<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: Adds a new dimension sorely lacking in other good books about Vietnam. Good historical coverage all the way back to pre-history, sharp clear graphics and comprehensive coverage. I was there in 1968-69 and think this book is a valuable addition to anyone's Vietnam collection -- or a fine place to start if you are just learning about this country and its wars. Kudos to Colonel Summers, the author, for producing such a fine atlas.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: Adds a new dimension sorely lacking in other good books about Vietnam. Good historical coverage all the way back to pre-history, sharp clear graphics and comprehensive coverage. I was there in 1968-69 and think this book is a valuable addition to anyone's Vietnam collection -- or a fine place to start if you are just learning about this country and its wars. Kudos to Colonel Summers, the author, for producing such a fine atlas.
Rating:
Summary: Complete,straight to the point,beautifully illustrated
Review: Colonel Summers has an axe to grind---he has no regard for Secretary McNamara. This happens to be a bias which I share, but it does make the book suspect as to its historical balance. (Referring to the Secretary of Defense as the "general-in-chief" doesn't leave the impression of even-handedness.) Most of the pictures are without attribution, and many seem to be almost generic in nature (and one is obviously printed in reverse, with military decorations being displayed on the right side of the uniform jackets). But the maps make the book. They are excellent, and add greatly to the effort to tell the stories of individual engagements.
Rating: 
Summary: Col. Summers has an axe to grind.
Review: Colonel Summers has an axe to grind---he has no regard for Secretary McNamara. This happens to be a bias which I share, but it does make the book suspect as to its historical balance. (Referring to the Secretary of Defense as the "general-in-chief" doesn't leave the impression of even-handedness.) Most of the pictures are without attribution, and many seem to be almost generic in nature (and one is obviously printed in reverse, with military decorations being displayed on the right side of the uniform jackets). But the maps make the book. They are excellent, and add greatly to the effort to tell the stories of individual engagements.
Rating:
Summary: clear graphics & pictures; insightful topic sketches
Review: Some battle details that I have seen in no other books on the Vietnam war. Easily deciphered grahics, especially those showing degrees of passification. Photographs capture feeling of the current stage of the war. Victory campaign of '75 section fills void in my library about the Nam. Book feels good in the hand. Some are too bulky or too little to sit and read!
Rating:
Summary: Complete,straight to the point,beautifully illustrated
Review: This book provides much needed information on how the biggest campaigns of both the Indochina War and Vietnam War,referred too (rightly)as the Second Indochina War,were fought.Here you will find detailed maps and narratives showing the development of a given battle or campaign. This book dispels the idea that somehow the military operations in Indochina could not be traced in a clear,coherent way.THE HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE VIETNAM WAR does just that thanks to excellent,high quality graphics and maps and authoritative commentary from STANLEY KARNOW and HARRY G.SUMMERS.These two historians(in my opinion the top experts on Vietnam)make this book something much more than just a book of maps.From pre-colonial to post-war Indochina,from coverage of set piece battles to Phoenix Program and Naval Forces,to the anti-war movement,My Lai and congress,HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE VIETNAM WAR is THE new reference about the war. Buy it with confidence.I did and i am not dissapointed. Buy this book...I did and I'm not dissapointed.HARRY G SUMMERS and STANLEY KARNOW deserve recognition for putting together this masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: A visual diary of the War.
Review: This is a beautifully illustrated book with battlefield plans of the Vietnam Wars and details of all the troop movements. It places the reader right at the center of the war zone. The text on the left handside details the events involved at the time while maps are drawn on the right handside. The texts are concised, focused and give the reader a clear and broad picture of the war.
Rating: 
Summary: Problems with the Maps
Review: Too many things are shown in the wrong places on the maps. The most hilarious example is on page 97. Laos had two capital cities: the royal capital of Luang Prabang, where the (purely ceremonial) king lived, and the administrative capital of Vientiane, where there was an actual government. On this map, Luang Prabang has been moved across the border into North Vietnam (a very strange place for the royal capital of Laos), while Vientiane has been moved across the other border into Thailand. The same map also has the town of Vinh, in North Vietnam, shifted westward from its actual location near the coast; it appears on this map to be closer to the Laotian border than to the sea. Flip one page back to look at the map on page 95, which shows the Tonkin Gulf Incidents and the U.S. air strikes of August 5, 1964. This map has Vinh in the right place, but Hanoi has been mislocated; it is shown as being southwest of Haipong (Hanoi is actually northwest of Haiphong). More important, the map shows Hon Gai, one of the targets of the U.S. air strikes, as being right next to the Chinese border. Hon Gai is actually well to the southwest of the location shown; if it had been close to the Chinese border, Lyndon Johnson would not have approved the strike against it in this operation. The location shown for the aircraft carrier Constellation, which launched the planes for the strike against Hon Gai, is also seriously inaccurate. A small inset map on page 95 shows the tracks of the two U.S. destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy, on the night of August 4, 1964, and the tracks of objects that appeared on their radar, believed to be torpedo boats attacking them. The track shown for the supposed torpedo boat designated V2 bears no resemblance to any track that shows in the records of the destroyers, and the track shown for V1 does not bear a close resemblance to any track that shows in the records of the destroyers. I have not found so many errors in other maps in this atlas, but I have found more than I liked. The one thing an atlas is absolutely supposed to do is show things in the correct locations on the maps.
Rating:
Summary: Problems with the Maps
Review: Too many things are shown in the wrong places on the maps. The most hilarious example is on page 97. Laos had two capital cities: the royal capital of Luang Prabang, where the (purely ceremonial) king lived, and the administrative capital of Vientiane, where there was an actual government. On this map, Luang Prabang has been moved across the border into North Vietnam (a very strange place for the royal capital of Laos), while Vientiane has been moved across the other border into Thailand. The same map also has the town of Vinh, in North Vietnam, shifted westward from its actual location near the coast; it appears on this map to be closer to the Laotian border than to the sea. Flip one page back to look at the map on page 95, which shows the Tonkin Gulf Incidents and the U.S. air strikes of August 5, 1964. This map has Vinh in the right place, but Hanoi has been mislocated; it is shown as being southwest of Haipong (Hanoi is actually northwest of Haiphong). More important, the map shows Hon Gai, one of the targets of the U.S. air strikes, as being right next to the Chinese border. Hon Gai is actually well to the southwest of the location shown; if it had been close to the Chinese border, Lyndon Johnson would not have approved the strike against it in this operation. The location shown for the aircraft carrier Constellation, which launched the planes for the strike against Hon Gai, is also seriously inaccurate. A small inset map on page 95 shows the tracks of the two U.S. destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy, on the night of August 4, 1964, and the tracks of objects that appeared on their radar, believed to be torpedo boats attacking them. The track shown for the supposed torpedo boat designated V2 bears no resemblance to any track that shows in the records of the destroyers, and the track shown for V1 does not bear a close resemblance to any track that shows in the records of the destroyers. I have not found so many errors in other maps in this atlas, but I have found more than I liked. The one thing an atlas is absolutely supposed to do is show things in the correct locations on the maps.
<< 1 >>
| 
