Myopic, factually wrong, over simplified- does not match the title. An infuriating read.

So simplified, and with a myopic and fuzzy lens which makes a book wrong in parts and constructed with woeful analysis. A real missed opportunity and a book that does not match the title.

Disappointingly oversimplified and littered with assertion after assertion. A real shame after a promising start. The initial construct of strategy, logistics, moral and training is worth of deeper analysis. Which is unfortunately missing. Of particular note is the dreadful training chapter, repeating almost verbatim from British Army publications this does not aid the understanding of war. Not is it a defendable basis to address modern war.

The level of uncontested land centric assertion undermines any more balanced analysis. The absence of considered rationale and the frequent assertions amazes. The parroting of British Army tactical aid memoirs (of the 90s) as the only tactical method of waging war on land is dull, but unfortunately it frequently occurs throughout the book. Which despite the crutch of these tactical aid memoirs there are frequent factual errors. The mispronunciation of ISTAR as ‘Is- Tar’ just grates but is superseded by ‘dis momentum’. I suggest the author stays well away from physics, which is critical contributor to warfare. And apparently not within his skill set.

The author displays no understanding of multi domain integration, with his ill judged obsession with the perpetual dominance of the land domain. Assertion of this view is just not tested. The relationship between tactical, operational and strategic levels of war is absent. As is any questioning of British tactics or organisation. Or how the English Channel affects any British land power policy. There are parts of the book that are simply dreadful and are constructed by surprising poor to non existent analysis.

Perhaps it is the wilfully ignoring of sea power and air power criticality in warfare, especially where it defeated or could have defeated a nation. The defeat of Japan and the battle of the Atlantic that easily refute his core or at least shade his singular un evidenced view. Wishing that warfare is simple perhaps demonstrates an inability to question and investigate, hence removing any analysis.

To be fair this over simplified, limited view, poor understanding and ignorance of many elements of the topic is standard fare for KCL’s Swindon poly branch. C- at best.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!