You have 0 bookmarked item(s)
Viewing Topic "New books revealed "
  Topic Description
Posted by: Carl(Sweden) New books revealed on amazon
Posted on: 11/04/2017 07:10:11

12 Item(s)     Sort:  Newest Oldest

per page
Posted by: Carl(Sweden)
Total Posts: 17
Joined Date: Thursday, 28 June 2012
Amazon Canada have revealed upcoming books until April 2018.

Some nice camaigns and combat aircraft books.
* Imphal
* Kuban
* Stirling units

Posted on: 11/04/2017 07:10:13
Posted by: AdamC
Total Posts: 263
Joined Date: Thursday, 22 January 2009

Hi Carl!

You beat me to it!!! The Short Stirling!!!!!!!!! At last!!!!!!! Can't wait!!!!


Full core series list;

Brittany 1944: Hitler's Final Defenses in France (CAM) - April 18

French Naval & Colonial Troops 1872-1914 (MAA) - April 18

Technicals: None Standard Tactical Vehicles from the Toyota War to modern Special Forces (NVG) - April 18

Short Stirling Units of WWII (COM) - April 18

Greek Hoplite Vs Persian Warrior: 499-479 BC (CBT) - March 18

North American XB-70 Valkyrie (X-Planes) - March 18

The Crossbow (WPN) - March 18

Soviet Destroyers of WWII (NVG) - March 18

Zeppelin Vs British Home Defenses 1916-18 (DUEL) - March 18

Imphal 1944: The Battle that saved India (CAM) - March 18

WWII Vichy French Security Forces (MAA) - Feb 18

Defenses of Burmuda 1612-1995 (FOR) - Feb 18

The Kuban 1943: The Wehrmacht's Last Stand in the Caucases (CAM) - Feb 18

Gebirgsjager Vs Soviet Sailor: Arctic Circle 1942-44 (CBT) - Feb 18

T-90 Standard Tank: The First Tank of the New Russia (NVG) - Feb 18

Sagger ATGM Vs M60 MBT: Yom Kippur 1973 (DUEL) - Jan 18

Early US Armour: Armoured Cars 1915-40 (NVG) - Jan 18

Roman Standards & Standard Bearers (1): 112 BC-AD 192 (MAA) - Jan 18

Operation Market-Garden 1944 (3): The British XXX Corps Mission (CAM) - Jan 18

The Anti-Tank Rifle (WPN) - Jan 18


Posted on: 11/04/2017 12:16:57
Posted by: ASM
Total Posts: 23
Joined Date: Wednesday, 4 August 2010

Thanks Carl and AdamC - T-90 is just up my alley! I think I had hoped for an updated T-72 book, but I have sort of given up on that now... AT rifles (WPN) and Technicals (NVG) hmm rather niche but okay, I will probably give them a go at some point as well.

Posted on: 11/04/2017 13:51:17
Posted by: Paintybeard
Total Posts: 347
Joined Date: Monday, 4 February 2013

Lots of good stuff here, but as always fingers crossed until they are confirmed in the August reveal. I'm trusting that "Kuban" will be by Dr. Forzcyk.

Posted on: 11/04/2017 14:30:54
Posted by: Tarawa90
Total Posts: 78
Joined Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2012

Note that Amazon US says the Roman Standard Bearer book is an Elite not Men at Arms.  Also, pardon my French, but what the hell is a Technical?  Furthermore, I know WWII is the moneymaking but they've got to lay off the CAM books before they burn out.  Four for four?  C'mon guys, there's another 3000 years of battles to do.

Posted on: 11/04/2017 20:24:50
Posted by: Paintybeard
Total Posts: 347
Joined Date: Monday, 4 February 2013

I think I'm right in saying that "technicals" are a generic name for locally adapted vehicle mount for a support weapon mounted on a pick-up chassis. i.e a recoiless rifle bolted onto the back of a Toyota.

 And I echo the call for some non-WW2 Campaign titles in 2018. The recent titles have been pretty good, but surely a broader spread of periods isn't too much to ask? Especially as the recently announced Air Campaign series is bound to be largely centred on WW2 as well. 

Posted on: 13/04/2017 11:21:09
Posted by: KenA
Total Posts: 114
Joined Date: Tuesday, 15 October 2013

There are several things of note in the list of forthcoming Osprey titles during the first four months of 2018 on the Amazon Canada web site.

The first thing that struck me was the degree of slippage of titles from 2017 into 2018, including all four of the new ACM titles.  There is always some slippage but this year it seems to have reached epidemic proportions.  Hopefully the end result will be higher quality publications.

The CAM titles all being WWII don’t perturb me.  I think Kuban, Imphal and Brittany are all good choices, though you could argue about whether there are others that should be produced before them.

It’s good to see Osprey giving some attention to France even if it’s only two MAA titles (I’m not a fan of the MAA series.  I’m not a great fan of France either but I don’t think it should be ignored as Osprey has a tendency to do.).

The NVG title on Soviet Destroyers of WWII has the potential to be very interesting and I am looking forward to it.  This does, however, highlight how Osprey has neglected the navies of Russia, Italy and France in both world wars.  Just on the subject of destroyers, I feel obliged to point out that France had some of the most advanced destroyers in the world at the start of WWII yet Osprey has to date overlooked the French navy.

I couldn’t help but think, when looking at the Osprey 2018 title list how I wish Americans could spell - e.g. Armour (not Armor) and Defences (not Defenses).  Why Osprey can’t introduce standardised spelling across its publications I do not know (there are such things as automatic spell checkers that would work even for those tiles published in the US).

By the way, I’m very pleased for AdamC and his Short Stirling title.  I hope that they will be very happy together.

I hesitate to speculate what is going on between Painty and Dr Forzcyk.  I must confess that the latter leaves me somewhat confused colour-wise and numerically.  He seems something of an arithmetic chameleon and who knows when and what the next change will be.  Not having a great interest in the Eastern Front means I haven’t read many of Dr Forzcyk’s titles though I do have a few and enjoyed them.  His comment in the Forum a while back about the British attack on the French navy at Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July 1940 I thought was rather off-beam and possibly influenced by the works of people such as George E Melton who I regard as a rather biased source.  I didn’t reply to Dr F’s comment at the time (I was rather busy) but I thought he’d keep until when he raised that subject again.  So, in that event Dr F watch out for my response.

While what we can see of 2018 Osprey titles on Amazon Canada’s web site is probably far from complete, it does give us something of an idea.  One Fortress title - OK.  How many Raid titles did you count?  Do you remember supplying Osprey’s MD with suggestions for Raid titles a couple of years or so ago?  The feedback from Osprey on Raid titles has deafening.

Overall, I thought Osprey did pretty well in 2017 with its spread of titles.  Certainly, my purchases are going to be up this year.  Judging from this first glimpse of the offerings for 2018 (not taking into account the slippages form 2017) I think we may be in for a leaner year next year.

Posted on: 13/04/2017 14:11:18
Posted by: Railok
Total Posts: 19
Joined Date: Monday, 8 October 2012

Some great titles! I'm particularly looking forward to the Imphal title.


If there is one thing I must add then it's the fact that I'm quite confused over the absence of Raid. I thought it was one of Osprey's best selling series!

Posted on: 13/04/2017 16:00:10
Posted by: Tarawa90
Total Posts: 78
Joined Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2012

I was wondering what was going on with RAID too and haven't gotten a definite answer.  The Fortress book was a suprise, I thought they were putting it on hiatus again.  Bermuda is an odd choice, but I like the odd choices so I'll take it.  I wish they would do a study on the defenses of the Panama Canal Zone, and some other Caribbean fortresses.  My number one choice for Fortresses though is Irish castles, I can't believe they haven't done it since Ireland is just next door.

Now, about the spelling.  The differences between British and American spelling are deliberate, based on Webster of Webster's Dictionary.  He wanted to make American English distinct from British English as a subtle way of furthering American idenitity and independence.  Besides, if we spelled things armour or colour they'd end up getting pronounced armoor or coloor over here.  And speaking of pronunciation, you guys are the ones who can't say 'schedule' correctly.

Posted on: 13/04/2017 18:44:14
Posted by: Black 5
Total Posts: 23
Joined Date: Thursday, 24 October 2013

Yes, I am the author of Kuban 1943. This will have quite a bit of new material in it. 

Standardized spellings: actually the submitted manuscripts usually employ the King's English, but Osprey converts after the fact. The US Market accounts for something like 2/3rds of their market. Don't like it? Buy more books and maybe they'll consider changing if sales in the UK go up!

Colo(ur)/arithmetic changes: My monikers are based on previous radio call signs I have used as a tanker. I was Red One as a platoon leader and Black 5 as a tank company XO; I had many others, but I always remember those. No mystery on change. Before Osprey started charging to get on the forum (thanks to he-whose-name-will-not-spoken) I was Red One. When I had to re-register on the new forum, I decided it was time for a change. Really nothing to it.

Painty apparently likes some of my books but I have no idea as to his identity and we have no affiliation.


As to Mers-el-Kebir, I think it was a serious mistake. Admiral Sommerville, who had to conduct the operation, also believed the use of force at this point was premature but was over-ruled by Churchill. Now, Painty did not like my opinion on this either. I've talked about this topic with a number of modern Englishmen, none alive in 1940, but they all seem to accept the standard line that the attack was necessary and helped to convince the United States was serious about staying in the war. I've never seen the military or political logic in this operation and I discussed it at length in We March Against England. There was never a scrap of intelligence that Germany was about to get the French capital ships in Mers-el-Kebir and even if - a huge if - Vichy France cooperated more closely with Germany, there would have been more time to react based on what the French were actually doing. I'm not opposed to pre-emptive strikes where there is evidence of imminent threat, but the fact is that the French ships only posed a threat in Churchill's mind.

By attacking at Mers-el-Kebir, Churchill might have convinced the Vichy French to freely provide their warships to the Germans, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. A neutral Vichy was better than a hostile Vichy. Furthermore, the attack made it much harder for de Gaulle to recruit troops and pilots for the French French, particularly from North Africa. I can hear the pooh-poohs from across the pond right now. Fact is, Britain benefited quite a bit from the Free French during 1940-42, particularly at places like Bir-el Hakeim and on Atlantic convoys where the small Free French contribution was significant. More Free French troops would have been a good thing. Instead, Britain had to wait until the Americans got into North Africa until the spigot on French volunteers really opened. All thanks to Mers el-Kebir.

I find it amazing that Britain can shrug off attacking a country that was an ally two weeks before, as if it was nothing. Why not attack Holland or Belgium - who provided tens of thousands of volunteers for the Waffen SS?

Posted on: 13/04/2017 18:45:38
Posted by: KenA
Total Posts: 114
Joined Date: Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Well that was all very interesting.  Just to make it clear though – I don’t live in the UK – I live in NZ towards the bottom of the Pacific on the opposite side of the world from the UK.  We still use the Queen’s English; well, for the most part.

I just love the origin of the US spelling things differently as being a way of furthering identity and independence.  The rationality of man!  Life will never get boring will it?

The reason that I raised standardised spelling is that my Osprey titles are a mixture of US and Queen’s English.  OK I can understand the former being used for the US market but it seems to be a free for all everywhere else.  I was rather surprised by your estimate, Black 5, that the US makes up around 2/3rds of the Osprey market as I was under the impression that North America comprised about 50%.  Maybe I’ll have to learn American.  Actually, I’ve made a start – I think I’ve now got a handle on what “alternative fact” means.

Mers-el-Kébir, 3 July 1940.  This has been a subject that has intrigued me for a long time.  Not only what happened but why.  What could possibly have led to Churchill and his War Cabinet making the decision that they did?  I have read everything I could lay my hands on that relates to this subject.  Most were fairly superficial and a few were slanted or biased in my view (a check of the bibliographies and the background of the authors was a good guide).  Indeed, I found only one book in English that went in depth into the reasons why the decision on Mers-el-Kébir was taken.  This book was “The Road to Oran” by David Brown, a reprint edition published by Routledge; meaning that you had to mortgage your house in order to buy it (this last bit isn’t true but is put in for effect as Routledge books are pricey).  It is, however, an excellent book on the subject.

It is simply is not possible here to go through all the circumstances and factors that Brown took 258 pages in his book to explain.  I think though that you have to remember that in June 1940 Churchill had only recently become Prime Minister, Norway had fallen, France had fallen, Britain and what is now the Commonwealth were alone in facing the German menace.  Things were about as grim as they could get.  Britain was not operating from any position of strength.  It was fighting for its very survival.

Without going into all the matters relating to the French surrender, the armistice and the breaking of the arrangement with Britain regarding prior consultation, the whole issue of Mers-el-Kébir really boiled down to trust.  Could the French and Admiral François Darlan (head of the French navy) be trusted?  Indeed, if it came to that could the Germans be trusted because there was no guarantee that Germany would honour the armistice?  The stakes were so high.  The British did not trust Petain and Darlan (the latter was regarded by those in the Admiralty as “tricky”).  Certainly, Admiral Sommerville did not wish to proceed with the attack but it needs to be remembered that he had a working level relationship with the French (at sea) for many years and knew personally many of the officers that his force would be firing on.  Sommerville did not have a “big picture” view.

Put simply, the British believed they could not afford, at that time (June/July 1940), to trust Darlan and the French.  Darlan was a noted Anglophobe (apparently one of his ancestors was killed at Trafalgar – long memories the French) and he was ambitious (always with an eye for the main chance – note his switch of sides in Algeria in 1942).  He even got to be Prime Minister of Vichy France for a while.  So the British had good cause not to trust him.  It could be argued that the very fact that the British acted at Mers-el-Kébir convinced Darlan and the Vichy Government that the British were indeed very serious and that any naval co-operation with Germany would entail swift retribution from Britain.

While I understand Black 5 what you refer to as some of the effects of the Mers-el-Kébir attack, back in June/July 1940 I think Britain was dealing with much more immediate perceived problems of the here and now.  It is easy for us in 2017 to sit back in our armchairs oceans away from where it all happened and criticise the decisions made in 1940 when the circumstances and pressures were so much different.  Given the circumstances and knowledge at the time, if we were in the British position what would we have done?

I would commend to you, Black 5, and to any others interested in this subject, David Brown’s book to get a much better understanding of the circumstances and the various factors leading up to the Mers-el-Kébir decision.  After reading it, regardless of whether your view of the decision has changed or not, at least you will be better informed as to why the decision was taken.

Posted on: 14/04/2017 03:01:26
Posted by: Paintybeard
Total Posts: 347
Joined Date: Monday, 4 February 2013

I have said before that the parallels between Mers-el-Kebir and Brtiish attacks on Copenhagen during the Napoleonic was seem very striking to me and demonstrate that Britain (very sensibly) put naval supremacy high above world opinion and even the possible widening of a conflict. French admirals must have been pretty ignorant not to realise that the ultimatun to fire on them was absolutely serious.

 Black 5 states in "We March Against England" that the various attacks and ship siezures carried out by the Royal Navy in Summer 1940 had a very bad effect on world opinion. When I retire I hope to try and check records of newspaper editorials, opinion polls etc to see what evidence there is to support this.  

An amusing story I heard about Noah Webster, proably apocryphal, but too good not to share: In later years Webster was a pillar of New England society and had a rather straight-laced wife. One day she walked unexpectedly into Websters study and found him "carrying on" with the serving maid. "Why Mr. Webster!" Mrs Webster exclaimed: "I am suprised!" "No, no my dear," replies Webster:"I am suprised, you should be astounded."

Posted on: 14/04/2017 08:33:55

12 Item(s)     Sort:  Newest Oldest

per page

Who is online

User(s) browsing this topic: 1. 0 logged-in customer(s) and 1 guest(s) (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)