What are you reading right now?

[TorpX]

I've finished:

Dreadnought by Richard Hough

I found it cheap at a used bookstore.

Am re-reading:
CLASH OF CHARIOTS by Tom Donnelly and Sean Naylor.

Best of all, almost finished with:
OPERATION DRUMBEAT by Michael Gannon.

I'm struck by how critical the author is of Adm. King. His view is that the early weeks of the U-boat war on the east coast was a worse defeat for the U.S. than Pearl Harbor, and largely the fault of Adm. King and the USN.

[GreyIron]

Just finished reading "All Hands Down" about the USS Scorpion,started on the 4th chapter of Iron Coffins..........Just Pulled out my DVD of Das Boot to watch>

Gannon sees King as a hidebound bigot (he hated the British but then according to his own daughter, he hated virtually everybody), incapable of learning from the RN's wartime experience regarding weakly defended convoys. This is the common view and the one that has the greatest historical following and longest legs.

There's another side to the story and for that it is necessary to go back to 1917 when the Royal Navy continually refused to institute convoys to defend against the Kaiser's U-Boat threat.

It's often written that the RN in WW1 refused to adopt the convoy but that is demonstrably incorrect, the first escorted convoy was organized on 4 August 1914, the day Britain declared war, and the convoy used to bring the Canadian and Newfoundland contingents across the Atlantic in October 1914 were amongst the largest convoys of the entire war. Convoys ran continuously up and down the east coast of the British Isles in the North Sea as well as across the Channel, up to late 1915 when they were replaced by what would be called in the 1980's, a "protected sealane". Convoys were also organized an run in the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic when there were threats from surface raiders.

So the time honoured canard that the RN failed to recognize the effectiveness of the convoy as a defensive measure does not stand stand up to scrutiny.

The problem was that the submarine introduced a new dynamic that was so completely different from the threat of surface raiders in the defence of commerce. Senior RN officers were not technically educated, the submarine service was young and submarines had had great success attacking multiple targets in a single engagement. The worst was when U-9 sank three armoured cruisers in a single attack killing some 1400 British sailors, although the ships themselves had little combat value. The belief was that a submerged submarine was capable of conducting multiple attacks in a single engagement so a convoy merely simplified targeting for the U-Boat commander. This is why the senior officers in the RN resisted adapting convoys for so long, and they were supported in this by their own successful submarine commanders (including Nasmith and Max Horton) who maintained that a well handled boat could hit several targets in a single attack.

What the Admiralty failed to realize and what their own combat hardened captains failed to tell them was that the convoy made finding targets much harder and that a convoy, even a poorly escorted one, did not produce a visual signature much bigger than a single ship. The best defence a convoy offered was stealth in the vastness of the ocean. British subs, operating within the confines of the Baltic and Sea of Marmara were blessed with geographical choke points were shipping had to pass, their target acquisition problems were different than a U-Boat operating on the high seas.

Eventually, Lloyd George forced the Admiralty to adapt the convoy and in the words of one of the Kaiser's top commanders "The seas became suddenly empty of ships for days on end."

What's this got to do with Ernest King?

As a Great War submariner with an aggressive personality it should be no surprise that he adapted the multiple attack theory as dogma. He over estimated the ability of a submerged submarine to torpedo several ships in a single attack while under estimating the difficulty submarines have in locating targets in the first place. He wasn't stupid; all American troop ships sailed in well escorted convoys with no losses but he retained the belief that a poorly escorted convoy represented a gift to an aggressive submariner. He was certainly wrong in this but his training and the success of the British subs operating against German and Turkish coastal convoys in the Great War provided some justification for his erroneous point of view.

It should also be remembered that at the height of the "Happy Times" the Admiralty actually considered cancelling the convoy system and reintroducing independent sailings since now Hitler's U-Boats, operating at night on the surface, WERE able to make multiple attacks in a single engagement.

Blair in Hitler's U-Boat War Vol 1 The Hunters, offers a more reasonable assessment of King and the disaster off America's east coast in 1942.

A.J. Marder in From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow Vol 4 The Year of Crisis goes into the Admiralty dilemma regarding the U-Boats and notes that prior to the summer of 1917, convoys were formed and ran successfully whenever there was a perceived threat by surface ships. This gives the lie to the oft-repeated line that the RN abandoned the convoy after the Napoleonic wars.

Also see John Jellicoe; The Grand Fleet 1914-16: Its Creation Development and Work.

Michael Gannon is a good historian but his passionate vitriol against Ernest King really needs some balance.

Apologies for the wall of text...

[Gerald]

No problem with your text, go ahead with more, let it flow.

[STEED]

Reading one from Osprey Campaign series.

Verdun 1916

"They shall not pass"

[TorpX]

Randomizer:

Thanks for filling in the blanks. I put Blair's book on my 'to read' list.
No appologies needed for the text. It was worth reading.

[Subnuts]

Haven't gotten it yet, but I just snagged a copy of the "Anatomy of the Ship" book for $45 on Amazon. Seller listed it as in "acceptable" condition, which means it either has a small rip on the cover, or was repeatedly run over by a dump truck. Either way, I got it for a steal - the next cheapest used copy is going for $130 right now!

I wonder if there are any deck plans of that ridiculous pagoda superstructure? It'd be $45 well spent just to see that!

[Sepp von Ch.]

Now Zehn Jahre und zwanzig Tage: Erinnerungen 1935-1945 - http://www.amazon.de/Zehn-Jahre-zwan.../dp/3763751866

and Paterson´s First U-Boat flotilla - http://www.amazon.com/First-U-Boat-F...3853327&sr=8-1

because I started a new career at the first flotilla with my IIA U-Boat

[TarJak]

In the middle of Alexander Fullerton's "The Torch Bearers" Not bad, but a little far fetched. I was surprised by how many books Fullerton has released and will have to keep an eye out to see what else of his I can find. He writes well enough to be given another look.

Originally Posted by TarJak

In the middle of Alexander Fullerton's "The Torch Bearers" Not bad, but a little far fetched. I was surprised by how many books Fullerton has released and will have to keep an eye out to see what else of his I can find. He writes well enough to be given another look.

The Blooding of the Guns, SLt Everard at Jutland is by far his best book in my opinion. You came in part way through a series starting with The Torch Bearers.

For far fetched try Alan Evan's Cdr David Cochrane Smith series starting with Thunder at Dawn, set in the WW1 Royal Navy. However, the stories are told so well that their underlying improbability is rendered somewhat less obvious.

[STEED]

Just finished two from the Osprey Essential Histories Series.

The Anglo-Irish War
The Troubles of 1913–1922

The Irish Civil War 1922–23

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by GreyIron

Just finished reading "All Hands Down" about the USS Scorpion,started on the 4th chapter of Iron Coffins..........Just Pulled out my DVD of Das Boot to watch>

Would be curious: Is this book well researched? I am a little cautious when a book claims 'True story' - to my knowledge the case of the scorpion is still classified? But would definitely like to read the book if it is good...

I can recommend the book "The Death of the USS Thresher: The Story Behind History's Deadliest Submarine Disaster" from Norman Polmar. A very good book, very well researched and the author clearly indicates what are facts and what his conclusions are (which seem to be logical IMO).

I was amazed how he had managed not only to tell the story but also the environment (serving on a SSN in the 60's) and the shortcomings concerning quality in the construction of the submarines in this time-frame.

[Commander Wolf]

The Hunt for Red October....for about the 30th time. Just love Tom Clancy books and this one in particular.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

The Blooding of the Guns, SLt Everard at Jutland is by far his best book in my opinion. You came in part way through a series starting with The Torch Bearers.

For far fetched try Alan Evan's Cdr David Cochrane Smith series starting with Thunder at Dawn, set in the WW1 Royal Navy. However, the stories are told so well that their underlying improbability is rendered somewhat less obvious.

I knew that when I bought it in a 2nd hand bookshop. As I was on holidays and in need of something new to read the cover caught my eye and the subject matter was right so I picked it up for AU$5.

I'm going to revisit some of the earlier books if I can get hold of any. Amazone looks like the best candidate for that at the moment.

Evans sounds interesting so might look his books up while I'm at it.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by sharkbit

And a monster book (896 pages ) "Armegeddon in Stalingrad-September to November 1942" Volume 2 of the Stalingrad trilogy by David M. Glantz.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

It is extremely rare that I give up on a book. I tried but just couldn't get into it.

Some amazing pictures though.

Currently reading "Mantle of Heroism: Tarawa and the Struggle for the Gilberts, November 1943" by Michael Graham. I've read it before a while ago. Good book.