David Stahel's new book! "The Battle for Moscow"

[krichter33]

David Stahel has a new book coming out soon called "The Battle for Moscow."

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Moscow-Dav ... for+moscow

[Michate]

My dear, is this man productive as a writer.

The blurb reads rather silly, though.

[ViKinG]

Should be a great follow up to operation Typhoon, I love his work.

[Cult Icon]

Has anybody read Barbarossa, Kiev, and Typhoon?

What I don't like about his work is his strong bias (the war was inevitably lost, german army too weak) how he constantly tries to prove this in book 1, hammering the folly of the Hitler/German generals over and over. Also, the lack of Soviet side does mar book 1. Book 1 is more of an extensive commentary, and not detailed operationally.

[Jeff Leach]

The series of books points out that logistical weakness, disunity in the command structure, and unbelievably arrogance (especially at the higher command levels) of the Germans meant that Barbarossa had no chance of success, given the hindsight we have today. The facination of the campaign is that the German managed to accomplish so much given the limitations they had.

I have read all three books and the first two are by far the strongest. The Typhoon book is somewhat weaker (maybe not as much research has gone into it) and I was somewhat dissatisfied with it. He was not just as convincing in his arguments. Hopefull "Battle of Moscow" is better. In English there is no decent account of the final assualt on Moscow and the Soviet Counteroffensive. When it comes to the Soviet Counteroffensives, I can't think of a single English volume that gives an acceptable acount of the battles.

[Cult Icon]

Thanks for your commentary.

The thing however, is that if he wishes to prove this irrevocably, why does he not do Soviet research or develop the capability to do so? I am reading Barbarossa Derailed I, and I have his books for reference. Book 1 is well researched from German sources, but pretty polemical and revolves around a hypothesis. So it becomes kind of slanted in that sense, as his research efforts are motivated to string together maximum German pov evidence to support his central points. I find that it is not really a complete attempt at operational history.

The series of books points out that logistical weakness, disunity in the command structure, and unbelievably arrogance (especially at the higher command levels) of the Germans meant that Barbarossa had no chance of success, given the hindsight we have today. The facination of the campaign is that the German managed to accomplish so much given the limitations they had.

[Jeff Leach]

Thanks for your commentary.

The thing however, is that if he wishes to prove this irrevocably, why does he not do Soviet research or develop the capability to do so? I am reading Barbarossa Derailed I, and I have his books for reference. Book 1 is well researched from German sources, but pretty polemical and revolves around a hypothesis. So it becomes kind of slanted in that sense, as his research efforts are motivated to string together maximum German pov evidence to support his central points. I find that it is not really a complete attempt at operational history.

The book isn't an operational history and wasn't meant to be it either.

There are not that many operational histories about the Eastern Front. If we limit ourselves to Operation Barbarossa there are very few detailed operational histories about the campaign and most of them are written by David Glantz. Off-hand I can think of: Battle of Smolensk, parts of the drive on Leningrad, and parts of operation Typhoon, the northern arm of the Kiev Encirclement (Stahel) and parts of AGC's drive on Moscow (Stahel) are about all that are covered in any kind of detail. The rest of the campaign is only dealt with in general.

[Cult Icon]

^^

Are you referring to Glantz, 'The Battle of Leningrad 1941-1944'? I see that there are 110 pages on the northern effort. I have collected some newer Barbarossa books already, including Zetterling and Sharp's books and 3 x Stahel.

Of interest is "Tank warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-1942". I find it quite useful as a tactical guide to the armored battles.

[Cult Icon]

'Battle of Moscow' may be purchasable on Kindle: I already see an option, although I have not pushed the trigger:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Moscow-Dav ... +on+moscow

[Jeff Leach]

^^

Are you referring to Glantz, 'The Battle of Leningrad 1941-1944'? I see that there are 110 pages on the northern effort. I have collected some newer Barbarossa books already, including Zetterling and Sharp's books and 3 x Stahel.

Yes, 'The Battle of Leningrad 1941-1944' was the book I was refering to. Zetterling and Frankson's book, "The Drive on Moscow, 1941" is acceptable but dissappointing because it just re-hashing what has been written before. Radley and Sharp's book, "The Defense of Moscow 1941: The Northern Flank", contains a lot more new material but has terrible maps. This book is also somewhat dissappointing because they make some interesting observations but never took the time to look at the divisional records (which exist), which would have given more weight and details to their observations (an example is the beating the 1st Panzer Division took, needed just a little more research).

There is a new title on the way, "The Battle of Moscow 1941 - 1942: The Red Army's Defensive Operations and Counter-Offensive Along the Moscow Strategic Direction" Helion March 2015. Hopefully this will give insights.

I look a lot at the records of Army Group South and its subordinate units. The information given in these records makes me suspicious that the tale of Operation Barbarossa we are given in printed material - isn't quite what really happened. The Wehrmacht wasn't so invincible, the Red Army dealt out a lot more punishment and all the problems that are used as excuses for why the campaign failed were already know before Barbarossa started or within the first week or two.

One book you might read is "Bloody Triangle" it is a good introductory text to the Lutsk-Rovno Battle and focuses on the Soviet side of things.

[Cult Icon]

I am in fact reading Bloody Triangle currently.

There are some interesting and long accounts centered on the experience of panzer divisions: Panzerkorps GD-1 (Smolensk, Tula, and the soviet winter-counteroffensive are described as terrifying), Armored Bears I, and Panzer Wedge I/II.

Well, the Wehrmacht took a lot of steady casualties. It does seem however, that their rate of causalities are much lower than later on in the war and what they achieve for these losses is much higher. I am more familiar with 1942-1944, and the relative & absolute performance of the Wehrmacht's panzer units in this campaign is considerably higher than in later years. Of note is how maneuverable and long-ranged, and flexible the formations are.

With the Soviets, the soviet armor and artillery is particularly weak in 1941. The infantry does not seem much different than in 1942.

[Cult Icon]

To add, it does seem that Stahel's thesis is very similar to Glantz (Stumbling Colossus), Tooze (Wages of Destruction) and Dunn (Stalin's Keys to Victory, Hitler's Nemesis: The Red Army)

[Kunikov]

There is a new title on the way, "The Battle of Moscow 1941 - 1942: The Red Army's Defensive Operations and Counter-Offensive Along the Moscow Strategic Direction" Helion March 2015. Hopefully this will give insights.

If you look closely at the cover page on amazon it seems to be a translated and edited volume written up by the Red Army General Staff, and the brief description mentions that "This work originally appeared in 1943, under the title "Razgrom Nemetskikh Voisk pod Moskvoi" (The Rout of the German Forces Around Moscow). The work was produced by the Red Army General Staff’s military-historical section, which was charged with collecting and analyzing the war’s experience and disseminating it to the army’s higher echelons. This was a collective effort, featuring many different contributors, with Marshal Boris Mikhailovich Shaposhnikov, former chief of the Red Army General Staff and then head of the General Staff Academy, serving as general editor." Harrison is a good historian but such a study will have many issues considering the year it was written.

[Jeff Leach]

I hope it is not the same as 'Battle for Moscow: The 1942 General Staff Study' by Michael Parrish 1989. I don't think it is but I would need more information on the sources used.

[Cult Icon]

The author is working on a book about the Soviet winter-counteroffensive 1941-1942