That bothered me a lot in The War That Came Early. This one is a bit better, though, since at least the grunts get told what's the overall picture and we even get told the dates so we know when everything is happening
The Hot War
- Thread starter Not Henry G.
- Start date
That bothered me a lot in The War That Came Early. This one is a bit better, though, since at least the grunts get told what's the overall picture and we even get told the dates so we know when everything is happening
I just finished "Bombs Away"
From the standpoint of an enjoyable story, I am really liking this series so far. I don't hate any of the characters (a nice change), all of the characters are people I can relate to (also a nice change), and the timeline makes sense and I am looking forward to more.
Although clearly MacArthur should have been sacked and relegated to the deepest depths of odium for losing not only X Corps but also the 8th Army.
The Chinese attacking in full strength a full month early (instead of the initial warning attacks in OTL) are the justification here for the loss of the overwhelming majority of UN forces north of the 38th Parallel. I am not sure from my reading of the Korean War (there is a wealth of material out there, read Hastings, SLA Marshall and Ridgeway for really good accounts, to name three) that the Communists could have destroyed both.
Although in OTL they rendered the entire 8th Army combat ineffective for months, while the X Corps saw the 1st Marine Division in need of serious refit and the 7th Division was combat ineffective after evacuation (only the 3rd Division was in decent shape). However, the Marines could easily have been trapped if the Communists had committed air power sooner, which was an option (stopping the airdrop of vital bridging equipment would do it)
My other criticism is whether or not the US would continue with an incremental nuclear strike policy after the initial tit for tat. But it does make a better story so I will accept it for now.
From the standpoint of an enjoyable story, I am really liking this series so far. I don't hate any of the characters (a nice change), all of the characters are people I can relate to (also a nice change), and the timeline makes sense and I am looking forward to more.
Although clearly MacArthur should have been sacked and relegated to the deepest depths of odium for losing not only X Corps but also the 8th Army.
The Chinese attacking in full strength a full month early (instead of the initial warning attacks in OTL) are the justification here for the loss of the overwhelming majority of UN forces north of the 38th Parallel. I am not sure from my reading of the Korean War (there is a wealth of material out there, read Hastings, SLA Marshall and Ridgeway for really good accounts, to name three) that the Communists could have destroyed both.
Although in OTL they rendered the entire 8th Army combat ineffective for months, while the X Corps saw the 1st Marine Division in need of serious refit and the 7th Division was combat ineffective after evacuation (only the 3rd Division was in decent shape). However, the Marines could easily have been trapped if the Communists had committed air power sooner, which was an option (stopping the airdrop of vital bridging equipment would do it)
My other criticism is whether or not the US would continue with an incremental nuclear strike policy after the initial tit for tat. But it does make a better story so I will accept it for now.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Got it out of the Library. IMO worth the 2 hours it took to read the thing, wouldn't have bought it, will get any sequels from library
It really seems that Turtledove did not do his research. Why are the B-29's still doing nuclear strike duty? The B-36 was in squadron service and specifically held back from Korea for nuclear strike duty.
Why has Truman not thrown everything to stop the Russians now rather than let things burn so slowly?
Likewise where are the soviets getting all those atom bombs? They should have run out long before the end of the book
Also the Suez is a sea level canal, a nuke on board a ship is just going to blast the channel deeper and wider, save for a small easily dredged ridge on the craters edge
It really seems that Turtledove did not do his research. Why are the B-29's still doing nuclear strike duty? The B-36 was in squadron service and specifically held back from Korea for nuclear strike duty.
Why has Truman not thrown everything to stop the Russians now rather than let things burn so slowly?
Likewise where are the soviets getting all those atom bombs? They should have run out long before the end of the book
Also the Suez is a sea level canal, a nuke on board a ship is just going to blast the channel deeper and wider, save for a small easily dredged ridge on the craters edge
regarding American nuclear strike aircraft
the B50 equips 5 bomb wings in the early 1950s, plus there are 2 wings of B36s, all other available strategic bombers are B29s as of late 1950 and early 1950 (when the story is set). 4 Wings of B29s were specifically sent to the Far East Air Force to be available as a strike force for tactical but also strategic missions.
Additional B36s are coming available but are not available yet. So the B29, supported by some B50s, is still the principal American nuclear capable bomber except for a relatively small number of B36s (which is probably what was used to hit targets deep in the Soviet Union)
Note that SIOP does not exist yet, and the first real warplan is Operation Dropshot, which was written in 1949, called for forces that did not exist in 1950, and in fact most would not be available (principally aviation forces) until the middle 1950s, and some (ground forces) never actually ever came into existence even as late as the end of the Cold War (about 3/4th as far as I can tell from my reading of Dropshot)
In other words, the arsenal of Democracy is pretty weak in terms of power in 1950-51, and is only just starting ramping up to Cold War Peak Strength (about 1959)
And the Soviets have nuked Seattle, which is where the B50, B47 and B52 were to come from
I do have some problems with the incremental attacks on Soviet targets, but I am not dismissive
read this sometime, it is fascinating as hell, and I hope Turtledove read it
http://www.alibris.com/Dropshot-the...ted-States-Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff/book/1824363
definitely a valid point about Suez ... I suppose destroying the cities of Suez and Port Said would severely disrupt traffic (for one thing, so much for all the harbor pilots) but certainly it wouldn't close the canal very long
As to the Soviet atomic bomb production... they haven't used all that many really, a few dozen at most. They got the bomb in 1949, so it seems reasonable that they could match US production of nuclear weapons during the 2 year period leading to World War III (we had a few dozen available by 1947 as well, could have been more but there was no particular rush at that time)
My biggest complaint is that MacArthur has not been recalled and reduced in rank and forced to retire for losing essentially an entire US field army in northern Korea. But that might be because I dislike MacArthur
I reckon the book could be called "An Argument For Honoring Harry S Truman With A National Holiday For Firing Douglas MacArthur."
The book was slightly faster paced than I expected, there weren't pages upon pages upon pages of turgid wholly irrelevant dialogue to keep the book from being a pamphlet (or one of B Munro's asb scenario thread posts
) and the presence of lots of colorful swearing from East Bloc troops kept me amused enough to not feel desperately horrified at the prospect of reading it all the way through.
The book was slightly faster paced than I expected, there weren't pages upon pages upon pages of turgid wholly irrelevant dialogue to keep the book from being a pamphlet (or one of B Munro's asb scenario thread posts
) and the presence of lots of colorful swearing from East Bloc troops kept me amused enough to not feel desperately horrified at the prospect of reading it all the way through.Ah yes: credit is due to Turtledove for minimalist approach to sex scenes and abstention from "nuke porn."
RamscoopRaider
Donor
The Soviets had a total of 25 bombs by the end of 1951. That is all and they were going full blast, considering they had 50 at the end of 1952. They used at least 22 nukes and the book has not reached the end of 1951 yet. The US had hundreds of them
A B-36 wing is 30 bombers, a B-36 can carry multiple nuclear weapons. A single wing could have theoretically done all the bomb delivery for both US and USSR. I can see B-29's used for the initial strikes against China but after that let the B-29's operate in the low risk enviornments. Unless of course the US is going to be hitting 100+ targets at the same time at which point the B-29 might be needed. As this is not happen, why risk air crews over contested airspace in obsolete planes, let the B-29's firebomb Korea and China or nuke China, leave Russia for the 50s and 36s
The Bomb missed Seattle by 10km or so, landed halfway between Seattle and Everett. Paine AFB might have been hit by the bomb, but that was an interceptor base. Couldn't find any bomber faculties near Seattle
Hell that's another thing the bomb missed Seattle, why is Turtledove treating it like the city is destroyed? This is a Fatmanski not an H-Bomb
Yeah, it was really refreshing to have something actually happen in of his books
Dropshot estimated loss rates of 10% or more n deep penetration strikes on the Soviet Union (of which there have been several), and factor in mechanical issues and operational losses, figure higher than that. Note that nearly the entire Soviet strike force has been eliminated aside from a handful of planes.
Everett WA is the home of the Boeing assembly plant and headquarters of Boeing aircraft, so that is a pretty serious blow. Note that everyone seems to be using ground bursts too, which nasty in terms of long term radiation issues.
The loss of Long Beach and downtown Los Angeles are also serious, although most of the aviation industry is in Burbank and Santa Monica (in the lightly damaged to undamaged zone)
But I do agree, the Soviets should be running out of readily available weapons, however they in OTL deploy tritium boosted weapons in late 1951 and there is no indication in the book that their production facilities (or US facilities either) have been hit
At this rate both sides are likely to run out of long range bombers before they run out of nukes as both sides have taken, in the book, hits to their principal aviation assembly lines for their principal bombers
Not sure where the British built the Lincoln (nuclear capable) or the V Bombers, but it does not appear that their aviation industry has suffered much. Which has interesting possibilities.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Okay the Bomb might have hit Everett, but they said it hit between the two, and sounded closer to Seattle, they called it the Seattle bomb after all, I think Everett and the Boeing Factory are fine too, Bomb should have landed at least 5 klicks out. Rads might close it down teporarily but it should get running within a year
The US launched less than 30 nuclear strike missions AFAIK, even at 25% losses they should still have a nuclear bomber arm
The B-36 was made in Texas and the line is still open at the time. Not sure if any parts were made in areas destroyed
Lateknight
Banned
Honestly this doesn't sound like it's worth reading, the Soviets always do so much better then they should in these sorts of books.
OK I just finished it. Here is my review.
HT has written some fun and genuinely good books and stories, and introduced me (and others) to AH. I'd love to meet the guy.
I haven't bought an HT book since the end of TL-191, so it's been seven years. I was intrigued about this book's premise, so I bought it to see if it was any good.
I finished the book, and it was enjoyable in its own way. But the truth is, I'm probably not going to buy another of his books unless the writing style is dramatically changed. The book is just badly written.
It was interesting to see how the chapter divisions happened every four or five pages, as opposed to 10-15 like I remember.
The book setup was definitely implausible, if the POD was the Korean War. As was mentioned earlier, the Soviets simply didn't have the bombs.
But here's why it bothers me so much: First, it uses way too many viewpoint characters. And half of them are boring--they don't really contribute much to the overall story. On top of that, the details of their lives are boring, too. One can argue that it adds flavor to the story or whatever, but there were probably at least three out of the eight or so viewpoint characters that should have been cut.
Second, because the book is presumably part of a series, he doesn't even bother to put any real dramatic tension into the action of the book--the book just ends. Can't he put in at least one big battle or extended chapter or something?
Third, and this is probably biggest for me, but the writing keeps going on and on about mundane details and immediate ruminations on what's going on or internal monologues. And the same ideas or thoughts are repeated ad nauseum. It's a literary tick that continuously annoys the reader but offers not much substance. This happens almost every paragraph. Anyone who has read the book or is familiar with Turtledove's style knows what I'm talking about--I don't need to give examples. I can't remember how bad it was in earlier books, but the amount in this book seemed absurd.
By the way, did anyone notice when one of the characters has an internal monologue where he recalls writing advice where one needs to SHOW the reader, not TELL the reader? Was Turtledove trolling the reader or something there and admitting that he tells far, far more than he shows? I am serious about that speculation. It just seemed conspicuous enough so that it seemed like an inside joke or something from the author. He has admitted in an interview that alternate history has, as he put it, an "As you know, Bob," problem. But in that case, one needs to WORK AT FIXING THE PROBLEM.
Turtledove really gets way too much of a pass by his editors, and his writing is bloated and lazy as a result. When you get permission to write books in sets of three or four (or multiple sets of three or four), there is not much motivation to change what you're doing. To be honest, I almost felt insulted as a reader, because I feel like he just doesn't even care or want to put much effort into these books. Sure, he probably gets several hundred thousand dollars for each book he writes, but they just feel so stale to me. He really needs to do something different--write a really good, long, standalone book that takes at least a year or two to write, and if it does really well, maybe write a sequel. I don't know. Then maybe I could buy the book. But just don't churn out crap any more.
Oh, cool! I remember about five years ago someone on this board mentioned this issue, and I was able to get it from my university library and post some of the things from it. It's somewhere in my post history...nice to see it posted on that blog, too.
HT has written some fun and genuinely good books and stories, and introduced me (and others) to AH. I'd love to meet the guy.
I haven't bought an HT book since the end of TL-191, so it's been seven years. I was intrigued about this book's premise, so I bought it to see if it was any good.
I finished the book, and it was enjoyable in its own way. But the truth is, I'm probably not going to buy another of his books unless the writing style is dramatically changed. The book is just badly written.
It was interesting to see how the chapter divisions happened every four or five pages, as opposed to 10-15 like I remember.
The book setup was definitely implausible, if the POD was the Korean War. As was mentioned earlier, the Soviets simply didn't have the bombs.
But here's why it bothers me so much: First, it uses way too many viewpoint characters. And half of them are boring--they don't really contribute much to the overall story. On top of that, the details of their lives are boring, too. One can argue that it adds flavor to the story or whatever, but there were probably at least three out of the eight or so viewpoint characters that should have been cut.
Second, because the book is presumably part of a series, he doesn't even bother to put any real dramatic tension into the action of the book--the book just ends. Can't he put in at least one big battle or extended chapter or something?
Third, and this is probably biggest for me, but the writing keeps going on and on about mundane details and immediate ruminations on what's going on or internal monologues. And the same ideas or thoughts are repeated ad nauseum. It's a literary tick that continuously annoys the reader but offers not much substance. This happens almost every paragraph. Anyone who has read the book or is familiar with Turtledove's style knows what I'm talking about--I don't need to give examples. I can't remember how bad it was in earlier books, but the amount in this book seemed absurd.
By the way, did anyone notice when one of the characters has an internal monologue where he recalls writing advice where one needs to SHOW the reader, not TELL the reader? Was Turtledove trolling the reader or something there and admitting that he tells far, far more than he shows? I am serious about that speculation. It just seemed conspicuous enough so that it seemed like an inside joke or something from the author. He has admitted in an interview that alternate history has, as he put it, an "As you know, Bob," problem. But in that case, one needs to WORK AT FIXING THE PROBLEM.
Turtledove really gets way too much of a pass by his editors, and his writing is bloated and lazy as a result. When you get permission to write books in sets of three or four (or multiple sets of three or four), there is not much motivation to change what you're doing. To be honest, I almost felt insulted as a reader, because I feel like he just doesn't even care or want to put much effort into these books. Sure, he probably gets several hundred thousand dollars for each book he writes, but they just feel so stale to me. He really needs to do something different--write a really good, long, standalone book that takes at least a year or two to write, and if it does really well, maybe write a sequel. I don't know. Then maybe I could buy the book. But just don't churn out crap any more.
Good points but look at this-a view of WW3 at the time presents a similar scenario- https://1951club.wordpress.com/tag/world-war-3/ http://io9.com/in-colliers-magazine-world-war-iii-already-happened-1636298511. Maybe we know where Turtledove got his idea
Oh, cool! I remember about five years ago someone on this board mentioned this issue, and I was able to get it from my university library and post some of the things from it. It's somewhere in my post history...nice to see it posted on that blog, too.
Leo Euler makes excellent points on his literary style ... something I have noticed in other series as well. It is a big problem with writers who know they have plenty of time to resolve their plots and characterizations when they can stretch it things out but they often do so needlessly to the harm of the story.
This book is clearly book 1 of at least three I would guess, and it shows.
I did like most of the characters this time, and I found most of their situations interesting. There are no real clear antagonists though, unless you consider nuclear war itself as the antagonist.
So there is that
This book is clearly book 1 of at least three I would guess, and it shows.
I did like most of the characters this time, and I found most of their situations interesting. There are no real clear antagonists though, unless you consider nuclear war itself as the antagonist.
So there is that
True, no Featherston, no Straha, not even Custer or any person versus person conflict going on. Even the non-coms are relatively nice to the troops. Truman blames himself for the decision, and the foreign leadership operates off-stage, referred to strictly in third-person by others.
The only thing resembling a dilemma is how on earth Truman is supposed to wrap the war up if he does get to the point of being able to attempt to do so... Does he just burn the entire Soviet Union along with China, or is there a point where the Red leadership says "no mas?" And aren't Stalin and Mao seeking to do the same, relying on America's apparent lack of enthusiasm for mass deaths of its own armed forces? So far even that isn't soil for an argument, Truman and those around him solemnly agree that they are screwed by the situation they put themselves into.
Should Truman have stopped after the USSR nuked Norwich et al? Call it "even Steven" and wrapped things up? Not bloody likely. Thank heavens he canned MacArthur irl, yeah?
