Weapons of the Falklands Conflict

 This is Bryan Perrett's book on the weapons systems deployed by both sides in the Falklands War. It was written just after the conflict in 1982, and I picked it up in my local Oxfam bookshop. Not because I don't have a mountain of books on the subject, having written my own book on HMS Ambuscade, but because I was interested in comparing his initial reactions to later studies that have the benefit of data released since the conflict.

After a brief introduction to the conflict, the author divides the weapon systems into three dimensions: naval, air (including helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft), and land. He begins each section with a list of the equipment used, followed by a section on the action.

The sinking of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone was something of a cause célèbre at the time. Whatever the moral and legal issues, he makes a valid point that, although the Belgrano was an old ship, it had Exocet missiles that could have reached the task force. The sinking also drew the Argentine Navy's attention to the presence of at least one Royal Navy hunter-killer submarine. This resulted in the Argentine Navy remaining in port for the remainder of the conflict. 

His comments on the design of Royal Navy frigates with aluminium upper works are interesting, as HMS Ambuscade was one of those. Aluminium has a lower melting point than steel, but a direct hit from a missile would destroy steel as well. The real lessons centred on electronic warfare (in the absence of AWACS) and the merits of various anti-missile systems. The Gannet could not fly off the smaller carriers. This was the first three-dimensional missile war in naval history, and many lessons have been learned since.

While helicopters were not a new weapon system in 1982, they were crucial to the naval and land battles. One of the roles of the naval Lynx helicopter was to act as a missile decoy. This involved the hair-raising manoeuvre of drawing the missile away from the ship and climbing sharply at the last second. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor and its heavy Chinook helicopters was a big setback, as they could carry 44 infantrymen in one lift.  

In the air battle, the Argentine aircraft were operating at the limit of their operational radius. This meant limited time over the islands. Perrett draws an interesting analogy with the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. The Harrier performed exceptionally well in a role for which it was not originally designed. The Argentine Air Force concentrated on the two carriers, while Perrett argues they would have been better concentrating on the landing ships. He might be right, but we now know more about the problems they had with bomb fuses.

Overall, this is an excellent little book, which hasn't dated as much as I expected. I had the benefit of later research, interviews with sailors who were there, and access to the Ministry of Defence files.

The Story of Russia

 I am generally attracted to niche history, specific periods or events. However, I picked up this 'big history' book by Orlando Figes on my travels. My current project involves a significant amount of Russian sources, so I thought it would be a good idea to step back and take a broader view. 

This book has been described as a '300-page breeze through Russian history', so there are compromises. Russia is a big country with a big history. And it is a contested history, certainly over the foundation myths. Let's be clear, the author won't be on Vladimir Putin's Christmas card list (if he has one) because he challenges the Kremlin's version. As he says, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine over Volodymyr/Vladminir as the founder of Russia "is not a genuine historical dispute, but two incompatible foundation myths". The Kievan Rus myth was developed for nationalist purposes, and it is not the first time in Russia's history. 

This is not just a narrative history. The themes are built around some key questions. Why is Russia so big? How was it able to expand and incorporate so many nationalities? And why did it develop as an autocratic state? 

The early Russ probably developed better relations with the Khazar tribes than is generally assumed, initially as vassals. Trading relations with the steppe tribes were important, but it was military power that enabled the Rus to emerge as the Khazar state declined. That expansion and independence were put on hold when the Mongols appeared. While Alexander Nevsky was defeating the Swedes and the Teutonic Knights, he also collaborated with the Mongols in suppressing revolts. That history is a challenge for the chroniclers after he was made a saint. The Mongol and Tatar legacy tends to be downplayed in Russian history, but it is evident in the language, family names, and places. 

The current Russian regime claims that it was never a colonial power. The chapter on Ivan the Terrible's genocidal colonial expansion into Siberia (and Alaska) contradicts this, and Catherine's expansion into the Pontic Steppe, Crimea, and the Caucasus also debunks the myth. None of these lands is ethnically Russian; they were colonised. Russian Tsars, from Peter the Great, saw themselves as a European state, and colonised the indigenous peoples in the same way as others.

When we reach the 19th century, the question of governance comes to the forefront. There were attempts to develop liberal institutions and representative local government. Alexander had liberal sympathies, but Napoleon's invasion put a halt to that. The Decemberist Revolt of 1825 failed, and Nicholas adopted repression as part of his fear of further revolution. The Third Department, a precursor to the KGB and FSB, was established during this period. The revolutions of 1848 confirmed his worst fears, prompting him to intervene in Poland and Hungary. The humiliation of the Crimean War was a further retrenchment in internal reform.

The big chance came in the 1860s, with at least basic education, some liberal institutions, the abolition of serfdom, and a partial form of local democracy. However, the Tsar's assassination in 1881 brought Alexander III to the throne, and all the usual vested interests persuaded him to reverse the reforms. It was downhill from there as he restored the autocratic principle, which inevitably led to revolution, civil war, and eventually the likes of Stalin. Putin is simply the latest iteration of that autocracy. As Figues puts it, 'Twice in the Twentieth century, in 1917 and 1991, the autocratic state has broken down, only to be reborn in a different form." He spends the last chapter exploring why that might be, but in essence, the answer is history. The Ukrainian war shows how dangerous historical myths can be when used by dictators to reinvent their country's past. 

If you want to understand the current state of Russia and its key turning points in history, I recommend this book. Fascinating and very readable.

Some of my Russ cavalry in 28mm

Unicorn Rampant

 The latest in my Nigel Tranter project covers similar ground as the previous few books, the reign of James I and VI. I am reading them broadly chronologically, but Tranter didn't write them that way.

This time, the story is told through the eyes of John Stewart of Methven, the illegitimate son of the Duke of Lennox, and Mary Gray.  He is unwillingly drawn into the English court and James' fundraising efforts. This primarily relates to monopolies, a highly profitable royal grant to companies that were given a monopoly of particular trades. In this case, he identifies a gap in the paper trade and expands Scottish production to meet the demand. He is appointed Keeper of Dumbarton Castle and discovers how the corrupt world of royal financing works in the 17th century. There is also a long-running love interest.

This is the portrait of the Duke of Lennox from my recent trip to the National Portrait Gallery. One of my favourites. 

If this doesn't appear to make a riveting historical novel, you would be right. The story is told well, but it is not exactly a riveting plot. These novels are my bedtime reading, and I have been sleeping very well recently!

 

The Shetland Bus

My library pick this month was David Howarth's story of the secret wartime missions across the North Sea from Shetland to Norway, known as the Shetland Bus.

The Shetland Bus was a clandestine operation during World War II, involving a secret maritime link between Shetland, Scotland and occupied Norway. The operation was named after the fishing boats that ferried agents, refugees, weapons, and supplies across the North Sea.

This was a British Special Operations Executive (SOE) mission, later carried out by the Norwegian Navy, starting in 1941. The base was initially located in Lunna, but was later relocated to Scalloway to enhance security. There is a museum and memorial there today. The Shetland Bus was vital in smuggling weapons and supplies into Norway to support resistance activities, infiltrating agents and helping Norwegian refugees and resistance members escape to Britain.

They initially used Norwegian fishing boats crewed by civilian volunteers, many of whom were Norwegian fishermen. These boats made long, dangerous crossings, often in winter, and were frequently hunted by German patrols. Later, faster and more secure submarine chasers (American-built and armed) were used. Several were lost, and crews had to merge with the resistance or make the long trek to neutral Sweden.

David Howarth was an RNVR officer and second-in-command of the base when it was established. He wrote the book in 1951, but it has been reprinted many times since. He tells the story in detail, not sparing many of the challenges they faced, internal and external. British officers knew too much about the SOE operations in Norway and were therefore not allowed to go on missions. The Germans would generally, but not always, execute Norwegian crew caught by them. The crews elected their own skippers, not something the Royal Navy would have approved of! 

Air attack was a constant threat, and the need to maintain radio silence meant that information about a mission's progress could not be relayed back to the base. They just had to wait and see if the boat returned. Coastal Command helped with patrols by Sunderland and Catalina aircraft based at Sullum Voe, today the main oil terminal. The operations also included mine laying, using a special hatch in the hull of a fishing boat.

The book caught my eye because, to commemorate VE Day, six of the historic ships that formed part of the Shetland Bus convoys set sail again from Bergen in Norway, replicating the journey back to Shetland. I vaguely remember the old museum as I used to travel to Shetland for work in the 1990s. The new museum, which opened in 2012, looks excellent. On my list for a return visit.

A typical Norwegian fishing boat.

Poetic Justice

 The latest in my Nigel Tranter project remains in the period of James VI and I. This time, the story is told through the rise of Sir William Alexander of Menstrie.

Alexander came to James' attention as a poet. If you are thinking this doesn't look like a promising storyline, you would be right. The first part of the book covers similar ground to previous books and is quite slow going.

In fairness, it picks up when it starts to cover some significant new elements of James' reign, including the publication of the King James Bible and the early plantations in Ulster. Yes, we have James to blame for the Troubles. Alexander is later tasked with developing British colonies in Canada, specifically Nova Scotia. His baronets provided the Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia and the Flag of Nova Scotia, which are still in use today. An attempt to create a colony in what is today Long Island was something of an overreach.

There is no doubt that Alexander had a remarkable rise to power, from a minor laird to being created 1st Earl of Stirling. He struggled to make this pay for himself personally, despite numerous opportunities to reap a profit. He was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland in 1626 by Charles I, whom he had helped tutor as a child. The weaknesses in the theory of the Divine Right of Kings were obviously not on the curriculum!

The young Charles I. National Portrait Gallery

Alexander was one of the most highly regarded Scottish poets in early seventeenth-century Scotland and England. If seventeenth-century poetry is your thing, this book may be of interest. For me, I struggled.

The Goths AD 200-700

 This is a new Osprey Elite series book by Raffaele D'Amato on the Goths. Very welcome, as there are not many readable histories of these people who caused the Romans so much trouble. Simon MacDowall has written a couple and contributed some excellent articles for the Society of Ancients journal, Slingshot. Michael Kulikowski's "Rome's Gothic Wars" is also very readable.

The origins of the Goths have been the subject of many myths, but a location around the Baltic Sea seems likely. They moved south and, during the era of mass migrations (c. 300–700 AD), initially raided Roman territory, then provided Roman armies with mercenary contingents, and later consolidated the relationship through treaties of alliance. Having settled near modern eastern Germany, they were overwhelmed by the Huns in the 4th century.  The Romans allowed them to settle south of the Danube, but then broke the treaty, which led to the famous Gothic victory at Adrianople in AD 378. Then, subsequent wars in Asia Minor, the Balkans, and Italy led to Alaric’s Visigoths looting Rome itself in AD 410. They established kingdoms in France, Spain, and Italy.

The mid-6th century Roman historian Jordanes draws a distinction between the barbarian peoples and the Goths. He argues that they were the most advanced of these, able to successfully combine their own traditions with those of the Romans. His exemplar was Theodoric the Great, an Ostrogoth who successfully adapted to Roman culture and rose to become a king of both the Goths and the Romans.

The author provides a fairly lengthy timeline of events, followed by a historical summary. This includes the different stages of their development based on the primary sources and archaeology. I wasn't familiar with their history in the Crimea, which has its own fabulous colour plate. Very tempting!

The military organisation of the Goths was based on the tribes in the early period. More formal structures developed as the Ostrogoths and Visigoths established their own kingdoms. Every male was a potential warrior, and the Gothic forces were structured similarly to the Roman ones, comprising heavy cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry, and archers. The formidable spear-armed heavy cavalry, called militondas, was formed around a core of Gothic aristocrats and their retinues. However, infantry still made up the most significant element.

The equipment was a mixture of Germanic and Roman. One of the distinctive types was the Spangenhelm, a metallic helmet with a framed and segmented construction, featuring attached cheekpieces and sometimes a fitting for a crest. Armour was reserved for leaders and their elite followers, and even among these, it seems to have been rare in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Weapons included axes, spears, swords and javelins. Unlike the Huns and the Romans, the Goths did not have skilled mounted archers, and their bowmen usually went into battle on foot.

As you would expect, there are illustrations, photographs and lovely colour plates. An excellent introduction to arguably the most successful of the 'barbarian' invaders of Rome.

I have a 15mm Gothic army. One of my favourites as it is simple to use. A decent infantry base, and then let loose the charging cavalry!

Gallipoli: Leading the Immortals

 I was in Leeds today attending the launch conference for an English translation of Hüseyin Avni Bey's story of the Ottoman 57th Regiment at Gallipoli. It is a beautifully produced hardback book, featuring numerous colour illustrations and maps.

The theme of the conference presentations reflected the book, This is a study of the other side of the hill. Most Gallipoli books focus on the failures of the British and Anzac commanders, and there were many. They tend to downplay the outstanding performance of the Ottoman troops. I was made aware of this through an excellent paper written by Ed Erickson in 2001, Strength against Weakness: Ottoman Military Effectiveness at Gallipoli 1915 (Journal of Military History, https://doi.org/10.2307/2677626). He highlighted that the Ottoman divisions on Gallipoli were among the best available, and they had well-fortified positions. They were also well led, and not just by Mustafa Kemal. The III Corps commander, Esat Pasha, was also outstanding. 

At the conference, Paul Knight covered the 127th Manchester Brigade at Krithai. Coincidentally, I had walked the area of their initial camp in Rochdale the evening before. Their attack on the Turkish positions was successful, although they had to withdraw because the attacks on both flanks failed. I had thought the British 29th Division on the left of their attack was one of the better British divisions at Gallipoli. However, while the battalions were regulars, they were scraped together from across the Empire, and the attached artillery were territorials. Crucially, they never trained together. Paul did highlight the detailed orders and the effective tactic of leaving a ten-minute gap after the first shelling to encourage the Turks to emerge from their dugouts, while a second barrage caught them. There were armoured cars at Helles in case of a breakout.

Peter Hart covered the Anzac landings, and it was fortunate that no Australians were in the audience! He argued that there was no prospect of success and that the lead brigade commander dug in on the second ridge too soon. Even if they had taken the third ridge, the Ottomans would still hold the high ground. There was an interesting discussion on Ottoman tactics. Contrary to some of the myths, the Anzacs faced very light opposition when they landed. Just a covering force; a trip wire to warn the Ottomans as to where to deploy their reserves. 

Two of the speakers argued that the Ottomans should have deployed closer to the landing beaches. I am not convinced. The Ottoman III Corps would have been very stretched if they did that, leaving insufficient reserves to hold the crucial high ground. A study of the fighting at Gallipoli during the Balkan Wars is essential here, as Erickson highlights. John Wilson finished the conference talking about the Ottoman defences and the role of Avni Bey's 57th Regiment.

I am looking forward to reading this book, and it was an interesting conference. I learned several new details about the campaign.

When in Leeds, it would be rude not to pop into the Royal Armouries.

Pavia

Mughal War Elephant

Back to God's own county, Lancashire, this evening, and my first cricket of the season tomorrow at Old Trafford - weather permitting!