quote from: Al on March 11, 2013, 06:01:09 PM
You can't hardly go wrong with any of Zaloga's book.
I've only read one of his books, but upon that I will respectfully disagree.
His Panther vs Sherman in the Osprey Duel series I think misses the mark. It's full of interesting information, but his conclusion about the matchup between the two is indecisive and equivocal. Further, I believe his research on the numbers of tanks destroyed is wrong. He appears to be counting absolute numbers of Shermans destroyed as opposed to the number of Shermans destroyed, recovered, and sent in to battle again (to be destroyed, recovered, and resued yet again in many cases).
I like his book, but it isn't a definitive work on the subject IMHO.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184603292X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=184603292X&linkCode=as2&tag=grogheads-20
considering how much hes written I wouldnt make up my mind on one book especially an Osprey book which are never as in depth as you want them to be.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 11, 2013, 08:32:29 PM
considering how much hes written I wouldnt make up my mind on one book especially an Osprey book which are never as in depth as you want them to be.
I can completely agree. My only purpose was to suggest that a blanket endorsement of him might have an exception.
true but so do authors like Glantz. pobodies nerfect.
Although they are likely out-of-date and present a decidely US-based viewpoint, but Tom Clancy had a series of books "explaining" modern US combat arms...Marine, Armored Cavalry, Special Forces, Fighter Wing, Airborne, Carrier, etc etc ad infinitum.
These are not deep, strategic books. Rather, they provide a fairly straight-forward, lay-man's explanation of things like organization, tactics, equipment, recruitment, training, combat doctrine and battle testimony. Clancy writing / editorial oversight ensures a level of readability along with enough depth to keep you interested in the topic.
What these books lack is a) an overview of OpFor doctrine, etc, and b) any analysis of the kind of asymmetrical warfare that we find ourselves engaged in Afghanistan, etc.
You can usually pick them up cheap and dirty at a used bookstore (sorry...prolly just got Starfury all excited by using "cheap", "dirty" and "used" in the same sentance). I might even be able to loan my copies of whatever I have to you, if you so desired...PM me if interested.
Jack Nastyface
Quote from: LongBlade on March 11, 2013, 08:56:09 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 11, 2013, 08:32:29 PM
considering how much hes written I wouldnt make up my mind on one book especially an Osprey book which are never as in depth as you want them to be.
I can completely agree. My only purpose was to suggest that a blanket endorsement of him might have an exception.
In this case I was referring to the Zaloga books that GDS has recommended so I didn't mean it as a blanket endorsement - although it may have come across that way. I have the Duel book LB is talking about but I read it some time ago and don't remember the specifics.
Since we're talking Shermans and Zaloga though I would consider Armored Thunderbolt by him to be the best work on the oeprational aspects of that tank and US WW2 armor doctrine in general.
I remember editing a review of Armored Thunderbolt and it had a lot of praise for the book :)
also...you wouldn't be so wrong to look at some of the "tactics 101" articles available at Armchairgeneral...available here: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/category/tactics101
the book Thunder Run is pretty damn good.
Or you could just come hang out with us East Coasters for a week and throw some wargames on the table and let us show you what they look like in "action"
Thanks for the suggestions, guys.
I'm not sure the Combined Arms in the 20th Century is exactly what I'm looking for. I checked it out on Amazon and while it sounds interesting, the focus might not be as tight as what I'm looking for. Again, if you're ever read Shaw's Fighter Combat, I'm looking for a land combat version of that book, if you know what I mean.
The reference books sound awesome and I'll just need to sort through those to find the best one for my needs.
That other book, Red Thrust, sound very interesting, although I'm still not sure it's what I need. But it sounds like a good, fun book to read anyway.
I think what I'm looking for is more of an actual Field Manual. The book I want might not even be available via unclassified or non-DoD sources. I'm just very new to this genre, so maybe I don't even know what it is I want.
ok I think I got ya now. what your looking for and what you think your looking for are 2 different things.
start from the very beginning, its a very good place to start.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.gr-assets.com%2Fbooks%2F1347730391l%2F216355.jpg&hash=8bd174aad733c75d8fbb48e7aa805bd51f93dc28)
FWIW try to support this booksite:
www.rzm.com
not the same book but...
http://www.rzm.com/books/fp/panzertaktik.cfm
actually I need to get that book!
by David Zucchino.
shameful, bob, shameful.
wot?
Not the right one?
did I faux pas?
Thats French for 'balls-up' btw.
Quote from: bob48 on March 14, 2013, 04:27:17 PM
wot?
Not the right one?
did I faux pas?
Thats French for 'balls-up' btw.
I thought it meant "pretending to pass gas."
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 14, 2013, 04:10:01 PM
not the same book but...
http://www.rzm.com/books/fp/panzertaktik.cfm
actually I need to get that book!
I know you want to support that website, but the book is half the price at Amazon (and you'll help to support us!):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0921991525/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0921991525&linkCode=as2&tag=grogheads-20
Ok, the Panzertaktik book is exactly what I'm looking for...or close enough to it that it will get me closer to what I'm looking for after I read it.
So I ordered Panzertaktik, Red Thrust, and the Encyclopedia by Foss. That should be enough to start my study of land warfare.
<--- will not make a red thrust joke. I only do that once a month.
If it's manuals, didn't someone post a link to buy a set of CDs for about100 army manuals about a month ago?
I don't understand land combat either. I am an air power kind of guy from a young age. The strange thing is, most games are primarily ground forces so you get a fair amount of exposure to the systems of the armies. I'm speaking amateur gamer of course, not real military, which brings up my question about land combat. Why would a modern country expose it's troops to that level of hell? The guerrilla counter strategies seem well developed from Vietnam forward. Army against army I can understand. At some point someone loses so it devolves into a resistance/ guerrilla action. It seems the only successes against that are China which plants thousands into living in the area. Then they can support police actions to counter. Anything else seems doomed. If you have no intention of settling the area what are you doing? Besides burning large amounts of money. And lives.
that really depends on what country in being invaded and how the invading army behaves. the rules seems to be different for Europe then some 3rd world shithole. I think part of that is the idea that 1st world nations have more to lose with a post occupation insurgency. another issue is the size of todays military forces. without fielding something on the scale of a WW2 army you just cant occupy a country effectivly and that makes guerrilla forces much more effective. this is especially true because a modern miltary cant take the actions they could have 100 years ago to fight irregular forces.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on April 25, 2013, 08:23:56 AM
that really depends on what country in being invaded and how the invading army behaves. the rules seems to be different for Europe then some 3rd world shithole. I think part of that is the idea that 1st world nations have more to lose with a post occupation insurgency. another issue is the size of todays military forces. without fielding something on the scale of a WW2 army you just cant occupy a country effectivly and that makes guerrilla forces much more effective. this is especially true because a modern miltary cant take the actions they could have 100 years ago to fight irregular forces.
Is a determined insurgency bound to win by avoiding regular land warfare? Could the French resistance have eventually driven the Germans out if they had not settled France?
no, because the Germans had no problem hanging a village for the acts of a a few to keep the rest in line. we cant do that.
forget the Germans. we killed more people fire bombing Tokyo then we did at Hiroshima. both methods got the point across and conventional wisom and history agrees they were the right thing to do. any bets on how well either method would go over today? once upon a time we flattened Monte Casino thinking it would help punch a hole in the German line. today if a stray bullet hits a friking mosque its headline news and bitches are up in arms because our soldiers arent sensitive to other religions....
Civilisation sucks but not so much if you are willing to give up the moral high ground...
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on April 26, 2013, 12:55:15 AM
no, because the Germans had no problem hanging a village for the acts of a a few to keep the rest in line. we cant do that.
One could argue that the Russians have tried that tactic in Chechnya. It doesn't appear as though it exactly works.
I may be stepping into a minefield here, but who's to say that counterinsurgency doesn't work today? Look at Iraq; compared to other countries in the region, say Egypt and Syria, it's almost a model of stability today. We also don't know what Afghanistan is going to look like in five or ten years either. The success of the Taliban is in no way assured once ISAF pulls out.
I am speaking with a bias in both of these cases since I'm a veteran of both conflicts and hope my time there wasn't for naught. If nothing else, I think we've proved to would-be trouble-makers in the world that we Americans are crazy enough to invade your country and sit there for a decade if you piss us off bad enough.
Mr. B, from a practical standpoint you have to put troops on the ground to patrol and find the enemy, especially in counter-insurgency. My sector here in Afghanistan is a perfect example. We have tethered Zeppelins that observe every inch of our relatively small AO with high-powered cameras and thermals not to mention rotary and fixed wing assets overhead almost constantly but our most effective way of making contact with the enemy is still for a rifle squad to walk out on a patrol and look for a fight. Airpower is awesome but it's a sledgehammer not a scalpel.
you keep your ass safe!
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on April 26, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
I may be stepping into a minefield here, but who's to say that counterinsurgency doesn't work today?
I agree. If you haven't, I'd highly recommend reading Max Boot's Savage Wars of Peace.
IMHO (from the cheap seats) we got lucky in Iraq when al-Anbar province flipped and their leaders decided to get in bed with us. We convinced them we'd stay as long as necessary and they believed us.
Our biggest problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we have a first class strike force, but lack the numbers to truly occupy a sizable chunk of land. After WWII there was a platoon on every block in Germany. They couldn't fart without us knowing it.
We have nowhere near those numbers today and struggle to keep whatever land we take. Counter insurgency can work, but if you're going to occupy some real estate, make sure you bring enough boots to keep it. That is the lesson from the last decade.
It is been said before by wiser men than me: In Afghanistan, If we bought their opium crop for US dollar$ and sold them squashies and Lula Lemon burkas
and guns and ammo and gay porn the Taliban would disappear. Exploding those guys don't work too good...I mean left alone they just kill each other for fun anyway
as there is nothing better to do. The place is boring and poor and they have no hot chics, subsistence agriculture with one cash crop that we destroy and the bad guys buy. (WTF!?!)
Which side would you be on? Ask a few of those East Tennessee guys I met long ago.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on April 26, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
I may be stepping into a minefield here, but who's to say that counterinsurgency doesn't work today? Look at Iraq; compared to other countries in the region, say Egypt and Syria, it's almost a model of stability today.
I would love to believe that. Let history prove it so.
Quote
We also don't know what Afghanistan is going to look like in five or ten years either. The success of the Taliban is in no way assured once ISAF pulls out.
I am speaking with a bias in both of these cases since I'm a veteran of both conflicts and hope my time there wasn't for naught. If nothing else, I think we've proved to would-be trouble-makers in the world that we Americans are crazy enough to invade your country and sit there for a decade if you piss us off bad enough.
Mr. B, from a practical standpoint you have to put troops on the ground to patrol and find the enemy, especially in counter-insurgency. My sector here in Afghanistan is a perfect example. We have tethered Zeppelins that observe every inch of our relatively small AO with high-powered cameras and thermals
Well shite, who can argue with that? They must be in awe of your awesomeness!"
Quotenot to mention rotary and fixed wing assets overhead almost constantly but our most effective way of making contact with the enemy is still for a rifle squad to walk out on a patrol and look for a fight. Airpower is awesome but it's a sledgehammer not a scalpel.
Nothing wrong with a sledge, especially when it the handle is long enough to be safe. Let them rail about their impotence.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 27, 2013, 04:12:17 PM
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on April 26, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
I may be stepping into a minefield here, but who's to say that counterinsurgency doesn't work today? Look at Iraq; compared to other countries in the region, say Egypt and Syria, it's almost a model of stability today.
I would love to believe that. Let history prove it so.
Read this. It's edifying and will answer your question: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046500721X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=046500721X&linkCode=as2&tag=grogheads-20
When one looks at this history it kind of explains why the French and the British could not understand why
the US would not fully back their post WW2 colonial affrays and pulled the rug out of the Suez adventure
among other things. When the reason for going into another country is "We felt like it." It looks just a little
like imperialism. It makes me think of bananas.
The Dutch were also left out in the cold as far as the Dutch East Indies went when the USA decided it had no interest in Southeast Asia after WW2. IIRC the postwar chaos was so bad that large groups of Japanese prisoners were actually rearmed by British and Dutch forces so they could assist in the attempts to quell the widespread rioting and massacres that erupted due to the power vacuum in the region.
Quote from: Staggerwing on April 27, 2013, 07:15:19 PM
The Dutch were also left out in the cold as far as the Dutch East Indies went when the USA decided it had no interest in Southeast Asia after WW2. IIRC the postwar chaos was so bad that large groups of Japanese prisoners were actually rearmed by British and Dutch forces so they could assist in the attempts to quell the widespread rioting and massacres that erupted due to the power vacuum in the region.
I learn something new every day.
I almost picked up a book today about US and German forces teaming up during the immediate aftermath of WW2 to capture a SS help prison holding French officers. its supposedly a true story.
and thats why I love history. you just cant make up the stuff thats actually happened.
It's my understanding that German soldiers were used extensively as MPs and traffic cops after the armistice by the Allies.
the jacket gave me the impression that it was Heer combat units.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 27, 2013, 04:12:17 PM
Nothing wrong with a sledge, especially when it the handle is long enough to be safe. Let them rail about their impotence.
You can't use a sledgehammer if you don't know what to hit.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on April 27, 2013, 09:53:36 PMand thats why I love history. you just cant make up the stuff thats actually happened.
http://www.avalanchepress.com/99thInfantry.php
and
http://www.avalanchepress.com/150thPanzer.php
How the 150th managed to run into the 99th is a mystery, but it's one of history's great coincidences...
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on April 27, 2013, 10:28:51 PM
the jacket gave me the impression that it was Heer combat units.
Sorry, I wasn't disputing since I'm not familiar with the story. I should have said 'German soldiers were
also used extensively...'.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on April 27, 2013, 10:39:40 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 27, 2013, 04:12:17 PM
Nothing wrong with a sledge, especially when it the handle is long enough to be safe. Let them rail about their impotence.
You can't use a sledgehammer if you don't know what to hit.
The same is true for troops.
You can only hit anything when you see something happening. If its army vs army or country vs country there are locations that are targets. Hardware, facilities, supplies.
If its an insurgency you only get to respond to when they stick their head up. You are always reacting to their initiative. They control the war. The tempo, the locations, their risks reward ratio. Its a shite deal.