Another kick-ass WW2 book I've just started: http://www.amazon.com/Steel-Inferno-Michael-Reynolds/dp/0440225965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433043835&sr=8-1&keywords=Michael Reynolds Steel Inferno The author is a British military veteran who is shockingly objective as a historian. When you discuss the WW2 western front with many patriotarded British doofuses, they are under this strange illusion that their troops were roughly equivalent to Germany's in tactics, training, competence, morale, grit, and leadership. This book easily blows such a queer notion into 6,000,000 pieces. He's not easy on the American or Canadian armies either, but often American historians and military veterans are a little more realistic in their assessment of German capability at the time. Perhaps this is so with the Americans because they can think "well, the Germans respected General Patton at least." The typical British view can only be described as one engendered by ressentiment and fortified by fear along with feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. You'd think that I'd be talking about peckers here and--well, I suppose I cannot dismiss that possibility either, they are WASPjuden, after all. All cruel anti-Brit humor aside, it's a great and refreshing read. Amazon apparently has copies for as low as a penny. Grab one! One other significant detail I should mention about the Reynolds book. This book would be a welcome addition to the WW2 War Nerd library because of the objectivity alluded to before. Many of the Allied ground force weaknesses analyzed by him are either intentionally omitted or glossed over by the typically biased Anglo-American historian. Many of us could perhaps intuit an approximation of these weaknesses by reading in-between the lines of other works and also through outcome-determinative considerations. It's refreshing, however, to see an in-depth explanation of the differences between the composition, tactical competence, and leadership of the Allied & German ground forces with explicit and unflinching comparisons. Unusual, but welcome, and such objectivity (and I do mean objectivity - the author is not a David Irving type by any means) provides this book with a refreshing distinctiveness. You won't regret checking it out. His analysis does make me wonder about one thing, though: what if Patton did get 'his way,' and the Allied forces decided to 'keep going' to clash against the Soviets? Like many other patriotarded Americans I'm sure, I originally suspected that Team America could have whooped commie ass in such a scenario. The reality seems to be otherwise - unless the Allies kept the SS and Wehrmacht intact - as the Russian ground forces would have undoubtedly whooped a lot of western Yankee Judea ass. Perhaps the savvy Reptilluminati Allied leadership was correct in letting the frisky Patton perish of "natural" causes. The Brits were also smart to hesitate in disarming many of the German ground troops who surrendered to them as a security measure 'just in case' Stalin opted to 'keep going' himself. I suppose that while I'm at it I'll give a quick explanation for why I'm posting these. I own a pretty sizable WW2 library and haven't been able to read all of the books. This sort of thing happens when you naively obtain a membership in a Military History book club (don't do it! You'll regret it). Anyway, I've put off reading into many of them for far too long. I will not review and/or describe every one, but will instead leave that distinction for the great choices. Perhaps later I will provide honorable mentions to the other titles that aren't as l33t.