Excellent

What made the experience of listening to Closing with the Enemy the most enjoyable?

This book focuses on how battle-events unfolded, and what consquences they had for tactics and doctrine. Something that is extremely rare even in the military history field.

Who was your favorite character and why?

I'm going to go with Napalm. Even though HE artillery fire had more overall impact on the story, Every time napalm was introduced to a scene, it was a blast.

What about Mel Foster’s performance did you like?

Good pronounciation. Did a decent job at pronouncing non-english words.

Any additional comments?

Put your players to 1.25xspeed. The narrator reads with excruciating slowness.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

scholarly

it's a well researched and very informative book, but like many histories, it can be quite dry. It took me two attempts to finally get through the book.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

superb detail needs large perspe ctive maps

Need maps for perspective. But a long great book. Many insights into the details and the soldiers superb listening

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Great listen on US tactics in the ETO

Any additional comments?

I myself prefer the high level operational studies on WWII. This book was a nice change of pace from that genre for me and I enjoyed getting into the nitty gritty about how the average US infantryman fought the enemy.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Day to Day Combat on the Ground

Finally a book which talks about how the army fought the war. But unlike most books which talk from 60,000 feet up, this book talks at ground level. It talks on combat strategy and how they adjusted their fighting approaches given the circumstances.

The book deals with fighting in the bocage, city fighting, river crossings, bunkers, etc. How they fought and solved problems. How ground, artillery, armor and air power learned to work together and how the process evolved over time. The book explains in detail the challenges and the conflicts with old thinking taught in training manuals that had to be adjusted or tossed out completely

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

2 people found this helpful

An important discussion.

I see somewhat less of a discussion on "How GI's fought" and more of an argument in favor of American ingenuity. The author goes through a number of very interesting examples of how the American Army learned to go beyond existing doctrine to find a true combined arms doctrine. He also speaks to the difference between the school solution and what experience had the American Army actually do in combat. I found it a most compelling argument. Certainly if the preponderance of Arms was all that mattered, then what would be true? Looking at the Bastogne fight, the 101st and other units were outnumbered, and for parts of the battle, lacked the preponderance of Air Power which had characterized the Breakout, yet they prevailed. His appendix on sources, was interesting. I noticed he excluded Stephen Ambrose, which has me wonder what he thinks of Ambrose. It was funny to listen to his argument done in very modern military jargon. I get why, but it was also somehow disconcerting. I was reminded of the purpose of doctrine, and it's limitations. I do think he did a great job in explaining how difficult it would have been to have tried to make big doctrinal shifts after the Normandy Landings, since there was no respite. Worth reading, I know I was wrapped in the narrative and didn't want to put it down. My biggest concern is whether his purpose is more to argue a point rather than give a historical perspective. Does he recognize any weaknesses in his argument. I would have liked to have seen that.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

QUITE BORING

It is surprising that a subject so filled with drama and conflict with the potential of discovering for the listener new information about a very dynamic period of history could be described in so boring a way.

Aside from the fact that the author apparently did not know that there were several other nations fighting in Europe following the Normandy invasion - British, Russian, Canadian, Free French, etc - since he persisted in statements like 'when the US won the war in Europe' etc, he really provides little new news. He is making the case that the US army and GI were adaptable and inventive and able to change strategy and tactics to accommodate a battlefield and enemy for which they had not been adequately trained; and, this he does more or less successfully. However, he refutes the view that the US army simply threw huge amounts of weaponry and munitions at the enemy as its chief tactical move - but then proceeds to describe how the US successfully adapted to the new scene by throwing huge amounts of weaponry and munitions at the enemy...

This is mostly what I learned from this book after 16 hours. That and the fact that the uniforms which the GIs were given to wear in the European winter were not winter uniforms. This I think is a very important fact since the author cites trench foot due to being incorrectly clad and shod as THE major factor behind the high casualty rates. To me such a huge blunder speaks to the extreme and criminal incompetence of the same leaders the author is constantly praising. Yet the author doesn't pursue any line of inquiry on this uniform deficiency at all, while continuing to exhort the splendid tactical and strategic skills of the US army.

What did strike me, sadly, was that so many men died attacking minor outposts or targets which most likely could have been more economically ignored until hunger drove the German soldiers to surrender. Or, just throw huge amounts of weaponry and munitions at them I guess, which was what ultimately occurred.

I did gain respect for the common soldier and admire the incredible courage, will to endure, determination, and camaraderie that really held the army together in the face of considerable incompetence at high levels.

The reader had a very pleasant voice which got me through the 16 hours despite growing impatience with the platitudes, contradictions and generalizations.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Closing With The Enemy.

An OK Book. I didn't find it that interesting cause I have listened to so many WW ll Books it would have to be something I haven't really heard to much about. I still would recommend this book.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!