Modern Military Uniforms
Having bought this book to give myself a more accurate source for designing military costumes it has its pluses and minuses. Overall it gives the reader a good general account of the significant changes to uniforms worldwide and the reasons. It has attractive and clear mixed media drawings of the uniforms and it does cover a large proportion of countries, ideal for those wishing to know what a guerrilla from the 'Dhofari Guerrilla' forces was wearing in 1973! The book does however as with many reference books lean heavily towards the U.S.A and U.K. It also only shows those uniforms worn in combat so of little use to thse interested in dress uniforms. Overall however a good general reference book with some interesting insights into worldwide uniforms and designs. --David KirkIn general a really nice book, with lots of awesome pictures, and a really good description of the different uniform set ups. I do think that it leaves a lot to be desired in its description of the smaller countries of the world. There is a lot of focus on the UK, USA, USSR, France and Germany, but not so much the other countries of the world. --By ChristianModern Military Uniforms was my attempt to create as complete an account as possible of the development of uniform items and technology since 1945. The premise of the book is that uniforms are not incidental items of environmental protection for the soldier, but integral pieces of kit that contribute, or limit, his combat performance. Each uniform listed has a dedicated full-page entry which gives a detailed description of the uniform items, kit, and weaponry pictured and also some historical context to the outfit (uniforms are arranged in chronological order). As most reviews of the book so far have been favourable, I would like briefly to comment on an extremely negative review given by Mr Melih Cam. He believes that the book is historically inaccurate in parts, and illustrates his point by arguing that, contra my entry on a Turkish Army soldier of 1974,Turkey did not invade Cyprus in 1974 but were engaged in a 'peace operation'. To date I cannot find any single authority that contends my use of the word 'invasion'. Even detailed historical reference such as the Library of Congress Country Studies and Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as numerous military sources (including very respected writers such as Dr John Pimlott), refer to the incident as an invasion - the words 'peace operation' are singularly absent. With the overthrow of Makarios and the provisional presidency of EOKA protaganist Nikos Sampson, Turkey's prime minister Bulent Ecevit did indeed attempt to gain international operational approval from the UK and US, but this attempt was declined in both instances. Thus Turkey invaded. Mr Cam seems to have taken an unusual exception to my use of the word 'invasion'. Invasion can cover a multitude of situations, not all pejorative, and it should be noted that in the book I pass no judgement on the politics of the action only the military outcomes. I used the term invasion because: a) Cyprus was at that time a constitutionally independent nation regardless of the coup or the state of partition; b) there was international resistance to the invasion (indeed Joseph Sisco, Under Secretary of State of the US, acted unsuccessfully to stop it); and c) the operation was conducted aggressively using 40,000 troops and 200 tanks and attempted to acquire territory (again I pass no judgement as to the purpose of that acquisition). In summary, I am surprised at the vitriol of the assault here over what seems a fairly uncontentious reading of history, especially as the brevity of my comment allows Mr Cam no room for a detailed critique of my views. Mr Cam seems to be reading too much into the use of a word than is warranted, especially as I am in the company of a large number of reputable military historians who find no difficulty in applying the same term. Furthermore, Mr Cam finishes his review by stating that Turkish and Greek Cypriots have been living in harmony since the invasion. This seems to take no account of the continuing political strife on Cyprus and the violence in the UN buffer zone in 1996 (which left two dead and many injured) on which the US State Department expressed "deep concern over the recent violence on Cyprus.... The tragic events of the past few days underscore once again the urgent need to reach a comprehensive settlement on Cyprus." --By Dr J.C. McNab