This is a fascinating and somewhat morbid humorous look at man's ability to kill himself in war......even if this means killing himself and his allies. The book reads well as a result of the author's interesting and humorous manner of writing. Sure it is not a humorous subject but sometimes one cannot help but laugh at the abject stupidity of mankind throughout history. This book proves that no matter how much technology advances there is always a weak link...mankind. Furthermore this book also proves that there shouldn't be such a fuss about blue on blue kills in the first or second Gulf Wars since this is nothing compared to the blue on blue in past conflicts.

Geoffrey Regan is described as "Britain's premier authority on military disasters" and, with the word "Blunders" in several of the titles of his previous books, he is certainly well qualified to provide an accurate account of those that are part of the world's naval history.

"The Brassey's Book of Naval Blunders" is a soft cover book measuring 9¾" x 7½" containing 182 pages of detailed information on various historic naval encounters from around the world. There is a good selection of supporting B&W photographs throughout. In an easy-to-read style of writing - and following a two-page introduction, the author commences with an account of the 18,000 mile journey of the Russian Fleet in 1905 and how two-thirds of that fleet were lost when they finally came up against the Japanese. Likening some of those involved to the Marx Brothers is an apt comparison and a good indication of what is to follow.

Part I of the book is then divided in chapters headed "Lunatic Admirals" - in which we are treated to no fewer than 16 excellent tales to fit that particular heading, "Tale of a Tub" - 10 instances of ship design ranging from a circular battleship to vessels that torpedoed themselves, "The Price of Admiralty" - where all the ultimate life-costing decisions are made by the governments and civil-servants-in-uniform of the day, "A Life on the Ocean Wave" - 6 tales of life aboard ship, "Above us the Waves" - various tales of submarine design left wanting (including the dreadful K-class) and "That Sinking Feeling" - recounting the loss of several well known vessels including the Mary Rose and HMS Vanguard.

Part II is simply headed "Case Studies" and is exactly that, the case studies of 22 important naval battles ranging from Drepana in 250 BC to Leyte Gulf in 1944. Whilst I had not previously heard of Drepana - I never realised how Leyte Gulf was such a close-run thing.

Altogether, this is a fascinating book, an excellent read and the answer to an awful lot of questions about naval warfare in general, the outcome of several naval engagements in particular and the fate of certain specific ships..

NM

REVIEWED BY SMITH HEMPSTONE ...

When it comes to warrior-kings, the Byzantine emperor Heraclitus, who ruled Constantinople from 610 to 641 A.D., was in a league by himself. Few have risen so fast, and achieved so much in such a short time, only to lose all at the end.
Indeed, in "First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars," the British historian Geoffrey Regan makes a convincing case that the wars of Heraclitus against the Sasanian Persians (622-628 A.D.) should rank as the first crusade rather than that from the West called by Pope Urban in 1095. Heraclitus smashed the Persian empire, recovering the flags and standards lost by 100 Byzantine armies over the centuries, regained the lost colonies of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, sacked a dozen great cities, brought back the True Cross from Persia and rebuilt the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre.
Whether you call the wars of the Christian Byzantines against the fire-worshipping Zoroastrian Persians crusades, or something else, the heroics of Heraclitus, who personally led his troops in battle and fought in single combat the champions of many enemy armies, had the effect of prolonging the life of the Eastern Roman empire for several centuries, delaying the Moslem advance into the Balkans by hundreds of years.
Both his personal life and his military successes combined to weaken Heraclitus toward the end of his reign. His popular first wife, Fabia-Eudokia, died in 612 A.D., leaving the emperor with only one male heir, not nearly enough to guarantee the succession. So Heraclitus married his beautiful and able niece, Martina, daughter of his sister, Maria. Although incestuous unions were not that unusual in those days, they were forbidden. But a significant group of the Byzantine establishment regarded the deaths of four of her disabled children as God's judgement on Martina, blaming her for defeats at the hands of the Moslem Arabs.
When Heraclitus died horribly of "dropsy" (cancer) this was taken as yet another sign of divine displeasure. The fates of Martina and her surviving sons: Martina's tongue was split and she was exiled to Rhodes with her eldest son, who had his nose cut off. Of her three other sons, two had their noses cut off and the youngest was castrated.
Like many another political leader, Heraclitus wanted to have both chariots and wine, and his wars proved ruinously expensive. Syria and Palestine had been regained but were denuded of their populations, their fields lay fallow and returned little revenue. Egypt was about to fall to Mohammed's desert Bedouin breaking out from Arabia.
The Orthodox Church, through the influence of Heraclitus' great friend and supporter, the Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, had floated huge loans to pay for the wars. But now, except in distant Egypt, the wars were over and the church wanted its money back.
Heraclitus paid up, but only at the cost of his planned reform of the army and the civil service. Alexandria soon fell to the Moslems and much of Syria followed. By 674 A.D. the Moslem jihad had carried them to the gates of Constantinople. In desperation, the Byzantines fell back on their secret weapon: "Greek fire," a highly flammable mixture of tar, resin, sandarac and powdered sulphur mixed with dolphin and goat fat. It was ignited after passing through a hose and could not be put out with water. The Byzantine garrison of Constantinople used this primitive napalm to great effect against the Arab fleet and the wooden siege machines of the Moslems.
Their effective use of "Greek fire" and the arrival of Bulgar reinforcements and their King Tervel, resulted in over 20,000 Moslems killed. The Arabs abandoned the siege in 718 A.D., and the city was to block the Moslem invasion of Eastern Europe for another 700 years.
The millennium of Christ's death in 1033 A.D. triggered a wave of religious fervor that engulfed all Western Europe. What had been mere acts of faith evolved into a series of crusades whose objective was nothing less than the conquest of the Holy Land and its restoration to Christian rule.
What distinguished the Western crusaders from the earlier pilgrims was that by their acts they earned indulgences from the pope. These guaranteed protection of his family, lands and assets during his absence and granted the remission of sins should the crusader die in battle, with immediate entry into Paradise. In an age of faith, this was of no little consequence.
Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and by the Persians in 614 A.D. The Moslem Arabs had captured it in 638 A.D. In 1099 A.D. it was invested by the Western Crusaders and fell in a bloody massacre. After all the Moslems were dead and most of the Crusaders had sailed back to Europe, just 300 Christian knights and 2,000 infantry remained in the smoking ruins.
While Byzantium remained, it did so only as a shadow of its former days of greatness under Hiraclitus. Christian communities in the Near East could no longer expect help from Constantinople, which was to fall to the Ottoman Turks. As the gap grew greater between Latin Christianity and the Orthodox Church, Islam was rent by the division between Sunni and Shia and defeated in France and Hungary. It was not a time for greatness.

A fine, sardonic compilation of some of the more regrettable military decisions (or lack thereof) of the last two thousand years, this book is well-researched, sharp as a button, and has a nice line in understated mockery. Regan's style combines amusement (the endless pompous Napoleonic-era dukes and their rampant egos) and horror (the first ten minutes of the Somme, during which one hundred allied soliders were killed every second) at the same time, and doesn't restrict itself to the obvious examples - the American Civil War seems to have been packed full of idiotic decision-making, and the crusades were arguably one long blunder. That said, there is copious material on the insane, otherworldly killing grounds of World War One, a war that deserves somebody like Anthony Beever to write a big book about.

This book gives a good overview of two of the most famous leaders in medieval history. It starts comparing them in many aspects like their childhood, how did they reach power and what they did with the power when they got it. It covers the great strategies that each used in battles. In a particular chapter you feel that the two leaders were playing chess with each other.
History readers might be more demanding from this book, but for somebody who is just interested in history and wants to know more about these two leaders, this book is more than satisfactory.

Regan does a fantastic job of bringing the historical characters of the period to life. He is not biased to either side and does a good job of presenting the facts. Although he tries to enter into the minds of his subjects, his efforts enrich rather than detract from the narrative. Regan's talents as a writer are obvious. He thrusts the reader deep into the conflict and leaves him to suffer in suspense as each battle is fought out. I am an Egyptian reader and for once I have found a 'Western' book that ignores the fanaticism and shallowness of our deeply troubled age. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the crusades, medieval warfare or history in general.

I thought this book did a great job of presenting both sides and giving a fair apraisal of the leaders, Richard I and Saladin, of each side in the Third Crusade. Whereas the author does not gloss over the faults of each man, niether does he downplay the strengths of each man. In short, this is a great comparative biography that provides both education and entertainment in an easily accessable format. the author has done a great job of bringing the subject matter to life.

This book is interesting in that it can teach a new reader a few points on how to motivate soldiers to go beyond what's expected of them: yet ultimatly it fails to educate. Everything that Regan infers is logical to anyone who undersatand human behavior. Ultimatley, the book fails to provide any insight into the reasoning behind certain actions taken by soldiers. Mr. Regan fails because his inferences are basic and expected. This is a fun book in that it is interesting to a reader who only seeks a few good stories; but if a reader seeks to learn the motivation behind exceptional soldiers who are ready to sacrifice everthing for country, I suggest you look elsewhere. This book is light reading for an uninquisative mind.

This book is interesting in that it can teach a new reader a few points on how to motivate soldiers to go beyond what's expected of them: yet ultimatly it fails to educate. Everything that Regan infers is logical to anyone who undersatand human behavior. Ultimatley, the book fails to provide any insight into the reasoning behind certain actions taken by soldiers. Mr. Regan fails because his inferences are basic and expected. This is a fun book in that it is interesting to a reader who only seeks a few good stories; but if a reader seeks to learn the motivation behind exceptional soldiers who are ready to sacrifice everthing for country, I suggest you look elsewhere. This book is light reading for an uninquisative mind.

The majority of books about war and military fighting gloss over or ignore the troops and their emotions and reactions. For example both Eisenhower and Bradly gloss over the military debacle of WWII, the extended battle in the horror of the Hurtgen Forest in late 1944. The terrain there was (and is) incredibly difficult. This battle, fought for no good reason, seriously drained the fighting strength of the American Army and set up the scenario for the Battle of the Bulge. Regan covers this battle among others in a short but vivid manner. Afterall, this battle was the cause of the only GI executation of WWII, that of Pvt Eddie Slovik. Charles Whiting, in his book, "The Battle of the Hurtgen Forest" goes into greater detail but Regan does an adequate job capsulizing the battle in just twelve pages. Regan's review of other battles are equally well done and thought provoking. For the budding military historian, this book should be on the "must read" and own list.

British historian, Geoffrey Regan, offers an insightful account of what is know as 'Friendly Fire' or 'blue-on-blue engagements'. Basically, soldiers are killed and maimed by their own side. Regan attempts to trace the history of these incidents from the time of Alexander the Great to the Gulf War. He does so quite well and the reader comes away wondering how in the hell these things could happen.

Through the Ancient and Medieval period, through the Napoleonic and US Civil War to WW1 and WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, the Falklands, and the Gulf War. Some incidents I had heard of like the American bombing fiasco during Operation Cobra in 1944 but others I never knew had occurred. The author attempts to explain how and why these friendly fire incidents occurred and the affects of friendly fire on the soldiers. Most of the stories seem to involve the British Commonwealth forces and the Americans. Very little from the Japanese, Russian and German sides but then again maybe the sources were not available.

Overall this is a very interesting account of a little know military subject and maybe our Military Commanders and Politicians should read the book. Anyone interested in military history should read this book. And as Norman Schwarzkopf said "no fire is friendly".

This book is an excellent reference for military buffs, something a bit out of the ordinary of military literature. The subject is very interesting, and each incident comes with some background material to explain the cause and confusion behind it.

This book should be read by all men and women who wish the military as a career.

Author Geoffrey Regan wanted to write a book which could have well been titled "The Wrong Stuff". Military blunders and disasters so incredibly stupid they defy explanation of how some General or Admiral ever rose to a place of command authority.

The biggest bone I have to pick with Regan is that there are lots of small historical errors in his book. So many that the reader is left to wonder about both the quality of Regan's historical research, and the quality of the book's editing. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was at Gettysburg. Regan didn't even get Chamberlain's first name right. The book has several errors like this, and military historians and history buffs alike will find SNAFU very annoying, and very unprofessionally researched.

The cover notes of the book also speak of Custer's infamous battle of the Little Bighorn -- yet there is absolutely NO chapter in this book on the battle -- only a passing note in Regan's conclusions at the end.

Even a snappy prose line cannot overcome a lack of thorough historical research.

SNAFU was an entertaining piece of history, but flawed in its research, editing and writing. The reader is left with the view that the author does not know what he is talking about. If any military historian ever writes a book on Great Disasters in Historical Writing, SNAFU will take up a well deserved and prominent, whole chapter.

What else do you need to know about an aviation book written by a man who thinks that stalling an aircraft means that the engine stops?

For me, this error was compounded in a later passage on the mistaken bombing, by the USAF, of the Swiss town of Schaffhausen. The author states that Schaffhausen lies on the East bank of the Rhine. In the vicinity of Schaffhausen, the Rhine flows from East to West so, it has North and South banks and not an East bank. When I come across things like this I have to say that every other factual statement in the book must be in doubt.

This book is really a lightweight skim through the history of aerial warfare with emphasis on the mistakes that were made. Of course, this is a fairly easy target as military aviation is a rapidly developing area and so mistakes are common.

Trying to discount errors like the ones mentioned above, the writing style is OK and the author does choose a number of interesting events.

The book starts off with a token section on the era before the first world war.

The sections devoted to that war, the inter-war years and the post 1945 period are quite short. Fully half of the book is devoted to the years of World War Two.

Unfortunately, once coverage reaches the second war, the author seems to forget what he is actually writing about. Half of the section discusses the politics of area bombing. The author then moves on to discuss the errors in the planning of parachute operations leaving the reader to wonder where have the aeroplanes gone.

I am always suspicious of books which are published under different titles. This book has appeared as a book of "Flying" blunders and as a book of "Air Force" blunders. The latter title is more accurate as the book contains nothing about civilian flying and indeed, much of the content is about military matters that do not actually include flying.