What are we reading?

[endfire79]

Bawb that looks like a serious read.  The amazon reviews mentioned it didnt have maps.  How is it?

[bob48]

So far, its very good. Lots of info on the state of both armies and how the Germans had to juggle manpower around in order to bring the forces up to strength. Also interesting stuff on how the Red army expanded during that period.

There are a couple of maps and a few photo's, but the lack of maps does not detract from the book at all. There are plenty of maps around on the 'net should you feel the need.

I would recommend it for anyone interested in the period / campaign.

[endfire79]

I noticed I don't have any single books on Kursk, I'll consider this one.

[Shelldrake]

I am working my way through The Strain Trilogy. Almost finished the second book. I don't know how it compares to the TV series but I am enjoying the books. Interesting take on a vampire apocalypse.

[Gusington]

I've been shopping around for a good Kursk book too, thanks Bawb.

[Martok]

On a lighter note, I just received my copy of Blood Runs in the Family, the most recent compilation of strips for the Order of the Stick web-comic, so I've now started in on that.  Reading Rich's commentary and (especially!) the bonus material is always a joy, but simply reacquainting myself with the main strips in question is always worthwhile and enjoyable. 


Meanwhile, am also continuing to work my way through Star Wars: Wraith Squadron.  I marvel at Aaron Allston's ability to blend great action scenes, well-done interpersonal drama -- most of the pilots have some serious mental/emotional baggage to deal with -- and uproarious, knee-slapping humor.  I'd forgotten just how funny his writing is...but in having done so, I'm now enjoying it that much more.  ;D 

[bob48]

^^NP - its a Stackpole book, of which I have a fair collection; they are generally very good value, and I often pick up cheap used copies in good condition.

If you want an East Front book with a bit of a difference, I recommend 'Hitler's Spanish Legion' also by Stackpole. I can honestly say its worth while reading.

[Michael Dorosh]

Now, Gus, don't be too hard.  Monty's heart was in the right place (left side of the chest.)
And he did try so hard to put a certain jeune s'a quais to Eighth Army. 
During the Sicily fighting, the heat was tremendous and the troops were suffering.  Stuck in a traffic jam, he noticed that the truck drivers were all down to their scivvy shorts, except for one sartorial genius.  He was wearing a top hat - and nothing else.
With great aplomb he tipped his hat and drove on.
Monty just about split a gut laughing over that and recognizing that there could be issues when London heard of this put out a directive.  The desk bound bureacrats could be sticklers for propriety.
No member of Eight Army should wear top hats in the future.

I believe you're discussing an incident originally told in the book Dileas, the regimental history of the 48th Highlanders of Canada, written by Kim Beattie. The incident you cite was instigated by one of their 'B' Echelon drivers and is recounted on  pages 257 and 258. It was a little bit different than you're telling it, but like all good stories, it has grown in the telling over the years. The original, from the regimental history published in 1956 or so, reads as follows:

THE HISTORY-MAKING SALUTE

It was on this approach road to Assoro that a 48th Highlander gave the most famous salute in regimental history. It was here, too, that 48th originality in adopting substitutes for steel helmets was revealed one day in effective—if startling—style. The worst feature of their lack of clothing was in headdress against Sicily's sun; the steelhelmet, which was all they had, was definitely not designed for it, and you can grow very tired of a knotted handkerchief. The most bizarre of the substitutions was a tall, old-fashioned silk hat to which a 48th vehicle driver "fell heir", For hellery, and to amuse the troops and the Jigaboo populace, the bronzed 30 cwt.-driver, who was often stripped to the waist while on duty, would doff the silk hat with a flourish and an exaggerated bow whenever spotted an audience on the road which looked appreciative. One day he made hilarious history. He saw a staff car coming with an imposing flag up—the Crusader flag of the  commander of the 8th British Army He forgot his silk hat until he saw the General's blue eyes widening with astonishment. What to do? Be nonchalant and ignore Monty? Just proceed and pray? Unhappily, a brief check in the traffic-line stopped the staff car directly opposite his 30-cwt. What to do? What to do? He couldn't salute! Deciding desperately that any action was better than  none at all, the driver seized his silk hat, doffed it with a sweeping cavalier flourish, and bowed his deepest to the General.

An amazed Ploughboy serjeant who was a witness from the next vehicle, later swore that General Montgomery was "completely flabbergasted". He may have been so startled he could neither  act, nor speak at that; the traffic jam broke, and there was no repercussion. That night, Army H.Q. Mess at Lentini was convulsed, and so were many others as the General's story travelled: "The truck driver saluted by doffing a silk hat-and he was stark naked. It was a very, very hot day, and the driver had taken everything off but his boots.

Perhaps with the feeling that the silk-hatted, stark-naked 48th Highlander deserved some sort of recognition, an 8th Army Order—one of the few that appeared in these days on dress  regulations—stated that the lack of availability of proper headdress was no excuse for failure to give the regulation salute to officers. At least a sharp, "Eyes left was expected." The dress situation probably disturbed General Montgomery less than it did many Canadian officers.. To them, it was axiomatic that a sloppy soldier meant a poor soldier. If not, then the basic rules on which they had placed a great deal of emphasis for the creation of soldierly pride, smartness, and the maintenance of discipline were all wrong.

Thank you to the late Art Johnson, Korean War veteran and associate curator of the 48th Highlanders museum, who originally shared the story with me back in 2001.

[besilarius]

A twice told tale is often the best as it grows and grows.

[GDS_Starfury]

did your stache' fight there?

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes. I would recommend 'Colossal Cracks' by Stephen Ashley Hart. Also, both 'Bitter Victory' and 'Decision in Normandy' by Carlo D'Este are worth reading.

Whilst there is no doubt that he was not a particularly likeable man, and lets be honest, every army had someone like that, the authors of those books do present evidence that he was a competent General under the circumstances. 'Colossal Cracks' is a fairly recent book that draws on more recently available records and historical research methods.

F.M. Montgomery was more than just competent, he was a skilled commander. He wasn't a diplomat. Some would argue that it wasn't his job to be one - they would probably be at least partially wrong since he was highly placed in the largest coalition in history. But he was far too valuable a military strategist not to forgive for his other failings. And before anyone guffaws at that, all they need to do is read 'Colossal Cracks' to understand where his strengths lay.  The British and Canadians had limited resources, the latter also had a government with a limited liability outlook, and it was Montgomery's job to take these disparate forces into the field and fight against a repressive fascist dictatorship which was using all means available to it. The Germans were using slave labour, foreign soldiers, dropping the conscription age to 16, targeting civilians with rockets, etc. Montgomery took an uneven balance sheet and adopted a warfighting style that worked, and worked well.

Montgomery is criticized heavily for his mistakes, but these were often of other people's making - the press conference in January 1945, for example, where he is misquoted for taking credit for the Battle of the Bulge, for example. He is lambasted for his "uncharacteristic" use of airborne forces in MARKET-GARDEN, but those who do have obviously never studied the drafts of Operation PERCH - Montgomery was going to ambitiously drop the 1st Airborne into Normandy a couple of days after D-Day in order to take Caen. Criticized in many circles for being "timid," that hardly sounds like the plans of a shrinking violet - and in fact, the plan was watered down not by him, nor his staff, but IIRC by the RAF's Air Marshal Leigh-Mallory who argued the division wouldn't be able to concentrate sufficiently (it was RAF officers who had kvetched about anticipated 80% casualties among the paratroopers on D-Day, also, whereas Montgomery had been the one to insist to Eisenhower that they simply "Go" with the invasion already, weather or not).

Carlo D'Este's Decision in Normandy was once considered the go-to book on Montgomery's planning of the Normandy battles, but Stephen Ashley Hart presents some interesting new info - probably a must-read for anyone who wants to discuss Montgomery and the "way of war" of the 21st Army Group.

[mirth]

Interesting that the conversation has turned to Montgomery. I just started Monty's Men over the weekend.

http://www.amazon.com/Montys-Men-British-Liberation-Europe/dp/0300134495

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I dunno.  I read Monty's Greatest Victory: 1944-45 about six months ago and I'm now reading Forgotten Victory: First Canadian Army and the Cruel Winter of 1944-45.  They both cover Operation Vertiable and the push into Northern Germany.  I think Monty was his own worst enemy.  He had almost no social skills and a huge yet delicate ego (sounds uncomfortably similar to my boss) and that ended up costing lives.  He certainly was no help to the Canadians as he constantly meddled in their internal affairs and tried to get those in his circle promoted while stymieing the careers of others.  He also tended to give the Canucks the real shit assignments while often taking away assets that would have helped them. 

[endfire79]

Good points by both Dorosh & SDR.

My two cents.  To be fair, both Patton & Montgomery were prima donnas and both had their pros and cons.  Some just have to show you that they think they are the best, and you just have to be along for the ride and nod.  In Pattons case, you were either with him or against him. 

I think Monty had it more in for Eisenhower (being the Supreme Allied Commander) rather than being at odds with Patton.  Monty was never a fan of the 'broad front' strategy proposed and stuck to by Ike.  However, as others pointed out earlier, Ike knew his forces were not the Wehrmact and had to also deal with public opinions and democratic governments; nothing the Wehrmacht , Red Army or IJA  had to deal with. 

[besilarius]

The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies, is fighting a war without allies.  - George C. Marshal.