Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/May 2021/Book reviews


 * I read your usually excellent reviews with interest, but I was *very* surprised to read above that (seemingly) the author you were reviewing there said that John Boyd invented manoeuvre warfare, which is fatuous. Genghis Khan could well have been argued to be using manoeuvre warfare, or the Romans in Spain!! Can you clarify, please? Manoeuvre vs attrition has been around just about as long as warfare existed, and the U.S. in France from 1944, even Third Army's breakout from the left side of the Normandy bridgehead, are reasonable examples from recent history and well before Boyd (whether Hart distorted things or not). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right. Manoeuvre vs attrition has been around just about as long as warfare existed. What is meant is that Boyd came up with a philosophical construct, a conceptual framework that was called "manouevre warfare". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well someone should, at the least, examine Caesar's Commentaries or the writings of the Prussian/German General Staffs, (two examples at a moment's thought); I think such research would prove that, at the very most, Boyd reintroduced and re-publicised the concept. Plan 1919 or Tukhachevskii's work is clearly manoeuvre warfare, long beforehand. Pentomic/ROAD Army functioning wasn't all attrition warfare either!! I think yon author reviewed above wasn't doing his consideration/writing or research properly, because as written, it's verging on ridiculous. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The author does examine Caesar, Schlieffen, Tukhachevsky and others, but rejects any notion that they advocated manoeuvre warfare as Boyd defined it. There's a (brief) discussion of the US posture in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s, and that AirLand was not such a radical departure as is sometimes portrayed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The author's argument is not with manoeuvre as a valid tactic, but with the dogmatic rejection of alternatives. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the review of The Bomber Mafia by Gladwell. I read the book myself and found it to be interesting but incomplete. The first problem is that the book doesn't cover the whole topic of its title. Rather, it selects a few crucial turning points and describes them in terms of their connection to what came before and what came after. In a manner not unlike Drunk History, the author gets excited about the big events and pulls the reader into the swirling maelstrom of the moment. I appreciated how the first pages of the book, rather than beginning at the beginning with Billy Mitchell pushing for an independent air arm, instead plunk you down on the tarmac in January 1945 with Hansell getting sacked in disgrace, a rebuke of everything he stands for, replaced by LeMay who was no friend. Gladwell certainly knows how to get the reader involved quickly. But this is his weakness, too; the book does not examine the long years of debate, argument and strategic formulation in Alabama. It does not expect the reader to hold a steady attention span through a careful build-up of evidence. In this, Gladwell writes like a dilettante rather than a serious historian. The book is best read by those who are already familiar with the topic; it can never supply the student with a full picture of the Bomber Mafia. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments, and I tend to agree. I've seen some very critical reviews of the book by historians recently, largely on the grounds that they think that Gladwell has tried to dumb things down too much, and missed important details as a result. I think that this is fair criticism, as the book is more useful as a provocation for people who are familiar with this topic than an introduction for people who are new to it. Unfortunately it is the latter who will make up most of the sales. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)