Grand unified books thread

[Threviel]

I'm reading a narrowly focused but still fascinating book called Agents of Innovation: The General Board and the Design of the Fleet that Defeated the Japanese Navy by John T. Kuehn. It describes the role of the US Navy's General Board in determining the characteristics of the US Navy's ships and bases from 1900 to 1950.  While that's a pretty specific topic, it hasn't been dealt with in any detail in any other works I have seen.  What's really interesting, though, is the book's depiction of how an organization deals with change and how it interacts with other "players" who have a voice in the same matters it deals with.

The General Board had an interesting composition; while it's membership included the expected Commander in Chief of the Fleet (the unfortunately-named CinCUS), heads of ship design, intelligence, aviation, engineering, and gunnery, it also included the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the head of the War College, and two to four (it varied over time) Commander or Captains fresh from command at sea (they were generally seen as the "up and comers"), so it had a very diverse set of viewpoints - far more so than any equivalent in other navies.  The idea was the the CinC would come up with strategic missions, the War College would determine the strategies that could fulfill the missions, and the General Board would both provide guidance on the capabilities the Navy needed in its ships, aircraft, and bases, and then pick the best options from the designs presented to them.

Outside of this, the Fleet Commanders had a lot of say, and CinCUS had to over-rule the board at times.  In general, time proved that the General Board was more forward-thinking than the fleet commanders or CinCUS.  The Board was wrong about airships (they proved far too fragile in practice), but was right about the Standard Battleships, the need for small carriers, and the need for mobile bases.  Small carriers were never built until WW2, but it is clear that they could have, and should have, been built then the Board wanted to  (the GB's preference would have been for the Brooklyn class to sacrifice 6 of their 15 six-inch guns to carry, instead, 12 fighter and 12 scout bombers).

The details of the projects are of interest only to the naval enthusiast, but the broader strokes might be of interest to anyone interested in how large organizations deal with uncertainty and constraints like the naval treaties of the 1930s.  The history of the General Board (and especially their interactions with the war College) shows the value of getting the widest possible input while not getting bogged down in petty details or assuming that old answers were still the right answers.  Lots of the GB's decisions were made based on recommendations by its most junior members, or the even more junior students at the War College.

Internesting. How did other powers do it? I seem to remember that the germans had an office for designing ships that was separated from the ships users and that there was very little input coming from the fleet to the designers.

[KRonn]

I'm reading a narrowly focused but still fascinating book called Agents of Innovation: The General Board and the Design of the Fleet that Defeated the Japanese Navy by John T. Kuehn. It describes the role of the US Navy's General Board in determining the characteristics of the US Navy's ships and bases from 1900 to 1950.  While that's a pretty specific topic, it hasn't been dealt with in any detail in any other works I have seen.  What's really interesting, though, is the book's depiction of how an organization deals with change and how it interacts with other "players" who have a voice in the same matters it deals with.

Interesting stuff. I used to have a link that defined in great detail how the US determined the size of the army needed. Quoted a lot of original source material. It looked at available manpower taking into consideration the needs of all the services - two ocean navy, army air force, marines, coast guard, replacements, etc. It was determined that a 100 division army would suffice for the war and was about the limit given all the other service's needs plus keeping a flow of replacements.  I think the army went a little over 100 divisions and I think US divisions tended on average to be quite large compared to the other combatants.

[grumbler]

Internesting. How did other powers do it? I seem to remember that the germans had an office for designing ships that was separated from the ships users and that there was very little input coming from the fleet to the designers.

The Germans, like the British, approached each ship design more-or-less sui generis.  They took lessons from previous classes, and had some pretty firm requirements for some things (they valued speed in battleships more than most, because they were going to be running away a lot).  They really didn't try to link requirements to strategy via analysis, they just built the best ships they could given the money and the capacity of the shipyards.  They didn't even try to stay within treaty limits (not even under Weimar).

The Brits had a Design Committee that was made up of the lords of admiralty and the technical branch chiefs.  They were more constrained by the treaties, but their strategy was more along the lines of maintaining fleets for home service, foreign stations, and SLOC protection.  War planning per se wasn't much of an influence.  They did recognize the air threat (and the possibilities that aircraft allowed them) before anyone else, and they emphasized technology (radar, sonar, fire control, etc) more than weapons.  They were really caught short when trying to operate in the Pacific, though. 

The Japanese built for a specific strategy that they never really tested at any time.  It resulted in some great ships, but a very imbalanced navy that was ill-equipped to fight the war they ended up actually having to fight.  Way too much wishful thinking in their planning.

[grumbler]

Interesting stuff. I used to have a link that defined in great detail how the US determined the size of the army needed. Quoted a lot of original source material. It looked at available manpower taking into consideration the needs of all the services - two ocean navy, army air force, marines, coast guard, replacements, etc. It was determined that a 100 division army would suffice for the war and was about the limit given all the other service's needs plus keeping a flow of replacements.  I think the army went a little over 100 divisions and I think US divisions tended on average to be quite large compared to the other combatants.

I read a great book on the same kind of topic, but regarding the Navy and its growth in WW2.  Manpower was always an issue.  None of the services really played the manpower game honestly.  The Army wanted 100 divisions when it wasn't possible to ship them and support them.  The Navy wanted to "reserve" manpower for ships that wouldn't be built for anther year, and had more Seabee battalions than they could actually use.  The Air Force assigned support units to combat commands to hide their real "tail to tooth" ratio.  And no one really planned well for the high losses in bomber crews and infantrymen.

[11B4V]

Continuing on with more Victorian era fights

Zulu Rising: The Epic Story of iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift
Knight, Ian

The great war with Russia,: The invasion of the Crimea; a personal retrospect of the battles of the Alma, Balaclava, and Inkerman, and of the winter of 1854-55,&c
Russell, William Howard

Like Wolves on the Fold: The Defence of Rorke's Drift
Mike Snook

Rorke's Drift: A New Perspective
Neil Thornton

How Can Man Die Better : The Secrets of Isandlwana Revealed
Colonel Mike Snook

[11B4V]

Continuing on with more Victorian era fights

Zulu Rising: The Epic Story of iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift
Knight, Ian

The great war with Russia,: The invasion of the Crimea; a personal retrospect of the battles of the Alma, Balaclava, and Inkerman, and of the winter of 1854-55,&c
Russell, William Howard

Like Wolves on the Fold: The Defence of Rorke's Drift
Mike Snook

Rorke's Drift: A New Perspective
Neil Thornton

How Can Man Die Better : The Secrets of Isandlwana Revealed
Colonel Mike Snook

Just about done with of Snook's books. Very detailed analysis and breakdown of the battles. Particularly Isandlwana.

[crazy canuck]

During my holiday I read:

Sapiens - thanks Malthus and Grumbler.  I did enjoy it.  I liked the point he made about the Scottish Ministers turning to mathematics rather than prayer to determine the amount to be paid in premiums to create their widows and orphans fund.

The Greatest Story Told - so far.  An interesting history of physics but the payoff of explaining why we are here was not very satisfying.   I much preferred Universe Within by Neil Turok.  He covers the same history but in a more accessible way and with some insights into where he thinks the study of Physics will go into the future.

Finished book 6 of Last Kingdom.  I am going to take a bit of a rest and then finish off the last three books.  They are enjoyable but after a while it gets predicable and because of that a bit annoying.  Utred is always going to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.  Always get away with it.  Always be the only one who knows how to fight a battle properly and single highhandedly save England.     

[Malthus]

During my holiday I read:

Sapiens - thanks Malthus and Grumbler.  I did enjoy it.  I liked the point he made about the Scottish Ministers turning to mathematics rather than prayer to determine the amount to be paid in premiums to create their widows and orphans fund.

The Greatest Story Told - so far.  An interesting history of physics but the payoff of explaining why we are here was not very satisfying.   I much preferred Universe Within by Neil Turok.  He covers the same history but in a more accessible way and with some insights into where he thinks the study of Physics will go into the future.

Finished book 6 of Last Kingdom.  I am going to take a bit of a rest and then finish off the last three books.  They are enjoyable but after a while it gets predicable and because of that a bit annoying.  Utred is always going to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.  Always get away with it.  Always be the only one who knows how to fight a battle properly and single highhandedly save England.   

Heh my feelings exactly about The Last Kingdom. It's a fun series written to a formula - and the formula is a good one, and they are engagingly written, and I enjoyed them a lot ... but read a bunch of 'em in a row, and the formula becomes more than a bit glaring.

By way of contrast, a series written to a formula that I found doesn't suffer from it and can be read in a row is Philip Kerr's Bernie Gunther series of German noir detective novels - also very well written and engaging. Those are a lot of (dark) fun. 

[Habbaku]

Finished the 1st volume of the Traitor Son cycle, The Red Knight. It's above-average in quality and solidly written in both the way the universe deals with magic and, especially, in terms of combat and siegecraft. If you want to read about dazzling descriptions of medieval combat with some magic thrown in for good measure, right down to every piece of equipment, it's hard to recommend something better.

The book falls down a bit in the editing department, however. I find it hard to believe the editor actually did anything. There are numerous small typos, case-use errors, and even some confusion about characters that was glaring. Specifically, one very minor character dies in one scene, but is alive in the background in another. In another scene, two characters that have always been cousins suddenly become brothers, but then are cousins again in the next chapter. In addition, there are a few examples of terminology confusion. The main baddies in the book are "boglins,"  but are referred to as "goblins" a couple of times, leading to some confusion as to whether goblins actually exist, or if the transposition was merely an accident.

Lastly, there is consistent reference to "Harndon" as the capital city of "Alba" (an obvious stand-in for an Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England), but there is a solitary reference to "London" nestled in the book.

The book is 4/5, but dragged down to 3.5 due to shoddy editing and a romance sub-plot that is pretty inexplicable.

[Habbaku]

Now up is John Keay's The Honourable Company, A History of the English East India Company, which is incredibly exciting in the 50 pages I've read thus far.

[Malthus]

Now up is John Keay's The Honourable Company, A History of the English East India Company, which is incredibly exciting in the 50 pages I've read thus far.

I'm really interested in this one. Please let me know how it goes.

[Habbaku]

Now up is John Keay's The Honourable Company, A History of the English East India Company, which is incredibly exciting in the 50 pages I've read thus far.

I'm really interested in this one. Please let me know how it goes.

Will try to remember. Thus far, I can recommend it just based on his narrative talent. The writing in the first two chapters is superb.

[Maladict]

Stephen Fry's new book on the Greek myths is very enjoyable, even if you already know nearly all of them.

[Gups]

Enjoying Fukuyama's "Origins of Political Order". A number of insights that are ne (to me at any rate) including that religion was necessary to move from band level to tribal - with a larger society group, the only way to prevent people from freeloading was that their ancestor might be watching them (that's a really simplistic way of putting it).

[The Brain]

Enjoying Fukuyama's "Origins of Political Order". A number of insights that are ne (to me at any rate) including that religion was necessary to move from band level to tribal - with a larger society group, the only way to prevent people from freeloading was that their ancestor might be watching them (that's a really simplistic way of putting it).

Why couldn't you just smack freeloaders on the head?