Amazon Customer

Another good story marred by the reader.

Revisado: 12-19-24

A good story. But the reader made it difficult for me to like. For the love of God I don't know why they don't educate the readers on military speak. It's not R-E-M-F's, it's REMF's, not M-K 48, it's Mark 48, not T-O-C, it's TOC, ffs. Every time I hear things like that, I cringe because I know the reader has no clue what they are saying. You would think that readers of military subject matter would either be veterans or at least educate themselves on proper names, acronyms and nomenclature. In fairness and sadly, it's not just this book, but many other military books. It is a good story and I recommend it but the reader drove me nuts.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Don't waste your money!

Revisado: 11-03-24

Great story if it wasn't for the absurd amount of redactions. Information that is available through open source was redacted. Really, you need to retract that you drove HiLux trucks? It was so frustrating that I couldn't get past 4 chapters. Only listen to this if you like classical music and frustration. With this many redactions, the book should never have been published!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

New look at an old battle.

Revisado: 08-28-24

A new look at an old battle by someone who was actually there. Many view Kham Duc as a defeat for the US (particularly the press), but was it really? The authors present the theory that Kham Duc was used as bait to entice the NVA to gather in large numbers in order for air power to devastate them. The base was not overrun, it was evacuated and the NVA suffered horrendous casualties. Many accounts determine it as a defeat of US forces (just like Hue or even Mogadishu). I don't see how the side that inflicts casualties on their enemies at 40:1 ratio (even 10:1) can be considered the "loser". The authors present both broad and narrow views including calling out the ineptitude and chrony-ism that permeates the officer corps. that persists to this day. False narratives, unearned awards doctored documents. None of that however overshadows the courage of the true warriors who were there. Including the pilots, facs, SF, SOG and the others. A good book. The only thing I wasn't a huge fan of was that you could tell the narrator's age by his voice.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Decent story marred by bad narator.

Revisado: 12-29-23

Having read a couple of different books about what happened at COP Keating, I was somewhat familiar with its history. This book goes into some of the early background and other parts of the story. The book would have been more enjoyable if it weren't for the reader. Unfortunately, the same can be said about other military books. The reader should be required to be a veteran or at least understand the terminology. Nothing is more frustrating that the reader botching simple things like pronouncing Ka-Bar as "kabar" instead of "Kay-bar" or referring to a unit as Three seven one infantry instead of as the Third of the seventy first infantry. Or, calling the DShK a "Dushka" which is a cake instead of "Dishka". All simple things that a vet would know and that is what makes them so frustrating. It detracts from the story. The story itself is worth reading.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Great book marred by the reader

Revisado: 04-26-23

The story is good. But, throughout the book the reader says L-R-P's. It should be pronounced "lurps". There are several other mistakes in the book (e.g. observation point instead of observation post) which as a LRRP, I found distracting and irritating. It's a shame that these errors mar what is otherwise a great story.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas