Band of Brigands

[delta]

I enjoyed it, true enough, but found little about the first men in tanks

[Bellflower]

While doing some other research recently I discovered that my grandfather was a Tank Tester ! Looks like I'm off down another path now...............

[Steven Broomfield]

Currently reading it on my commute home (got through quite a bit last night when the train broke down....75 minutes extra reading time).

It's very 'journalese', and some of the statements are a bit sweeping, but it rattles along nicely, which befits a book written by a journalist.

However, I've noticed a few interesting typos, which might make me worry about other stuff. A small point, but not a difficult one to get right: on page 103 he refers toRHK Butler arriving from France with "two front-line infantry corps commanders" - and names two Brigadier Generals. Now I know that's picky, but I wonder how many other sloppy minor errors creep in when a book is poorly proof-read? And how many sloppy minor errors are acceptable?

But I am enjoying it, none the less.

[Bellflower]

Got the last copy in our local Tesco today, £3.86........

[Steven Broomfield]

OK, for once I'm going to disagree with everyone.

I've just given up on it. Sorry, but I was half way through and I actually found myself being irritated by it. Probably four reasons:

1. Written in brief chapters, a chapter occupies (in some cases) as few as three or four pages. Not necessarily a huge problem, but for me it just kept breaking everythign up.

2. Descriptive is OK, but up to a point, Lord Copper: for example, page 147: "The day before the C-in-C's reply, 26 July, a bearded figure arrived...by special train, under the cover of a 'Russian general. It was King George V" Yes, it's a small point, but repeated too often, this type of journalese gets a bit wearing.

3. Assumption: also on page 147, the author comments on the King's visit, and surmises: "It might seem likely that the two men (Brough and Swinton) used the opportunity to lobby (the King) discreetly about the inadvisability of 'driblets'" Indeed, they might, but as the author then states that "If they did so, the King did not confide it to his diary", we could assume they might have discussed the weather, the Kaiser's predilection for cross-dressing, or the racing results. We don't know, and no-one told us. Again, as a one-off, no problem, but too often.

4. Unattributed references: on page 150, in referring to Haig, the author comments that "Haig had declaired dispassionately enough that he had 'sacked over a hundred brigadiers'". Well, he might, but turn to the end notes and there is no reference for this comment. Haig may well have said it - I don't know - but if he did, it should be referenced.

As I said, I'm disagreeing with everyone here, but I found the book utterly put-downable, I'm afraid, so I just did. Maybe I'm being choosy, but somehow I'd expected a different book.

[squirrel]

Whilst not entirely agreeing with all of your points Mr B I do agree with 3 and 4.

The personal diaries/letters from the tank crews are worth reading though.

I didn't have a problem with reading the book through but I won't be rushing to pick it up again.

[Martin Bennitt]

I enjoyed it on the whole, finding it smooth reading and with no obvious howlers to my limited knowledge. I could even read it again with the benefit of all the useful contributions in this thread. I had no real probs with the journalistic style either, but then I suppose I wouldn't, being of that noble profession.

and I love books with short chapters, or else with clear divisions within chapters: you can pick it up and read a chapter or section, persuading yourself that you're only taking a little time off from things you should really be doing instead.

I'm sure I've read that Haig comment about sacking 100 brigadiers somewhere else: on this forum?

cheers Martin B

[armourersergeant]

OK, for once I'm going to disagree with everyone.

I've just given up on it. Sorry, but I was half way through and I actually found myself being irritated by it. Probably four reasons:

1. Written in brief chapters, a chapter occupies (in some cases) as few as three or four pages. Not necessarily a huge problem, but for me it just kept breaking everythign up.

2. Descriptive is OK, but up to a point, Lord Copper: for example, page 147: "The day before the C-in-C's reply, 26 July, a bearded figure arrived...by special train, under the cover of a 'Russian general. It was King George V" Yes, it's a small point, but repeated too often, this type of journalese gets a bit wearing.

3. Assumption: also on page 147, the author comments on the King's visit, and surmises: "It might seem likely that the two men (Brough and Swinton) used the opportunity to lobby (the King) discreetly about the inadvisability of 'driblets'" Indeed, they might, but as the author then states that "If they did so, the King did not confide it to his diary", we could assume they might have discussed the weather, the Kaiser's predilection for cross-dressing, or the racing results. We don't know, and no-one told us. Again, as a one-off, no problem, but too often.

4. Unattributed references: on page 150, in referring to Haig, the author comments that "Haig had declaired dispassionately enough that he had 'sacked over a hundred brigadiers'". Well, he might, but turn to the end notes and there is no reference for this comment. Haig may well have said it - I don't know - but if he did, it should be referenced.

As I said, I'm disagreeing with everyone here, but I found the book utterly put-downable, I'm afraid, so I just did. Maybe I'm being choosy, but somehow I'd expected a different book.

Firstly- that is not the first time you have been in disagreement with everyone! Nor will it be the last.

1) I love small chapters it helps me read more- I just want to get to the next few pages etc.

2) The author is a journalists what do ya expect!

3) I doubt they discussed the Kaiser's predilection for cross-dressing. It would be easy to surmise that it would be unseemly to do so.

4) I expected/ expect (slow reader still going at it) as it was a journalist to see poor referencing- I happen to think it is referenced fairly well.

What did you expect, Little Dorrit?

Ps

I understand that a new series of Grumpy old men is in the offing!

[Steven Broomfield]

What did you expect, Little Dorrit?

I understand that a new series of Grumpy old men is in the offing!

Dickens started as a journalist

Where do I sign up?

[Martin Bennitt]

What did you expect, Little Dorrit?

Steven clearly had Great Expectations but ended up with Hard Times

cheers Martin B

[Steven Broomfield]

It's this here Bleak House I live in.

[armourersergeant]

Dickens started as a journalist

Where do I sign up?

I think I have a spare enrolment form in my desk draw.

Seriously Broomers give it a further go and see what you make of it at the end. I can say it has not been the easiest book to read of late but something tells me to finish it. However there have been many books I feel a need to finish and then on completion I get a differrent book to the one I was reading. Does that make sense?

Regards from one grumpy old man to another- though my knees are better than yours!

Arm

[Steven Broomfield]

though my knees are better than yours!

Arm

Now I know you're having a laugh.

I might have a go at it over Christmas then.

[JPAE]

Half way through this book and have enjoyed the experience so far, and laughed out loud a couple of times at least with the naive preparations and plans. However, the seriousness of the first battle use in 1916 is now being analysed, as well as the re-shuffle of command.

I should finish the book mid-week, and will report any highs or lows. My own naivety allows me an uncomplicated read, so I am tending to take it all as gospel.

Phil.

[JPAE]

Completed the book this afternoon and found the whole experience rewarding. Not being an expert on anything, you know, Jack-of-all-trades, it informs the newcomer of the history and development to 1919. The 'brigands' stories are gleaned from a good variety of sources, which are detailed at the back. The failures on the battlefield prove that leadership and planning were haphazard at best, the men undoubtedly brave, and the opposition, especially artillery, still formidable. I had no idea that Amiens resulted in so great an attrition, when it is promoted as such a success.

In the ante-penultimate line the 'Antelope Hotel' Dorchester gets a mention. Stayed there with Annette, in the Judge jeffries room, on a 'Hardy' holiday in '79. Funny how histories get intertwined.

Phil.

[Stebie9173]

Just picked up "Beyond the Green Fields" by Richard Pullen, and it has 25 (small format) pages of memoirs of 200585 Harry Emans.

Also included:

78907 Valentine Field

91686 William Francis MM

Lt Jack Moss

40074 Ernest Sneath DCM

2/Lt George Edward Waddington (ex-490930 13th Londons)

Steve.

[The Scorer]

I remember seeing this when it came out first (but as long ago as 2007? my word!) and thinking that it would be interesting and that i should read it. Well, as they say "everything comes to those who wait", and I've just finished reading the paperback version!

I thought that it was excellent, to be honest. I can appreciate why some of the comments earlier in this topic were made all those years ago but, as someone who didn't know much about the original development of the tank, I found the story fascinating. I did find it quite slow at one stage, but I'm glad that I persisted with it as there was so much more to the story as I went along.

Even though it's now seven years old, I'd recommend it to anyone!