| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
30 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Most Accurate Depection of WW 3 I've Read,
This review is from: Red Army (Mass Market Paperback)
I read this book when it first came out 12 years ago. I was working as a Battalion Intelligence operator at the time and was comparing doctrine of the forces involved. One main difference is that the Soviets reinforce success, wheras NATO would have to reinforce their weakest part of the line. A touted NATO advantage was their communcations system that would allow it to manouver units more quickly, which may have been a false assumption. Of all the books I've read, this is the best.Warfare is notoriously difficult to model, as small events may have great importance. On the other hand, capabilities of equipment and units are accurately known and not likely to change much in battle. While recognizing the differences in equipment and ways of employing it, Peters realizes that most professional soldiers have common characteristics. Some leaders are daring and intuitive, some are not. Making sure they are employed in the right spot is crucial, and again Peters shows that the Soviet professional development system is much like that of the West. By contrast, Clancy's Red Storm Rising makes it seem as if a handful of men can change the course of history by themselves. Coyle's Team Yankee makes the Americans invulnerable to Soviet attacks. Only Hackett's Third World War comes close to Red Army in what I believe could have happened. That's no surprise given Hackett's experience as NATO's ground commander. Since the Second World War westerners have fostered and been fed the idea of Russians as backward and without initiative. We have concentrated on Patton, Rommel and Montgomery as military geniuses without recognizing Rokossovsky, Koniev and Zhukov and that the Red Army defeated the Nazis and took Berlin. Ralph Peters simply puts human beings in charge of the Red Army.
21 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
More plausible than you think -- or want to.,
By
This review is from: Red Army (Mass Market Paperback)
There are three major novels on the subject of World War III that I am familiar with -- Gen. Sir John Hackett's "The Third World War" Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" and Ralph Peters' "Red Army."
"Red Army" is the best of these. It should be read by anyone who wants a plausible, if not necessarily probable, scenario for a war that never happened. The fact that the war didn't happen, and the USSR is no more, doesn't affect the readability of this book in the slightest, so if that was holding you back from reading it, don't let it. You would be missing a first-class war novel that isn't a commercial for the military-industrial complex or a propaganda pamphlet extolling the virtues of NATO. "Red Army" is a war story told from the perspective of the Red Army, from its senior commanding general, Malinsky, to the lowliest private, the decidedly unwarlike Leonid. It is Peters' attempt to put human faces on the Soviet "hordes" we (me, anyway, since I'm old enough to remember them) grew up fearing and dreading. Some of the characters are indeed dread-worthy, such as the bullying drunk, Struharkin, the murderous coward Seryosha, or the emotionally scarred airborne officer, Gordunov (the most unfortgettable character in the story). But they are outweighed by characters so sympathetic I was actually rooting for the Soviets to win (traitor!). Most everybody who has posted a review here liked the book but almost all of 'em took issue with the plausibility of the ending. Without giving anything away, let me respectfully disagree and point out the following: 1) Somebody pointed out that Peters isn't impressed by the German Bundeswehr and that in real life the Germans would fight much better, if necessary to the last round. They certainly did in WWII but that was a long time ago, under a different system. The German army is the smallest comparible to its population in the European community and the German people of today are largely pacifist and anti-nationalist. Furthermore, during the Cold War the Bonn gov't insisted on a policy of "forward defense" i.e. of meeting the Soviets head-on at the border so as not to lose territory. Hitler used this as his defensive strategy in Russia from August 1943 onwards, and it failed miserably. War conditions have certainly changed since The Big One, but putting all their armies forward and making them hold a rigid defense designed to conserve territory and save German cities would cost a huge price in lives and equipment. Peters (in my opinion) was right to question whether the modern-day Germans would pay it. 2)The Soviets indeed did perform badly militarily on many occasions and Peters does not address the issue of mass desertion, raised by Suvorov in his seminal work "Inside the Soviet Army." I'm not sure, however, that he is overestimating the Red Army so much as assuming it would perform at or near its ideal. I think in a short, set-piece war, where the Soviets had the advantage of political surprise and their usual advantage in numbers, they might nearly have done this well -- maybe. A lot of things do "go the Russians' way" in this book, but a lot of things went NATO's way in "Red Storm Rising" and Hackett's "III WW". 3) Judging the Soviet army on the performance of the Taliban, Iraqi or Arab armies is a bad idea because the Soviet equipment sent to those countries was "for export only." The Soviets referred to equipment (tanks, aircraft, APCs, missles, etc.) shipped overseas as "monkey models." The monkey model was a no-frills, stripped-down version of the real Soviet model and was never the best version or even the most modern. For example, the Soviet army of the 80's would have been using T-80 tanks, not the T-72s used by Hussein. And the first echelon of Soviet forces NEVER is issued the best equipment; during WWII, the Germans did not encounter the great T-34 and KV-1 tanks which gave them so much trouble until they were hundreds of miles inside Russia proper. The Soviets believe their first echelon will be wiped out in both offensive and defensive war and see no reason to give it the best equipment. While the Abrams and Leopard are better tanks than the Sovs had, the Soviet advantage in numbers must at least be taken into consideration. Anyway, I have my opinion, you have yours, and Peters has his: his book "Red Army" is the "alternate ending" to a war that was -- thank God -- never fought.
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The BEST modern war novel!,
By
This review is from: Red Army (Mass Market Paperback)
I have read just about everything ever written by Tom Clancy, Larry Bond, and Howard Coyle. I enjoyed this book more than any of them. Only Clancy's _Red Storm Rising_ even comes close. The author's background in NATO gives him an edge on the competition.Of course, this is strictly a novel about war. It focuses entirely on the soldiers, not politics or technical details of specific weaponry. The fact that it's told from the Soviet point of view makes it all the more fascinating. Many war novels have had Soviet generals as characters; very few feature Soviet tank crews, infantry squads, artillerymen, etc. Don't let the outdated topic deter you. This is one of the best novels ever written. I've read it six times. In a word: outstanding.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
See all 6 books this book cites
See all 45 books citing this book
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
|
|
|
