Silent Victory book review

[Onkel Neal]

Silent Victory (http://www.subsim.com/books/book_silent_victory.htm)

Perfect timing

[PeriscopeDepth]

Good review, I read it a few years ago and agree with you. Certainly the Bible of the Pac Sub war.

PD

[Prof]

It's undoubtedly a great book and I enjoyed reading it. However, I did find myself skimming over some of the details (like names of officers, dates and times, etc...) as there was a little too much detail for a 'reading book'. As a reference book it's superb.

My major complaint with Clay Blair is that he's a bit too 'revisionist'. I thought that he was too harsh in some of his criticisms of the higher command in the US Navy and he generally overstated the influence the US submarines could have had on the war.

I'm nearing the end of Volume 1 of Blair's equivalent work for the Atlantic, 'Hitler's U-Boat War, 1939-1942'. I find a similar tone here, though this time the other way around. I often found his comments verging on derisive when talking about the impact the U-boats had on the British war effort. He frequently has harsh things to say about the British which, although possibly justified, often portray them as being somehow inferior to the US.

Maybe it's just that I have a distorted view of WWII but I find in both books a sense of "the US is great, everybody else needn't bother trying" which, as a Brit, offends me slightly :)

[Hitman]

Nice review, I enjoyed the book a lot and can't but recommend it.

Only thing that did really amaze me is how little -if any- attention was payed actually at the technical evolution of the different sub classes once the war started. Torpedos are a central theme along the whole book -rightfully-, radar gets minor attention, but you can't find any more detailed references to the different boat types characteristics. I know, it is a book about the whole warfare and not as much about technical stuff...but hey, the whole first chapter deals with history of sub models, starting with the Turtle, Hunley and Holland :-? , so why not more explanations about the differences between the "old" fleet boat classes and the new ones, except the reference to the "thicker" hull?

That's the only fault I find in this, otherwise great, book.:up:

[AirborneTD]

I, too, love this book. I have to agree with Hitman, however. I thought it strange that he covers early subs in detail but fails to mention the Gato's by name when they were commissioned and put into service.

[tonyeh]

It's undoubtedly a great book and I enjoyed reading it. However, I did find myself skimming over some of the details (like names of officers, dates and times, etc...) as there was a little too much detail for a 'reading book'. As a reference book it's superb.

My major complaint with Clay Blair is that he's a bit too 'revisionist'. I thought that he was too harsh in some of his criticisms of the higher command in the US Navy and he generally overstated the influence the US submarines could have had on the war.

I'm nearing the end of Volume 1 of Blair's equivalent work for the Atlantic, 'Hitler's U-Boat War, 1939-1942'. I find a similar tone here, though this time the other way around. I often found his comments verging on derisive when talking about the impact the U-boats had on the British war effort. He frequently has harsh things to say about the British which, although possibly justified, often portray them as being somehow inferior to the US.

Maybe it's just that I have a distorted view of WWII but I find in both books a sense of "the US is great, everybody else needn't bother trying" which, as a Brit, offends me slightly :)

I don't if we were reading the same books, but I didn't get that feeling at all. In fact, I think Blair's opinions regarding the sub wars of both Nations are absolutely spot on. If anything, I got the impression that he DIDN'T think that the "US is great" in any way, with it's sub war in the Pacific.

As far as his assessment on the U-boat war is concerned, I found his honest and un-hysterical approach refreshing and correct, given the data presented.

As far as I'm concerned Blair is critical of all the major combatant Nations were it's deserved.


Tony

[Subnuts]

Before Silent Hunter IV came out, this book was sitting around #200,000 on the Amazon sales rank. When it came out, it jumped to around 80,000. When this review was published, it leaped up to around 8,000, and it's still around 13,000.

Too bad Clay Blair won't see a penny of the royalty money...:dead::cry:

[Egan]

I bought a US first edition of this in perfect condition a couple of months ago for ten quid. God bless second hand book shops who don't know the true value of their stock! :up:

@Tonyeh. The points you make are interesting and I actually agree with them. In my view the problem with the way he protrays the U-boat menace is that he seems to fail to understand that, at the time, there was no access to the kind of information he had when writing the book. Hindsight is a useful tool but he doesn't seem to apriciate that fact that regardless of whether or not it later turned out that the U-boat campaign was ultimately a failure, people at the time saw it as anything but. I got the impression he was very bitter about the relative lack of respect the Silent Service got in comparison to the KM - but he did serve in subs and to a certain extent that is understandable.

Having said that, I am quite happy to use the three books as the ultimate WW2 submarine resource in terms of facts and figures whilst ignoring many of his views.

[Mush Martin]

This is the book that started it all for me.

[tonyeh]

@Tonyeh. The points you make are interesting and I actually agree with them. In my view the problem with the way he protrays the U-boat menace is that he seems to fail to understand that, at the time, there was no access to the kind of information he had when writing the book. Hindsight is a useful tool but he doesn't seem to apriciate that fact that regardless of whether or not it later turned out that the U-boat campaign was ultimately a failure, people at the time saw it as anything but. I got the impression he was very bitter about the relative lack of respect the Silent Service got in comparison to the KM - but he did serve in subs and to a certain extent that is understandable.

Having said that, I am quite happy to use the three books as the ultimate WW2 submarine resource in terms of facts and figures whilst ignoring many of his views.
Well, perhaps not all the information was available to everyone, but Britain certainly knew that despite losses to U-boats, the vast majority of convoys were getting through the Atlantic unscathed. Even during the "hard" years of 1940/41. Churchill definitely upped the supposed danger to Britain's "survival" all the way until 1944 for obvious propaganda reasons.

Dönitz etc on the other side had known too that the U-boats were on a loser. There simply was not enough of them and not enough enemy shipping sunk.

Either way it was very clear to both sides by 1942, that no matter how much the available U-boats sank in the Atlantic, it wouldn't have been enough. The best Gerry could hope for was to tie down Allied resources in a harassing campaign.

But still the average view seems to be that the U-boats came within a whisker of starving Britain...mainly due to the propaganda of the times and the immediate post-war period. This view is present in documentary, film and books.

Blair's sober assessment and his effort to set the record straight is very admirable. Not to mention entirely correct.

Tony

[Platapus]

I found my hard cover copy of his book a bunch of years ago and I am very happy it is still in good condition?

I found his book on the German Submarine war a bit tough to read through but I made it through vol 1

[Iron Budokan]

It's undoubtedly a great book and I enjoyed reading it. However, I did find myself skimming over some of the details (like names of officers, dates and times, etc...) as there was a little too much detail for a 'reading book'. As a reference book it's superb.

My major complaint with Clay Blair is that he's a bit too 'revisionist'. I thought that he was too harsh in some of his criticisms of the higher command in the US Navy and he generally overstated the influence the US submarines could have had on the war.

I'm nearing the end of Volume 1 of Blair's equivalent work for the Atlantic, 'Hitler's U-Boat War, 1939-1942'. I find a similar tone here, though this time the other way around. I often found his comments verging on derisive when talking about the impact the U-boats had on the British war effort. He frequently has harsh things to say about the British which, although possibly justified, often portray them as being somehow inferior to the US.

Maybe it's just that I have a distorted view of WWII but I find in both books a sense of "the US is great, everybody else needn't bother trying" which, as a Brit, offends me slightly :)

You hit that nail right on the head, imo. I have exactly the same problem with Clay Blair...and I'm an American. I'd just rather read a non-objective history about submarines, not a jingoistic treatise on how lousy the Germans and British and everyone else was, and how superior Americans are no one else need apply. :roll: He manifests no compassion for the German dead and the sacrifice of their submariners whatsoever. Frankly, it's offensive. The Kriegsmarine accomplished nothing, in his estimation, were losers from the get go, and the British were just as worthless...to hear him tell it.

[Egan]

Well, perhaps not all the information was available to everyone, but Britain certainly knew that despite losses to U-boats, the vast majority of convoys were getting through the Atlantic unscathed. Even during the "hard" years of 1940/41. Churchill definitely upped the supposed danger to Britain's "survival" all the way until 1944 for obvious propaganda reasons.

Dönitz etc on the other side had known too that the U-boats were on a loser. There simply was not enough of them and not enough enemy shipping sunk.

Either way it was very clear to both sides by 1942, that no matter how much the available U-boats sank in the Atlantic, it wouldn't have been enough. The best Gerry could hope for was to tie down Allied resources in a harassing campaign.

But still the average view seems to be that the U-boats came within a whisker of starving Britain...mainly due to the propaganda of the times and the immediate post-war period. This view is present in documentary, film and books.

Blair's sober assessment and his effort to set the record straight is very admirable. Not to mention entirely correct.

Tony

OH I agree with all of this, but it was the Public Perception (as you mention,) that I was talking about rather than the War Office who would, of course, access to information.

I do still think that his objectivity is coloured though, and I still find that at odds with the otherwise very dry tone of his books.