East front WW2 books

[Mad Russian]

I have no use for a game designers OOB other than possibly as a starting place. I want actual OOB's in front of me other than something a game designer may have made up to work in a game. I long ago found that game OOB's are at least 50% fictional. They may be better now but I would never use one if I had an alternate source of information.

Then you need to read Russian. My understanding is that HPS uses the "Боевой состав Советской Армии", the "Order of Battle of the Soviet Army" microfische released in 1997 for PzC OBs. You can't get any closer to the source. As for German sources there is a plethora of primary documentation available there as well. Unless it's used then any alternate source of information is probably exactly what any given game designer used.

Okay. But your understanding may not be correct. I'm not saying if it is or it isn't. I've been involved in wargames for along time and I've seen some of the OOB's that have come from game designers. Until I find a corraborating source I take a game designers OOB with a grain of salt.

Paul Karl Schmidt aka "Paul Carell" was, for lack of a better phrase, a hack. His writing is not to be trusted as accurate, intent as he was to blame all military failures against the Soviets on Hitler. Reading his writing one comes away with the notion that the Red Army, indeed all the people of the Soviet Union, had nothing to do with winning the war. If only Hitler hadn't been in charge, the German Volk would have marched to the Pacific! :rolleyes:

Define hack.

All authors, yes I said all authors, have a national bias. Period. Some worse than others. Paul Carell brought WWII history as an interesting subject to hundreds of thousands of readers. Lots of folks don't have a clue who John Erickson, Thomas Jentz is but they have read Paul Carell and that's what got them started in........input anything from reading military history to wargames in this space..........

He comes with a pretty colored past too. That has nothing to do with his writing. Most of the German books come with the Hitler did it theme. Most American books come with an America did theme. Most British books come with a we really helped theme. Most Soviet books come with a we did it by ourselves theme......

A national bias is no reason not to read an authors books. If it was there would be little to read on the subject.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Sgt Barker]

All authors, yes I said all authors, have a national bias. Period. Some worse than others.

But this isn't really an argument. So what if they do? That doesn't make them equivalent. Carrel isn't just biased, he's biased to the point of absurdity in his writing.

Anyway, as for story telling some may like him. I find his "and then the mindless hordes fell upon the brave but miss-led Germans" prose boring as hell. And it's definitely not anything that someone who wants to reflect fact in a wargame should use a source.

[Mad Russian]

I agree. My sole point is he's not the only one. I have his books and from time to time refer to them. Then I use other information to back up what he says. As I do all other authors as well.

A case in point is Prokhorovka. For decades the Soviets put out that it was a tremendous tank battle that they won. Killing hundreds of Tigers and Panther tanks and breaking the back of German tank forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Sgt Barker]

A case in point is Prokhorovka. For decades the Soviets put out that it was a tremendous tank battle that they won. Killing hundreds of Tigers and Panther tanks and breaking the back of German tank forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Good point. My interest in the east front started in the 60s as a kid, and it took me years to realize that what I read was 1) not in the source language 2) written mostly by people who had an ax to grind and 3) was published in countries that were currently in a state of (cold) war with each other. Kind of shot my faith that anything I read was accurate.

With age and school came a bit of wisdom though, namely that there are primary sources out there, and that not everyone is a partisan and some even strive to be objective. Maybe that's why wargames appealed - if you can just recreate the facts (terrain, weather, forces... granted by no means always factually available but somewhere there *are* facts about all of them) then we can argue later about what it "meant."

With the decades passing and the fall of the USSR IMO both sides records attained more accuracy. More primary sources open up. As well, time passing means that there are simply more eyes on it, so analysis, the "but does it make sense?" part is greater. Yeah, some wargames are a joke when it comes to trustworthiness on facts. But in the case of HPS (the only one's I'm really following anymore), they say they are using the best raw data out there rather than secondary sources (or sceonday sources that are accepted translations of raw data).

[Mad Russian]

But in the case of HPS (the only one's I'm really following anymore), they say they are using the best raw data out there rather than secondary sources (or sceonday sources that are accepted translations of raw data).

I haven't played an HPS game since their original Tigers in the Snow and Panthers in the Shadows(?) games.

Wasn't aware that a game company went to the same lengths as scenario designers to get it right. That's good to hear though and I'll have to take a look at them again.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Zemke]

I think the real key is look at what an author used as sources. Real historians use primary source documents as sources. I have read most works on the eastern front, and Paul Carell is not my first choice for information, while David Glantz may be dry, his works are among the best researched. I have read Clark and Statton among others as well. Bottom-line, look at the biography of the work, see where they got their information, it should be primary source documents. Author's opinion's are, well like everyone's else's, they just wrote it in a book, so look where they got their information. I often look at end notes and see where the information came from, in my youth I did not.....this topic is huge, and worthy of a book itself... were the Germans really better, was Hitler an idiot and if he had only listened to his generals.....and on and on it goes.

[Dog Soldier]

I have read Paul Carell's Hitler Moves East 1941-1943 many times over the years. It appears it is well read in our community.

For 5 ladder points, be the first to identify the PzC title and scenario where this book is quoted directly. Add the text of the quote in your post so I know you got it right,

To earn the 5 points you must be a member of the HPS OPs ladder and out of boot camp. Have fun with this!

Dog Soldier

[Mad Russian]

I think the real key is look at what an author used as sources. Real historians use primary source documents as sources. I have read most works on the eastern front, and Paul Carell is not my first choice for information, while David Glantz may be dry, his works are among the best researched. I have read Clark and Statton among others as well. Bottom-line, look at the biography of the work, see where they got their information, it should be primary source documents. Author's opinion's are, well like everyone's else's, they just wrote it in a book, so look where they got their information. I often look at end notes and see where the information came from, in my youth I did not.....this topic is huge, and worthy of a book itself... were the Germans really better, was Hitler an idiot and if he had only listened to his generals.....and on and on it goes.

I've also read most books on the Eastern Front. I have found few instances where Paul Carell is wrong with his information. I'm not a fan of all the "Poor German Boy's Were Taken Advantage Of" writing style. However, I still think he's one of the most influential of the early WWII authors.

I think the real key is look at what an author used as sources. Real historians use primary source documents as sources.

You have to be careful with that. I've got books by foreign authors that don't list any sources at all. Plus auto biographies, etc...the list goes on.

The litmus test is if what they are saying matches pretty much what others say. My favorite book on the Eastern Front is "Operation Barbarossa" by Bryan Fugate. Simply because, to me, it explains the how and why of the early months of the war that make sense to me.

I think it was more than just "I know they're coming, but we let them attack us anyway...even if we are totally unprepared..."

That I'm not buying. Fugate wasn't buying it either.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Zemke]

I think the real key is look at what an author used as sources. Real historians use primary source documents as sources. I have read most works on the eastern front, and Paul Carell is not my first choice for information, while David Glantz may be dry, his works are among the best researched. I have read Clark and Statton among others as well. Bottom-line, look at the biography of the work, see where they got their information, it should be primary source documents. Author's opinion's are, well like everyone's else's, they just wrote it in a book, so look where they got their information. I often look at end notes and see where the information came from, in my youth I did not.....this topic is huge, and worthy of a book itself... were the Germans really better, was Hitler an idiot and if he had only listened to his generals.....and on and on it goes.

I've also read most books on the Eastern Front. I have found few instances where Paul Carell is wrong with his information. I'm not a fan of all the "Poor German Boy's Were Taken Advantage Of" writing style. However, I still think he's one of the most influential of the early WWII authors.

I think the real key is look at what an author used as sources. Real historians use primary source documents as sources.

You have to be careful with that. I've got books by foreign authors that don't list any sources at all. Plus auto biographies, etc...the list goes on.

The litmus test is if what they are saying matches pretty much what others say. My favorite book on the Eastern Front is "Operation Barbarossa" by Bryan Fugate. Simply because, to me, it explains the how and why of the early months of the war that make sense to me.

I think it was more than just "I know they're coming, but we let them attack us anyway...even if we are totally unprepared..."

That I'm not buying. Fugate wasn't buying it either.

Good Hunting.

MR

I am not saying Carell's information is wrong, but I prefer sources that have better documentation. Glantz's "Colossus Reborn, The Soviet Army at War, 1941-1943" is an excellent source for Soviet organization, doctrine and tactics, and has a secondary book called "Companion to Colossus Reborn" that has a very good OOB during that time period. Another favorite of mine is Earl F. Ziemke and Magna E. Bauer's "Moscow to Stalingrad, Decision in the East".

[Marquo]

A really interesting, well-written book is, "Last Victory in the East" by Nipes. It deals with Operations Star, Gallop and Von Manstein's Back Hand Blow.

Marquo :)