Customer Reviews

Tigers Are Burning

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Caidin refutes the common stereotype of the Russians being successful only when German front lines were overextended. In fact, the Kursk salient was relatively narrow, yet the Russians hammered the Germans to pieces. Other little-known details of the eastern front are provided. Did you know, for istance, that German horses were disabled by zero temperatures whereas Russian horses could function down to 60 below?

The Tigers are Burning is one of the main sources of the fascination, and the mythology, of the Battle of Kursk. The book is exciting, and reads like an adventure novel. In fact, it is an adventure novel posing as history. Mercifully out of print, used bookstores now stock it in the fiction section where it belongs. Unfortunately, Caidin's book (originally written in 1973 and reprinted in 1980) was for a long time the most widely read on the subject, and its claims and descriptions were not effectively challenged until the 1990s. Thus, the book produced a skewed version of the battle for an entire generation of readers. Caidin directly fueled the myth of Citadel as "one big battle", with thousands of tanks from both sides finally clashing in a small area at Prokhorovka. He filled out his descriptions of the battles with fanciful notions of tanks ramming each other (in fact there is no evidence of this tactic), and of the Germans suffering staggering losses in tanks (in fact there is no evidence of this either). Caidin repeatedly gets unit identification wrong, he misidentifies weaponry and vehicles, and he even makes mistakes in terms of battlefield conditions (terrain and weather). As history, this book is pure garbage. As an exciting adventure novel, the book is quite good. Put it in the stack of bathroom reading material, but not on your bookshelf. The fact that used copies of this book go for only fifty cents is revealing.

Kursk Salient, 5 July 43. German forces attack Russian Front. The beginning of the fifty day combat that would have no equal before or since was underway. As the original reviewers of this engrossing work proclaimed in 1974 " This book belongs on the shelf of every serious student of military history." (Ernest Gann author of "In the Company of Eagles")

I believe that the author, Martin Caiden, has given an excellent recreation of this massive engagement, the word "battle" being insufficient to describe the scope of this fight. Drawing from primary sources and eyewitness accounts, Mr. Caiden also makes keen observations as to the "small details" and "mistakes" which often proved to be the difference between victory, stalemate or defeat. I sincerely hope that this fine work will be available to the public once again. Current events prove once again that history is often repeated, and so are the follies of those who do not heed the lessons history can teach.

Hardly a re-creation of the Battle of Kurk, at best, Caidin's book simply "created" the myth, which the battle became. It is now known the book has almost no historical value, statistics, descriptions, claims and conclusions are completely based upon inflated and untrue Soviet propoganda. Far from being the "Death ride of the panzers" as Caidin described it. Kursk was an inconclusive battle in which the Germans inflicted punishing losses on the Soviets, while failing to achieve their strategic aims.

Conversley, the Soviets failed in their strategic goals of immediately counter attacking and destroying the Wermatch in the East. While they did stop the Germans, it was done at such a cost that prevented them from implementing the second half of their plan. The end result of Kursk was the handing over of the strategic initiative to the Soviets, resulting in a war that dragged on for almost two more years.

Caidin's book is more comparable to a Tom Clancy novel than a reliable historical source. It belongs in the fiction section or might make a good story line for a graphic novel.

The usual Caidin trademarks are here; attention to detail, crisp writing, and bringing history alive. Still, it left me feeling as though he could have done better in this endeavor. A large part of the problem is that he didn't use many individual stories, mainly because of lack of access to Russian and German files. The comparison comes against "Fork-Tailed Devil" and "Flying Forts". These two had the same qualities of "Tigers..." but also had hair-raising tales of individual exploits. I'd recommend both over this one by a long shot. This one is recommended because of its subject, and because any serious student of history should read Caidin's bibliography in its entirety.

The author is very clueless. Read Glantz, Nipe, Healy, Zamulin. This should be removed from existence. Words cannot describe it.

Historians will be disappointed with this book. I read it looking for particulars and details and was disappointed to find that it was essentially an adventure story filled with generalities and superlatives. But it was late at night, I wasn't sleepy, and I kept reading.

I'm very glad that I did because, despite any flaws in the author's historical methodology, he is a wonderful storyteller. If you are not too sophisticated to allow yourself, when encountering an issue of Reader's Digest, to immediately turn to the "Drama in Real Life" section, you must read this book simply for the chapter detailing the bridge-demolition mission of a Soviet sapper named Shershavin. The story is well-told and unforgettable.

I saw this book in the Beverly Hills Public Library (I don't live in Beverly Hills, but their library has a large selection -- unfortunately with the large selection of good books comes a large selection of bad ones) and read it because I needed to write a report about World War 2 for history class. I am not a historian or a writer, but this book seemed to be written in a very unprofessional manner, with lots of fanciful editorializing about how certain people are heroic while certain others are crazy, etc. and very little sticking to facts and allowing the reader to form his or her own opinions. It almost seems like a propoganda piece for the Red Army. I have no interest whatsoever in weapons but the writer of this book makes mistakes that even I am aware of. He says for example that the Tiger tank "was a rumbling dinosaur" that blasted through Russian lines with its big gun but then had a "fatal flaw" in not having any secondary armament. Strangely enough in the small photography section of the book Tiger tanks are shown and you can clearly see machine guns sticking out from the machine's body. What is this guy thinking? Also this guy seems to think he is smarter than everyone else when he says that Germany still believed they could win the war in the East, and he predicates this notion on the idea that if the Germans truly felt they would lose the war, they wouldn't prepare for the "mopping up" operations that would follow a successful conclusion to the battle of Kursk. I think that he is wrong because the point of an offensive (so far as I know) is to improve your military situation in some way. What were the Germans supposed to do? Attack and then have no follow up plan in case they won? So of course they hope and will try to win, even though they probably know they will lose. When a rather nerdish boy asks a pretty girl out he knows she will likely say no but he still hopes and has a plan on what to do if she says yes. I know this, because I love my nerdish boyfriend. I do not love this stupid book.

A fun read if you don't mind historical inaccuracies,
sensationalism, and an utter lack of scholarship.
Enjoy it as historical fiction; read Glantz, Cross, etc.
if you want a better idea of what really happened.

The book, while entertaining, has very little historical accuracy. If you wnat a good book about that battle go to Nipe or Glantz.