Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blue3golf
Just finished "First Clash" by Kenneth Macksey. It was written in the early '80's as a specific training scenario and published (B-GL-309-006/FT-001) for the Canadian Army fighting the Russians in West Germany had they attacked NATO. Quite interesting to read due to the fact of the now outdated weapons and also to get a mindset of what people were thinking back then as far as how an aggressor would act. One problem is the acute detail it goes into as far as units and their movements. Have to use the maps provided and then still sometimes you can get turned around. All in all good read though. In one word, insightful.
|
Interesting. Did they write it up in such a way that the Russians died like they did in Red Storm Rising?
Anyway, currently I'm drilling through the British Naval Review, 1955-1996. It is interesting, but some things were apparent:
- It seems like the Royal Navy can't really let go of their "glory days" up to the end of WWII. Every Naval Review seems to have at least a quarter of its pages dedicated to reminiscing pre-WWII people and events as far as 300 years back...
- The gripes: Unlike, for example, the US Military Review (which tends to focus on tactics), there's a significantly higher percentage of articles dedicated to promotions, training and other personnel issues. Most gripes are inevitably followed up by at least one letter-writer telling Griper to suck it up.
- Russophobia: OK, this is typical of Cold War pieces, but a disturbing percentage of articles show horribly little sympathy (and thus understanding) of the other side. Discussion of Russian proposals tend to be dismissed on security grounds, while unilateral reductions on the Russian side are brusquely dismissed as "Russians doing what we wanted them to do for eons" without a single attempt to realize that the Russians are compromising their security concept. That's the significance, you moron. Why don't you thinking how loudly you'd balk giving up one of the points you just rated Unconcedable!
- Superiority complex: It seems to fade as you get to the later issues, but the ones closer to 1955 can be fairly ... ugh. Other navies (even NATO) are described as "inferior", without describing exactly where their inferiority is. Ostensible quotes from naval officers of other nations are constantly used to "prove" their own superiority (one wonders how many of them were just being polite). A discussion of Soviet Frunze Higher Naval School (in 1955) ends with dismissively evaluating that Soviet Junior Officers that he sees are equivalent to UK Petty Officers. I can buy that a Royal Navy officer averages out somewhat superior (they have prestige and tradition to help them), but this is quite a disgustingly condescending remark, especially without clear justification, no? One wonders how many Russian officers said article writer actually saw to take his measurement. One will again at least think the man can come up with specific inferiorities, but he only makes a vague comparison to the US Naval Academy. Apparently (according to the writer) if only you dress the cadets differently (like officers), they'd come out smarter in the end! The Russians will be well advised to take this idea - it costs next to nothing after all!
