I found this book to be an invaluable assest and reference text. As a resident needing a thorough reference at home for this text will be a welcome addition to my library (and the first place I head to late at night). It systematically breaks down each chapter into clear, clinically important areas so you can easily find what you need.

"Air-Mech-Strike:..." is a thorough, and much needed, look at how to restructure our armed forces for the 21st century. Specifically, it recommends the creation of light, air-mobile forces to compliment our heavy (M1/M2) forces. The purpose of this force would be to fill the gap between our heavy forces, which pack a tremendous punch, but have limited deployability, and our light forces that are easily deployed but have limited striking power and maneuverability.

This book truly shines when the authors are discussing the creation of this force; they have clearly done their research, and repeatedly make strong cases for the right type of equipment to acquire (or modify). At the heart of their new force structure are modified M-113's (as a medium element) and modified German Wiesel's (as the light element). They delve into detail as to why these systems should be chosen: there is a tremendous experience with these chassis and they are proven systems, they are easily modified for a variety of missions and they are easily maintained. Most importantly, though, they are helicopter deployable/supportable. Thus, they would provide the Army with a potent, sustainable strike package that could be inserted to maximum effect in areas unexpected by the enemy.

The authors go on to discuss at great length the structure, organization, implementation and finances of such a force structure. I was particularly pleased that they found a role for the M8 AGS, a victim of ill thought out Clinton era budget cutting. Of particular interest was their detailed discussion of the ability to implement this force with off the shelf components and vehicles. For example, I was very impressed with, and intrigued by, their discussion of how to implement a hard-hitting recon/strike unit using primarily commercial (albeit modified) ATV's. Finally, their discussion of the deployment of WIG (Wing In Ground) transports is highly warranted and long overdue.

As the title of my review indicates, however, there were some serious issues with this work. Perhaps most glaring, for a discussion of a helicopter deployable force, very little discussion is given to the role of the AH-64 Apache, and there is absolutely no mention of the RAH-66 Comanche. Considering that these two platforms will be the backbone of the Army offensive air fleet for the foreseeable future, I find this oversight puzzling, to say the least. Along these same lines, at the same time that the authors are advocating smaller, more flexible units, they advocate the pooling of the bulk of Army Air at the Corp level without much in the way of explanation.

Finally, the actual physical layout of this book is appalling, almost embarrassing. I cannot imagine how a book so loaded with spelling, formatting, and grammatical errors could have made its way into publication. Moreover, the illustrations are frequently confusing and are often downright laughable (I almost choked when I saw a toy UH-60 used in an illustration). Of course, content is always paramount, but it is difficult to take a book seriously if the authors aren't even willing to take sufficient time to assure that their ideas are cogently put forward.

There is tremendous merit in the work, and anyone who is serious about understanding the direction our armed forces need to take in the post-Cold War world would do well to read it. As I mentioned though, it does have serious flaws. If I could make a suggestion to the authors, it would be this: pull this edition, get together with the best editor, illustrator and map-maker you can find and reassemble this work to make it worthy of Simpkin and Macgregor, two authors you obviously (and rightly) admire.

Attention readers!

Remember March 15, 2002 well!

This was the day the U.S. Army conducted its first helicopter-based Air-Mech-Strike combat assault in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda...just like described in the book. Co-author Major Charles Jarnot is in Aghanistan NOW and he emailed me the following description:

Air-Mech-Strike in Afghanistan!

The war in Afghanistan has seen several combat firsts for the U.S. Military, first use of an armed un-manned aerial vehicle and the first use of the B-1B Bombers in a close air support role to name just a few. Now in Operation Anaconda another first for the U.S. Army, the first employment of helo-based airmechanized forces by a U.S. field commander in combat, complements of the 3rd Battalion of the famed Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group.

On March 15, 2002, the Canadians attached to the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade 10th Mountain Division, used U.S. Army CH-47D Chinooks to air assault their armored tracked BV-206 airmechanized vehicles into the operation Anaconda fight.

Airmechanization is a relatively new maneuver warfare doctrine extensively developed by numerous European armies. First theorized in the 1930s by Soviet Field Marshall Tuchachevskiy, today the Russian, British and German armies have fielded airmechanized brigade and division sized units. The concept involves the vertical insertion of tracked combat vehicles via helicopter and fixed wing para-drops. The idea is to use aircraft to break friction with the ground and cross vast treks of terrain and obstacles to quickly gain positional advantage. Once inserted, the mechanized vehicles provide the vertically inserted force with tracked terrain mobility, protection against small-arms and shrapnel and significant increase in firepower via the heavier weapons carried on the vehicles vice foot mobile troops inserted by parachute or helicopter.

The technical challenge to airmechanization is how to build a tracked combat vehicle that has sufficient protection and weapon capacity yet light enough to transported by helicopter or parachute. Advances in information/reconnaissance technology, weapon lethality versus weight and the increases in aircraft
lift performance have all contributed to the boom in airmechanization. Today five other countries beside Russia, Britain and Germany, are in the process of fielding airmechanized brigades, including China. The most expensive part of this concept is the fielding of large numbers of heavy lift helicopters and short field cargo airplanes. The vehicles themselves are relatively inexpensive. In the U.S. Military, the critical air component is already in place with over 600 heavy lift CH-47D Chinook and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters and 500 plus C-130 Hercules aircraft in the inventory.

But what about the risk posed by ultra-light combat vehicles? Isnt massive armor needed to survive? Lightweight Airmechanized vehicles (AMVs), like those employed by the Canadians in Anaconda, might seem on the surface to be extremely vulnerable. But surviving on the battlefields of Afghanistan may demonstrate a shift in this traditional paradigm. For example, the greatest risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), but rather the millions of land mines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very light weight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light
ground pressure. This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine.

Wheeled combat vehicles on the other hand, are extremely vulnerable to land mines due to the high ground pressure characteristic of typical wheeled vehicles. The separate cabs of the BV-206 also lessens the potential casualty effects of RPGs by compartmentalizing the blast areas. The lightweight also means that it can approach the enemy from terrain deemed non-useable by heavier armor and thus lessens the chances of moving into a planned vehicular kill zone. These features combined with the lethality of high tech weapons like the Javelin anti-tank guided missile (50 pounds and 2,500 meters range) and light weight auto cannons and grenade launchers like the M-230 or ASP-30 30-mm and the Mark-19 40-mm make AMVs a deadly package for their size.

Airmechanization, a competitor for the Armys planned transformation based on the Striker wheeled armored vehicle? Intuitively all new ideas are intellectually competitive with older concepts and the same is true of the 3-Deminsional airmechanization idea versus the 2-Diminsional Striker program. But in practical application there is no conflict. As most professional Soldiers know, combat is a combined-arms affair where different weapons, platforms and the specialties of different organizations combine to have a collective greater effect than any one part. The Armys Striker transformation is slated for the light infantry divisions and some of the heavier formations. Airmechanization would be more applicable to the Armys Airborne and Air Assault units where the Striker is not scheduled for fielding. As the European armies who have fielded airmechanized formations will tell you. These agile forced-entry units are battlefield enablers to heavier forces and
not necessarily their future replacement.

Like the use of the armed predator UAV in Afghanistan, this first modest employment of airmechanized forces in Anaconda will undoubtedly generate heated debate on the utility of this new and controversial maneuver doctrine. This historical event may be the catalyst for the U.S. Army to convert its own airborne and air assault divisions along the European Airmechanized models or like the ill-fated Pentomic Divisions of the 1950s, be simply a flash in the pan. Still the question that this event will pose for the U.S. Army as whole is the continued validity of parachuting or helo-insertion of dismounted troops close to the enemys crucible of anti-aircraft fire, shoulder-fired missiles and RPGs. The American public and our enemies, should know that the U.S. Armys leadership in Afghanistan is not tied doggedly to any written doctrine. The first use of airmechanized forces in combat by an American commander demonstrates the mental agility and creative prowess of a unified effort that will "leave no stone unturned" in its effort
to defeat the Al Queda and Taliban, to include employing a Canadian airmechanized force!

Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison
Officer in Afghanistan

Yes. I am currently one of them. I understand your criticisms and your accolades. Therefore, not being one of the original authors, I can play "Devil's Acvocate" with both the reviews and the book.

For the Reviewers: Air Mech Strike is a book by individual authors that bring their long years of experience and study into the mix. There is some duplication and the layout does "hurt the eyes" somewhat. The emphasis on the names, while appropriate, does not add anything to the singular basic argument that 2D and 3D warfare need to compliment each other. While not everyone will be able to readily understand all of the new the concepts , the book is well documented with references to websites, studies, books, and articles. Finally, speaking to the Wing In Ground Effect vehicle points up the problem of strategic airlift. We cannot fight if we can't get there, no matter how light the force may be.

For the Book: The book takes up where the Howze Board, the 11th Air Assault, the 1st Cavalary and 101st Airborne Divisions, left off. Placing troops in the rear or on the flank of an attacking or withdrawing enemy force is the best way to divide the enemy's effort, make him fight two battles on two or more fronts at once, resulting in his piecemeal destruction. It is a follow on to the mission of air assault and air cavalary forces. The difference is that light equipment, beyond the vision of General Gavin's light arms, are also a part of the assault. M113s and the Germany Weasels can be flown across the FLOT to deliver both dragoon infantry and ground cavalry to rip up the attack or withdrawing enemy's C3, artillery, and logistical force. The book emphasizes this type of mission to compliment the 2D maneuver of heavy forces.

Airborne, Air Assault and Light Divisions should be the next units to be moved to the IBCT structure, whether that be an air mech strike capable IBCT or remain a 2D capable IBCT. The air mech strike concept, as theorized in the book, is capable of being carried in the C-130 while the other is not.

Air Mech Strike is lighter and can get there faster. With the limited air lift available, air mech strike gives the Army the ability to get the units there in C-130s and sling them on helicopters once on the battlefield. The book is very clean in this regard and both are required.

There are 60 illustrations, excellent paintings, with the accompanying text that inspired it. The colours are very well down, and each painting is brilliantly done in terms of publication. There are nine artists represented. These are:

Inger Edelfeldt: 7 paintings

Tony Galuidi: 2 paintings

Roger Garland: 10 paintings

Robert Goldsmith: 2 paintings

Michael Hague: 7 paintings

John Howe:10 paintings

Alan Lee: 10 paintings

Ted Nasmith: 10 paintings

Caro Emery Phenix: 2 paintings

My personal favorite is John Howe. He brings out a lot of dark imagery. I don't know why, but Hague's stuff just does not appeal to me. I have seen him do Lewis's Pilgrim's Regress, and some other stuff, and I just don't like his style (also saw his illustrations for WIZARD OF OX). His are of THE HOBBIT. Galuidi has almost a computer generated quality, and his work is especially intriguing, although there are only 2 of his paintings in this collection. Lee is good. All in all, this is a fair book, collecting the paintings of artisits brining about their own vision of Tolkien's classic saga. Over all, a four star book (bumped up one star because of Howe's supreme quality).

This is a collection of 50+ paintings based on various works by Tolkien, which fans of Tolkien will no doubt enjoy. It may be of speial interest to those who watched the movies (and who hasn't, who read Tolkien...) as you can clearly see how some of these paintings are replicated in Jackson's movies; it takes but a moment to catch it in the film, but if you see the pictures enough you'll recognize it.

The quality of the paintings are uneven, and each one has its favorite. Like many people, I find Hague lacking, but also Edelfeldt, who isn't bad but whose style is not unique enough in my opinion.

My favorites, on the other hand, are Howe, Garland, Nasmith, Lee and Galuidi. Garland, my favorite, has a unique and glowing, almost 'mystical' style that does the book justice. Howe's pictures are also intriguing and beautiful, and feel true to the book (and thankfully, he seems to dominate the book in terms of the number of contributions). Nasmith has some splendid landscape pictures, though his vision of the characters leave something to be desired (especially of a fat, distorted Boromir!) Galuidi's sci-fi, computerized style may not appeal to some, but I find them interesting. Finally, Lee's soft watercolors are very appealing, and his vision of the characters is near-perfect (especially Galadriel and Gandalf).

"Tolkien's World" is a very handsome book: large, hardcover, sleeve-cover, fine print and paper. It consists on a serie of paintings divided by books (The Hobbit, LOTR, Silmarillion, etc.) printed in the largest scale possible and with great definition. Beside the picture there is the passage of the book which inspired the painting. In the end there are one-page texts about or written by each of the artists, explaining their influences and relation with Tolkien works. My favorite artist is, without a doubt, Ted Nasmith, that draws very realistic pictures. Second place is John Howe, with his dark and intriguin style. All in all, a pretty nice book. I was very satisfied with it and it helped me to figure the places and events of LOTR. Be aware that there's a book that is kind of a sequel to this one: "Realms of Tolkien: Images of Middle-Earth", which I'm planning to get. It is written on its purchasing info that the author is Ted Nasmith, so is the cover authory. Lucky me.

The strangest thing about this book, given that Holtzman writes every day, is that it badly needed an editor. Pronouns flirt with their subjects, but one is often sent chasing back a page or two to find out who "he" is. A suprising number of paragraphs seem composed of unrelated sentences or start down one path and then bolt off in another. I will view other books by this publisher with a jaundiced eye.

Yet, the book is interesting. Interesting as an almanac is interesting. It collects facts about the men who have served as Commissioners and relates them. Sometimes it seems to collect rumors and innuendo about Commissioners and relates them as facts, but that's interesting, too.

Unfortunately, the book contains little that is new. If one has read Marvin Miller's book and Lords of the Realm, there is no reason at all to read this one. It is astonishing that someone like Holtzman has so little to add.

I kept waiting for Holtzman to analyze some of these facts he had collected -- it never happened. The closest he comes is two pages he devotes to ranking the Commissioners. His ranking is neither illuminating nor interesting.

I really don't understand why this book was written (or published).

This book takes an interesting premise and does a first-rate job of ruining it. I read it immediately after re-reading John Helyar's "Lords of the Realm" and was struck by how derivative "The Commissioners" was. There was little in the way of insight, and the anecdotes were tired and unilluminating. Holtzman's book "No Cheering in the Press Box" is one of my all-time favorites, so I had high hopes for this volume... but "No Cheering in the Press Box" is in the words of the old-time writers interviewed by Holtzman, whereas "The Commissioners" is Holtzman's own work, and the difference appears to be significant. There remains a series of interesting stories to be told about the evolution and devolution of the office of commissioner over the decades, and the Machiavellian intrigues behind the throne that have resulted in enormous changes to our national pastime -- but Holtzman has not told it. You might find it interesting if you have little background in baseball history, but most serious baseball readers will learn nothing new from this book.