(Part 2) Best naval history books according to redditors
We found 499 Reddit comments discussing the best naval history books. We ranked the 219 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
They blacked out the entire east coast, because ships passing between a U-boat and the shore could be spotted against the bright background of a city. This book about the battle against the U-boats off the east coast is pretty awesome.
> Honestly, Marines really need to learn what they are.
Uh... the only force in the world capable of sending out a ground combat element, a logistical element, and an air combat element under a single commander. No other service does this. Source.
Who were the first conventional forces to set up a coalition base in Afghanistan? Oh yeah... The Marines. Source
>The crew that gets all the out dated shit the Army doesn't want anymore,
This is just as big of a circlejerk as the dumbass saying basic Marines are on par with Army Rangers. GTFO with that shit. The Marines first fielded the MRAP (Source) which became the premier combat vehicle above the Army's contracted option at the time, as the Army now uses MRAP derivatives. And then the MRAP II, which then lead to the M-ATV
Or you know, the V-22.
[Oh and the Growler, specifically designed for use with the V-22.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growler_(vehicle) Which you know, USSOCOM wants to now use.
Or how damn near every soldier in the Army would rather wear the superior MARPAT.
Just a few examples there of Marines not using the Army's old crap.
>and they're becoming increasingly irrelevant in their actual combat roles.
Ramadi, Iraq: Army cordons the city. The Marines take the Government Center and then the Hospital. [Source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramadi_(2006)
Fallujah, Iraq: Considered the bloodiest and hardest fighting of the entire war. Fought almost entirely by Marines. Source, Source
Marja, Afghanistan: "... the largest joint operation of the War in Afghanistan up to that point and aimed to remove the Taliban from Marja and eliminate the last Taliban stronghold in central Helmand Province." What do you know? Predominately Marines... Weird. Source
Sangin, Afghanistan: Marines took control from the British, pushed into Taliban strongholds. [Source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sangin_(2010) This helped create an area of greater security around the zone surrounding the Kajaki Dam, a pivotal item in the infrastructure of southern Afghanistan. More on the Battle of Kajaki Dam.
>I wouldn't be surprised to see them get swallowed up by the Army in the future.
Lol, ok. They tried that before, but were unsuccessful. But thankfully there are people smart enough to understand the consequences of such a mistake. For some light reading, pick up First to Fight: An Inside View of The U.S. Marine Corps
Military academy and wall street a-hole here...here's my take. Your mileage may vary.
First and foremost, there is no substitute for initiative. Well done. It may make you seem like a keener to people who are less committed to succeeding but, in my opinion, it is the first step to leading.
The second step is a desire (passion) for outworking everybody. Cultivate it in yourself. Commit to doing it everyday. Embrace the grind.
Now for the hard part...where it becomes more of an "art" than a science...
The best leaders I've been around in life and sports practiced servant leadership. It seems counter-intuitive and your work will never be done but servant leadership is the tide that lifts all boats and if can make it part of who you are it will serve you well in sports and life. Even if you're on a team with a bunch of losers who don't get on board it is a tremendous character builder and you'll be a better person for it.
How to begin:
Always be the first one at practice and the last to leave.
If there's "shitty" or "not fun" job to do, always be the first to jump on it and recruit help when you need it...don't try to do it all yourself...that's a "hero", not a "leader" and will eventually burn you out. Do that shitty job everyday with a positive attitude. When a shittier job shows up, jump on that and delegate others to do the less shitty work you were working on. (shagging balls after practice, lining fields, setting goals up, keeping the locker room clean, gathering the team for talks from the coach, etc). If you can't find anything that needs doing, ask your coach if he's got anything. Do this every day.
When someone is struggling be the first to jump in and help/coach them up, always positive and always working harder than anyone else. Do this everyday.
Personally, I fucked it up when i was a player. I busted my ass, I was first and last at practice every day, I jumped on the shitty jobs and did all of that stuff but I failed because I was not positive with teammates who were struggling. I rode their asses like dogs because I thought that's what leadership was and I regret it a lot. If a guy is struggling the last thing he needs is some hard charging teammate berating him. Doesn't mean you have to coddle a struggling player, stay on him just keep it positive. Help him figure out a way to get it done, whatever "it" is. Always be looking out for the little guy. If you can help a bench player contribute, you've improved your team and helped yourself.
Good luck!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership
EDIT:
If this resonates with you in any way I recommend you spend a couple bucks on amazon and grab one or both of these books:
https://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Dong-Ha-Bluejacket-Books/dp/155750587X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473342236&sr=8-1&keywords=bridge+at+dong+ha
https://www.amazon.com/Gates-Fire-Novel-Battle-Thermopylae/dp/055338368X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473342915&sr=8-1&keywords=gates+of+fire
One is nonfiction the other is fiction based on real history. Both are great reads.
You should read "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors", which is all about Taffy 3. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary/dp/0553802577
nuh-uh you brought this upon yourself. Buy it buy it buy it buuuyyyy it
I never followed this topic, and thus can't really offer you a book specifically about the fast attack craft (missile) - i.e. FAC(M)s.
But, if nothing else, I think I could offer you a few tips that are likely to be useful.
For the start, you might want to get yourself a copy of Ch. W. Nimitz's and J. Rohwer's 'Sea Power: a Naval History' (should you decide to get it, see to get the final, I think 3rd or 4th, 'all-out' edition: 1st edition was written in the 1960s and thus 'too early' for the topic you're looking for, while 2nd was an attempt to shorten the original volume and ended as a 'badly castrated' variant nobody appreciated).
It's a massive work covering the entire history of naval warfare. Don't expect too much discussion of US/NATO's FAC(Ms) though: that book was written in late 1960s and early 1970s, when there was still relatively little thinking in that direction on the part of the NATO and thus next to no FAC(M)s in NATO's arsenal.
However, that book offers quite an excellent overview of why, when and how the Soviets (and allies) made extensive use of FACs and FAC(M)s.
In order to asses the NATO's build-up on FACs and FAC(M)s of the late 1970s and through 1980s, 'Modern Naval Combat' by David Miller and Chris Miller might be an excellent add-on. Sure, this is less going into discussion of the general naval strategy, and more into whys and hows, and then into individual classes in particular. And, it's largely forgotten, nowadays. But, it does contain excellently written, brief but well-summarised sub-chapters on ship design (including that of the FACs), on weapons and sensor fits, powerplants, construction, armament (including anti-ship missiles) and I do not know anybody who was ever disappointed with it: no matter what related topic one is searching for, it's certainly included.
Boyo? Hahaha I'm being trolled by an 1890 Top Hat dude with a handlebar moustache. Sing us a Barbershop song, Sport!
Anyhooo....
AoN was invented in the US with the Standard class of BB's. AoN does not mean that the bow and stern of the ship had no armored bulkheads, as you said here:
>She had an All or Nothing scheme, which means the bow had little if any armor.
On American BBs, the forward and aft bulkhead were generally of the thickness of the armor belt, hence... wait for it... "All or Nothing"
All or Nothing means you do not add 'medium' armor thickness as on a Japanese Fuso or RN Queen Elizabeth or US New York Class. You either have the maximum thickness of plate practical, or no armor at all. All. or. Nothing.
Typical American Standard BBs included a 13.5" armor belt, and a forward and aft bulkhead of 13.5". In most cases, this armor was tapered from the belt/deck armor end to meet the barbette, which, again, had about 13.5" of armor.
This rule was violated in the US with the intallation of I believe a 15" forward plate in USS Wisconson. Other Iowa class BB's had a typical 12.2" forward bulkhead.
So the Richeleau had a thinner forward bulkhead, but by not means is it 'little' armor, and in being not the same thickness as the belt, actually deviates from the All or Nothing scheme.
U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History Friedman Hardcover
[Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II 1st Edition Robert O. Dulin Jr., William H. Garzke Jr. ] (https://www.amazon.com/Battleships-Allied-World-War-II/dp/0870211005)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you have some reading to do.
Do not take your cues on BB design from World of Warships. It's a game. In fact, true AoN armor schemes are nearly impenetrable from the bow, including the Iowa, Montana, and Yamato class ships. In fact, due to the great deal of STS armor plate included in the two final US classes designed, it would be nearly impossible for a Yamato to penetrate several layers of 1/2", 1-1/2", and 1" STS armor plate, at an angle, and not be disturbed to maintain enough APC integrity to pierce the forward bulkhead. This causes some frustration for those of us who have studied the relevant history of American BBs, and the relative weakness of most IJN APC rounds, but then, it's just a game.
Have a good day!
Edit: I'd like to add, the STS 'armor plate' used in the construction of the Iowa class ships does not include stringers or support beams. All other ships, including other US ships besides the Iowa and Montana classes, used marine-grade steel for decks and bulkheads. In those two classes, decks and bulkheads are often made of STS, or Special Treatment Steel, 118,500 psi tensile. It's essentially Class B armor. So while the Yamato was constructed of mild steel, and had armor plates, the Iowa and Montana classes are actually made out of armor plate. By comparison, modern American warships, as good a standard as any, are constructed of HY80, or steel with 80,000 psi tensile. Of course, modern steel is more consistent and more importantly, has a greater 'give to yield' envelope than STS made in the 1930s. Still, the lavish use of STS in Iowa and Montana class plans and construction means these ships are incredibly stout, much more so than Wikipedia armor statistics can convey. In short, WoW is an arcade game, and the final two classes of American BBs are the finest possible way to construct a Battleship, regardless of fire-control or damage control practice or any other oft-mentioned US superiority. The fabric of the ships themselves is vastly superior to any other BB ever constructed or conceived. They are literally Superweapons.
Here is an article that summarizes the whole battle off Samar.
This is a link to the book I read about the battle. It breaks down the battle by the minute, from days leading up to, and the aftermath.
Its a complex question, there were a lot of things involved. The original landings were US marines against engineers. the Japanese sent the parts of the 17th army to go retake the island. the First unit gravely underestimated the marines and lost pretty much his entire unit (917 guys) in a frontal night assault on the airfield. the japanese made a couple more attacks like throughout the campaign to little effect.
i don't know if Dmanww's numbers include the naval loses during the timeframe.
Like Shipyaad said, conditions were terrible, and due to the US control of Henderson field the japanese were unable to reliably supply their troops (see Tokyo Express) many starved and died of disease. the US troops more or less (with the exception of the rocky bits where the navy withdrew) was well supplied and was (most importantly) defending an airfield. The Airfield being operational kept the japanese from reliably supplying their troops with food, ammo, medical supplies and more men.
the wiki article on the Guadalcanal Campaign is pretty good for a grand overview.
http://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal/dp/055380670X
above also worth reading if you are interested in the Navy side of things as well.
This is a good book on the subject.
One of the more famous female soldiers of WWI was Yashka, since she founded the first women's battalion and wrote an English language memoir later.
There was an earlier memoir by a woman who served as a man in the Napoleonic Wars, Nadezhda Durova, whose experience seems to have served as some kind of role model for this phenomenon.
You're right down the line, with one exception: while "naval infantry" was definitely the reason we existed originally, the average Marine today never trains for shipboard fighting, let alone "first." The tactics and fighting styles we learned at boot camp were completely land-based. Much of the training we received could be used aboard a ship, but the Marine Corps as I experienced it never pretended that we would be fighting aboard ships. As I understand it (from reading First to Fight by Victor Krulak), the Corps has not been envisioned as primarily for naval defense since the Civil War. Amphibious still, but not for fighting aboard ships.
It was a public library book about Dreadnoughts, may have been one of those Time Life series books, oversized hardcover book with dark blue faux leather cover. edit - Found it!
This book, The Battleship Builders, may be of some interest to you. It's fairly new, but its authors have a fine pedigree, and it may have some bibliographic or note refs you can follow up. There are others, old classics (like Breyer on conventional capital ships) but this might be of use.
Samuel Eliot Morison's The Two Ocean War.
Yay Andy Levin!
http://warofthewhales.com
https://www.amazon.com/War-Whales-A-True-Story/dp/1451645015/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394926815&sr=8-1&keywords=war+of+the+whales
Reviews
>As War of the Whales…makes convincingly clear, the connection between naval sonar and deadly mass strandings of whales is scientifically undeniable…a strong and valuable narrative. Source: Washington Post, 50 Notable Books 2014
>A fascinating read and incredibly informative. This is a powerful book and will be of great interest to anyone concerned with marine mammal protection, the uneasy balance between the competing desires for national security and environmental protection, or the messy politics of scientific inquiry. Author: HOWARD ERNST, Professor of Political Science at the United States Naval Academy Source: Navy Proceedings Magazine
>Horwitz delivers a powerful, engrossing narrative that raises serious questions about the unchecked use of secrecy by the military to advance its institutional power. Author: Kirkus starred review Source: Best Nonfiction Books of 2014
> A gripping, brilliantly told tale of the secret and deadly struggle between American national security and the kings of the oceans. At once thrilling and heartbreaking, this is a landmark book of deep, original reporting which could alter forever how we view our role as stewards of the seas. Author: Bob Woodward
The hood had some redesigns because of Jutland, but only so much could be done so late in the process. She still represented largely pre-jutland thinking.
>Steel
I mention steel somewhat metaphorically. An enormous amount of time, money, material, and labor when into the Bismark and Tirpitz, and those resources could almost certainly have been put to better use. Maybe not tanks, perhaps, but definitely something.
>Strangely I've never really looked at American designs since i tend to focus on everyone else.
Norman Friedman has an excellent series covering the history of US warship design with a volume for every class of ship, with much reference to foreign designs as well. It's expensive, but utterly fantastic. Those books are what got me interested in ship design. He also has a pair of shorter, more introductory book cataloging the history of battleship design, looking at what every country did, and a second one for aircraft carriers. It is quite detailed, but makes a point of explaining esoteric concepts like metacentric height. I read the more detailed history first, but would suggest doing the opposite.
It is often difficult to understand how different another persons mindset can be. The Japanese had a sort of jihadist mind set that we still see reflections of even today in the controversy over the multitudes of rapes of the so called 'comfort wives'. At the time they were planning to fight to the last person dead. During the war in the pacific again and again on each island the allies conquered the Japanese refused to surrender until every man was killed or wounded so badly they could not lift a weapon or detonate an explosive. Had we invaded and fought them under those conditions the death toll and suffering would have many times worse. For a great understanding of the war in the pacific I recommend The (Two-Ocean War: A Short History of the United States Navy in the Second World War). NOTE: The book is only short compared to the 15 volume complete history of the US navy in WW2 by the same author.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Ocean-War-History-United/dp/1578660033
I have a Time-Life book titled Dreadnought which concentrates on the time period of 1900 thru 1919. At least a couple very large chapters are dedicated to Jutland.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dreadnoughts-David-Howarth/dp/0809427117
Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany and the Winning of the Great War at Sea by Robert K. Massie is also right up your alley. Jutland is the centerpiece of the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780
Here's my list of recommended reads (no particular order)
Very large, very technical book. Helps if you have a bit of electronics or weaponeer knowledge already. Has information translated from recently de-classified cold war era Russian documents, publicly for the first time. Talks specifics of weapons, sensors, and comms, system by system. Reference book, not bathroom reading.
This is an actual textbook used by the US naval academy. Not sure if it is still part of their curriculum anymore. Discuses fundamentals of radar, sonar, blast effects, and a wide variety of other topics in a non platform specific way.
Haven't read this book, but understand it's popular with US naval officers today.
Not many people know Tom Clancy also wrote non-fiction. His works of that genre included; Carrier, Submarine, and Fighter Wing. Of course, his novels, Hunt for Red October, and Red Storm Rising are the gold standard in military-techno thrillers.
Bonus Material
I know he likes Dead Wake by Erik Larson
And of course 10% Happier by Dan Harris
https://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Middle-Sea-Mediterranean-1940-1945/dp/1591141966
Brian Tunstall Naval Warfare in the Age of Sail: The Evolution of Fighting Tactics, 1650-1815
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-Warfare-Age-Sail-Evolution/dp/0785814264
That 2002 incident they keep mentioning was recently a book. War of the Whales. I've read it and it's wonderful. I highly recommend it to whale lovers.
For the basics try: http://www.radartutorial.eu/
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/syllabus.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Naval-Weapons-Systems-Professional/dp/1591146674/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407740542&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=naval+weapon+systtems
A degree in physics helps as well.
So you're saying that since you took over they've lost interest in accomplishing their work, lost their motivation, and productivity has dropped?
If your boss graphed productivity by manager across the business, how would you fare? Does this worry you?
Ever think the problem might not be them?
I recommend you pick up this book and read through it. Think about what your job is, and how you can add value to the company given a bunch of employees, other than signing their time cards and firing them when they get bored.
On a tall ship, as I recall - stays are named for the TALLEST point they attach, these are drawn horizonatally so they could be:
The (Fore | Main) Mast Topmast (Back?) Stay, and Fore Lower (Back?) stay
I think the “go-to” book for this is:
https://www.amazon.com/Young-Sea-Officers-Sheet-Anchor/dp/0486402207
For example on a 3 masted bark, there might be 2 stays on the main mast, the Main Topmast Stay, and the Main Royal Stay.
They tallest point is on the Main mast (not the fore mast, not the mizen) it does not use the word back - so the forward point is lower. And main mast is probably in 3 parts, the lower the topmast, and the t’gallent or royal mast.
Sadly too many people (yourself included) apparently do not;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers_of_the_Sea
http://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Sea-United-1775-1962-Stories/dp/1877853011
http://bluejacket.com/usmc/posters/post_usmc_ww1_soldiers-sea1.jpg
http://bluejacket.com/usmc/posters/post_usmc_ww1_soldiers-sea2_moore.jpg
http://bluejacket.com/usmc/posters/post_usmc_ww1_soldiers-sea3.jpg
http://bluejacket.com/usmc/posters/post_usmc_ww1_soldiers-sea4.JPG
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/general/articles/seasoldiers.aspx
"Soldiers of the Sea" was actually the oft used historical phrase before we picked up all our great nicknames in WWII and beyond. I think a Commandant from back in the early days of the Corps would very likely have used it.
Let me add another great suggestion ;-)
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Builders-Constructing-British-Capital/dp/1591140277
"The Battleship Builders".
The CO is always ultimately responsible for his ship. He selected and approved the officers on watch, he (tacitly) approved training and certification of the other watchstanders. He approved of his bridge and CIC crew enough to leave the bridge and go to sleep.
This is accountability. It's the epitome of leadership, and absolutely necessary to make an organization run effectively.
I highly recommend this book if you can find it. (I'm biased - Professor Montor was my leadership instructor). Otherwise It's Your Ship is an exceptional book on leadership.
Maxwell's Leadership book is also an excellent read & resource
If you want to dig up books on your own, be careful to differentiate "leadership" from "management."
Torpedo Junction is an interesting book about U-boats operating off the east coast of the USA during WWII.
They wreaked havoc until these unlikely fighting machines and blimps were brought into the fight and, abruptly, it was over.
Interesting read.
Hands down. This one: https://www.amazon.com/Sea-Power-Naval-History-Second/dp/0870216074
Try to find the first edition if you can. Its co written with W.Nimitz! The amount of tactical/strategical details is amazing.
The Historical Naval Ships Association (hnsa.org) has a decent amount of interesting tidbits but much of it is fleet-focused.
http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/textbook-of-seamanship/
http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/the-elements-and-practice-of-rigging-and-seamanship/
https://archive.org/stream/fightinginstruc01corbgoog#page/n112/mode/2up
https://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside4.html
https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Sea-Eighteenth-Century-Sailing/dp/1843833670/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=WM0X8QA1MXX06BYF8FTE
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-Warfare-Age-Sail-Evolution/dp/0785814264
Wiki also has some good bits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_ship_tactics#Line_of_battle
Much of this is, of course, entirely useless in the context of Sea of Thieves. There are some things, however, that research can really drive home. An excellent example is how a leeward ship will generally be rolling away from a windward ship, while the windward ship is rolling towards the opponent. Thus, the ship with the gauge can be nearly impossible to strike below the waterline, whereas the leeward ship is massively vulnerable. Many a SoT galleon duel has been decisive because of this. Try it next beta - If you have the gauge, sidle up about 100 meters off the enemy flank. Not a single cannonball they fire will hit your lower deck, while your guns will have free reign to hit below their waterline with every shot.
I did read a great book on WWI recently, although not because of the game. (In fact, part of the reason I ended up getting BF1 was because I read the book.)
I highly recommend it: The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command
It's about the battle of Jutland, the only large scale naval battle of the war. A few parts to do with the battle itself get quite technical, but most of it is very accessible. It gives a great perspective on two philosophies of leadership and command as well as painting a vivid picture of both the general era and the characters of the key British commanders involved in the battle.
The Rules Of The Game: Jutland And British Naval Command is a fine study of the battle, but it takes a very long detour into the evolution of 19th–century Royal Navy doctrine and personnel policy, which may or may not be up your alley.
Seaman ship in the age of sail is a good one.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0870219553?pc_redir=1395279573&robot_redir=1
The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor is marvelous aswell
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0486402207/ref=pd_aw_sims_1?pi=SL500_SY115
And if your interested about knots
The Marlinespike Sailor
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0070592187/ref=pd_aw_sims_6?pi=SL500_SY115
Right now I'm reading Dead Wake: The Last Crossing of the Lusitania by Erik Larson. I really enjoyed some of his other books but I feel like I'm slogging through this one. There are parts that are very intense and interesting ... and then there are the other parts which seem to just drag on.
Are you legit this dense?
I’m training to be an expert in this field, so I can assure you women fought for the Russian army in 1917 before the reds took power, and reinstated women soldier for their more famous role In WW2.
These women paved the way for every women sniper team and tank crew who fought and gave their lives, and you quite plainly deny their existence in the face of evidence.
But because you refuse to watch an informative video here are some sources you can read
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-womens-battalion-of-death
https://www.amazon.com/They-Fought-Motherland-Soldiers-Revolution/dp/0700614850/ref=nodl_
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/womens-battalion-death-russias-wwi-female-forces-mm.html/amp
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/women-warriors-russian-revolution-180963067/
And yes “Bud” is condescending, and you intended that.
You could have done a google search to verify the quote, or have looked to seen the sources used in the original video I had sent, but you assumed you knew everything and refused to Accept you may have been mistaken, again condescending.
I may still be learning, but at-least I know when to admit I’m wrong, and enjoy learning somthing new and interesting.