Difficulties in studying WWII

Hi there,

I've only recently become interested in WWII and have purchased and started reading a fe books on the subject.

My main problem is that they all have a lot of assumed knowledge on the subject that I'm missing.

When it comes to terminology, slang, even ranks and organisation of the armies and forces as whole is knowledge that I never gained (I still haven't worked out what the 82d is, I assume its shorthand for 82nd Division, but will keep searching).

My question is whether there's a book or a good place that collects all this information so I can read through it and make any future books I read not require a google search every 3 pages.

Thanks in Advance
Drew

 

I'm afraid there is no easy way around this...There are lots of general histories...but the research is inevitable...Its only really research if your not enjoying reading, collecting, attending, listening and watching...Its part of my and most on here's life...You cannot get away from that...If you need to find out because of a project or paper then specifics are easy to find...If you wish to understand the war, its personalities and its meanderings...then there is no way round...the research...But research for your own benefit. That makes it a life long love...if love is the correct word for something so violent, so saddening but you'll then get an entry into mans inhumanity to man and above all his/her own humanity and courage.

 

Welcome to the forum!

When I was about 13 I tried to read John Toland's Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire and found my self totally overwhelmed by the content. Had to set it aside for a few years until I was ready to tackle it. While I do not have a specific book to offer you could try to find a single volume book on either the full war or some part of it.

Eagle against the Sun is a good single book on the Pacific War. Churchill's multi-volume history of WWII is also worth consideration, while not always accurate and England centric, he was a gifted writer and does not dwell on the nuts and bolts. Often smaller books on specific battles are not too deep offering a general overview of certain battles.

Feel free to use our search engine to find answers to any question you might have and if you do not find a specific answer then start a new thread that asks your question, there is almost always somebody ready to offer an answer or opinion (might even be correct!).

The "82nd" refers to the U.S. 82nd Airborne Infantry Division (nicknamed "All-American" division) was a famous and well respected American combat formation.

I hope you will continue your interest in WWII.

Good luck!

 

Research was probably the wrong word. My interest was sparked by being introduced to the Flames of War war game and has sort of steamrolled. My family has connections to both the Dutch military and the Germans in WWII, so learning about the sort of things they went through. I'm not sure what sort of roles they played and there's no one alive in my family who can really tell me more so I can't find anything specific about their actual experiences but a general overview of the war is helping.

I'm building a 21. Panzerdivision force in flames (Normandy Based) so I picked up Hans von Luck's Panzer Commander.

But first I'm reading through Band of Brothers.

Also on my shelf waiting is

A World at Arms - Gerhard L. Weinberg
Grenadier - Kurt Meyer
Achtung Panzer - Heinz Guderian
21st Panzer Division - Chris Ellis
Wages of Destruction - Adam Tooze
The Road to Stalingrad - John Erickson
Stalingrad - Antony Beever
Panzer Battles - F.W. Von Mellentin
A Bridge to Far - Cornelius Ryan

Even just reading through Band of Brothers is frustrating, not because the text is too difficult, but that I have to stop reading every few minutes to look up what a potato masher is, is a lieutenant a higher rank than a corporal, was does v-e day stand for (Being Australian a lot of this history was not taught to us in school, our history lessons focused mainly on Australia's involvement in wwi).

I really need to learn the ranks in different armies, organisations of different armies (platoons, brigades, divisions, etc.). I guess it's all knowledge I'll gain over time and the more I read the less ill have to stop reading mid book.

 

Hi! I think you could begin reading a global history of the war, better if in a single volume. For Example The second world war by Martin Gilbert, The second world war by John Keegan, A world at arms by Gehrard Weinberg or the old History of the second world war by Basil Liddell Hart. There are many many books like these. To understand better the history of this great conflict you should read also books that explain the origin of the war, for example The origins of the second world war by Richard Overy...

 

It gets worse. Once you get past all the organization and rank structure you'll find contradictory 'facts' on every battle. The "fog of war" is very real. Not only do opponents view an action very differently, but even men in the same units have very different views on what actually happened.

 

For these 'basics', the wikipedia pages are pretty good, and are easily supplemented by some of the first google search results. Hopefully you'll find some of the links below useful:

Ranks:
Comparison of ranks in the German, British and US Armies (lowest rank at the top, highest rank at the bottom): http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/military/ranks.html
This doesn't cover the general ranks, so this is useful. It includes all officer ranks, and is quite detailed (highest rank at the top, lowest rank at the bottom): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_military_ranks_of_World_War_II
US Army Enlisted Ranks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_enlisted_rank_insignia_of_World_War_II
A pretty good rundown of different US ranks and the duties that each entailed: http://www.fatherswar.com/8thinfdiv/WW2/ww2_8thgeneralinfo/general%20info/WW2%20Rank.html

Once you master the 'land ranks', you can move onto the more complicated naval ranks. I admit that I don't completely know these myself. I know the basics, which is usually enough:
US Navy: http://www.valoratsea.com/rate.htm
Royal Navy (British): http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aaRN-PayTables00Ranks-Badges.htm

WW2 Slang and Terminology:
Here's a decent, relatively concise list of 'slang': http://www.oocities.org/faskew/WW2/Glossary/WW2-SoldierSlang.htm (Note: there's a mistake here. 'burp gun' usually refers to the German MP40, NOT the US M3. The term originated in the late 1930s to refer to a submachine gun with a high rate of fire, but is usually associated with the MP40 (espeically in memoirs).)
Here's a more detailed list: http://www.freewebs.com/erdevision/slang.htm
And a e-book: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45619892/Soldier-Slang-of-WW2
Some WW2 terminology: http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/military/glossary.html

Military Units:
The table to the right summarizes basically all that you need to know about unit sizes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_hierarchy#Chain_of_command
A few observations that might help you:

• Squads and Platoons are typically numbered (typically ranging from 1 to 4 or so) (ex: '1st squad', '3rd platoon', etc)
• Companies are typically referred to by letters (ex: 'A Company', 'B Company', etc)
• Battalions are typically numbered ('1st batallion', etc), according to their parent unit. For example, you can have multiple '1st battalions' in a given division
• Regiments, Divisions, Corps and Armies are typically independently numbered and their designation has no connection to their parent unit (for example, you can only have 1 '1st Infantry Division' in your armed forces, or 1 '503rd Regiment')
• Typically authors (especially if writing in the first-person) will refer to divisions simply by their numerical designation. Hence '82nd' for '82nd Airborne Division'. They usually specify the type of other units (ex: in your Band of Brothers readings you may come across the term '506th PIR', meaning the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment)
• Referring to units without referencing their parent unit usually means that they have the same parent unit (ex: if the author says 'A Company supported B Company', this usually means that A and B companies are both part of the same battalion).

There may be some mistakes in there. Feel free to point them out. I typed this rather quickly without proofreading.

 

Well your book choice so far is a good start well made.

 

C Company wouldn't support D Company, but the other way around in just about every case.

Each Battalion is three rifle companies and one heavy weapons Company, with the fourth letter (D in this case) being the heavy weapons. Those heavy weapons (mortars, heavy machine guns) were divided up to support the rifle companies.

Because in this case, A, B, C, and D, are the first four letters, we know they are the First Battalion. The Second Battalion would be E, F, G and H, with H being the heavy weapons company.

3 Infantry Battalions to a regiment. 3 Infantry Regiments to a Division.

 

And then you get the British battalion formations...Take the Scottish Division...you think they are Scottish?

 

My mistake. I was trying to keep things general and typed the first two letters that came to mind without thinking.

 

I know. And I'm sure you are far more knowledgeable than I, on the subject. I was just trying to illustrate how confusing it can be even to people who are very familiar with this information. To take it a step further, there is a heavy weapons platoon within each company, that is not to be confused with the heavy weapons company. Then there are the anti-tank platoons with 57mm guns that are not be confused with the Tank Destroyer companies with 3 inch guns.

 

Don't be so quick to judge. You are pretty sharp when it comes to this topic!

 

Lou, your link is broken. Here is the repaired version: http://www.packrat-toyz.com/Reference/wwii_insignia_reference.htm

As urqh and Lou said, there is no substitute for your own research. That being said, doing your own research is part of the fun of learning history. While it can seem daunting at first, make sure you enjoy it -- don't try to 'force it' upon yourself. Things like this seem to have a snowball effect. When I was younger, I read rather in-depth books on WWII without fully knowing all the associated background information. Rather quickly (I used to read a lot) the 'big picture' began to form and everything began to click. Some of the members here have been studying the war for decades, and there's endless areas of study. As I said before, enjoy the process!

 

GP makes a great point, embrace the fact that today you have so many sources at your finger tips, you are far luckier than a lot of us greybeards.

 

MY advice FWIW is to start with more accessible authors ( or 'popular' to use another word ). In other words, don't try to run before you can walk.

I'm not being patronizing here, I'm going from my own experience. For instance, in your list, I'd probably make a start by reading Ryan's A Bridge Too Far and Beevor's Stalingrad. Both authors have made a lot of money by making their books very 'readable'. Erickson and Tooze, for example, are classic texts superbly researched. But I think we'd all agree that their writing style is very 'dry' and can be very off-putting to anyone starting out in the field.

As another example, many years ago the very first book I ever read about the Battle of the Bulge was John Toland's Battle ! - The Story Of The Bulge ; a best-seller in its time. I now have several shelves of specialist, Bulge-related books and also know that much detail in Toland has been questioned or even disproven by later researchers. But occasionally, I still return to Battle !..............

 

Thanks heaps for the advice all.

I've been continuing to look up everything I'm missing and thinking that even though it pulls me out if the book, that my knowledge is growing and the more I do it, the less I have to look up later.

The only thing I haven't found online is why Ambrose (In Band of Brothers) keeps wring 2nd Battalion as 2d Battalion (dropping the n), I'm sure ill work it out soon enough though.

Thanks again, and I've added a bunch of books suggested here to my library to read in the near future.

Cheers

 

Because the OP expressed an interest in 'Band of Brothers' I'll point out that US Parachute Infantry Regiments did not have heavy weapons companies so the 'lettering' of their rifle companies is different.


The use of 2d and 3d is US military writing style. Only really necessary if you want to convey a proper title. I like to use Guards Armour Division rather than Guards Armor Division even if I know the audience is American.