Greetings:
Well, as the man said, YMMV. I've also got stuff on other nations, but those
are the titles I recalled off the top of my head.
For example, I have a pile of books on various wars between Israel and various
other countries (I'm an
ex-tanker. If it is a book about tanks, I'll buy
it...). Alas, most are from a pretty big picture POV.
As for older books "going out of date", I have to disagree. Many of the basic
principles set down 200 or more years ago are still valid today. Sun Tzu's
specific methods of fighting (swords, etc.) may not be used today, but many
principles can be used in modern warfare. The same is true of Clauswitz or
Patton or Rommel or Schwartzkopf or Franks...
Strategy Page? What can I say, I'm a US-centric kind
of guy, being an ex-US Army kind of person.
;)
Fred Kiesche (FPK3)
My books are water; those of great geniuses are wine. Everybody drinks water.
(Mark Twain, "Notebook")
Science, science fiction and more. See The Eternal Golden Braid.
(http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/)
> On 8/5/05, Fred Kiesche <godel2escher2bach@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As for older books "going out of date", I have to
Well, no. Not really.
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is:
"To so use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death,
and destruction on the enemy in the minimum time."
--General George S. Patton, USA
Tactics changes wildly in reaction to technological developments. The
Operational Art is somewhat more stable, but developments in the speed of
movement, communications technology, and RSTA capabilities make modern warfare
a whole new ball of wax from warfare in the age of Napoleon and earlier.
I'm not saying that there aren't good and valid things to be learned from
study of military history, but for warfare at the lower level of command,
there isn't so much so. And what is valid tends to be stuff like basic
leadership principles. After all, the only thing that doesn't change in
warfare is the nature of the humans who conduct it. Although that can be
influenced by the conditions of the war and the training of the soldiers.
Sun Tzu's
> specific methods of fighting (swords, etc.) may not be
The problem with Sun Tzu is that many people read him, memorize a handful of
aphorisms, and then think they understand him.
Clausewitz is even more universally misunderstood.
For an interesting look at the both of them, see Michael I. Handel's critical
analysis, Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought. Read
that after reading a copy of the Howard-Paret translation of
Clausewitz.
On the other hand, there are some classics that still provide useful guidance.
Major General Sir Charles E. Callwell's Small Wars is still
one of the best counter-insurgency manuals out there, if a little
bloodthirsty for modern tastes. He deals with tribal societies not
mature enough to make the soldier/civillian distinction and so tends
to treat them all as belligerants.
Defense of Duffer's Drift is one of the most readable introductions to light
infantry platoon tactics I've read. It predates automatic weapons which
introduce a level of complexity to the tactical equation that wasn't
previously present, but it is an intro.
There are more, of course. But the simple fact is that modern warfare is, at
the tactical level, a whole new ball of wax that just doesn't work the way it
did as recently as WWII.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
The Weapon by Michael Z. Williamson - Baen Books (www.baen.com), first
seven chapters available as a free preview.
> A week or more ago, Fred Kiesche wrote:
> As for older books "going out of date", I have to
The BASIC principles remain valid; but the ways those principles are
IMPLEMENTED vary enormously from age to age since the tools (weapons, methods
of communication, sensors etc.) used to implement them continuously evolve.
Combat tactics on the level seen in StarGrunt or DirtSide are all about
implementing the basic principles of combat *using a particular tool
kit*.
Change the tools, and the tactics will (eventually) change too as the new
tools provide both entirely new capabilities and new ways of executing old
tasks.
> Sun Tzu's specific methods of fighting (swords, etc.) may not be
But what Allan Goodall was asking about was precisely the *specific* *methods*
*used* *today*. He asked about *today's* tactics and *today's*
modern equipment... and you won't find a single word about that in Sun Tzu,
Clausewitz, Patton, Rommel or even Schwarzkopf, because today's modern
equipment and tactics didn't *exist* when they wrote their respective books.
He was not asking about the basic principles, but about the *tools* used to
implement them.
> Strategy Page? What can I say, I'm a US-centric kind
Which means that you'll run a big risk of missing non-US developments...
such as eg. the non-emitting (and thus ARM-negating) AA sensors Derk
described :-/ Although this might come as a surprise to many Americans,
staying up to date with US technology only isn't enough if you want to stay up
to date with current military technology <g>
Regards,