Steve Zaloga--Is He a Competent Author?

[Frederick L Clemens]

I've only had a brief encounter with Zaloga in person, but Rich's comments match better with what I observed about the guy. I suspect you guys are taking out your hostility with the Osprey format on him.

[Tom Houlihan]

I can't help but think that if so many people want to criticize, mayhap they should go out and strive to do better?

[Rich]

I can't help but think that if so many people want to criticize, mayhap they should go out and strive to do better?

Tom, writing is hard work. That's something you find out when you try it. And writing so that you satisfy everyone and cover all the bases and get everything right is an impossibility. It took me 15 years from my last to my next book and although I would like to say it will take me just six months to complete the next one I know that's wishful thinking - I don't have the energy or discipline it takes; my regular "real" job is stressful enough. And in the meantime I'm girding myself to receive the slings and arrows from the peanut gallery...

[Tom Houlihan]

My first ought to be going out to the printer in the next week or so. I've been working actively on it for a little over three years, and I'm not actually writing! I'm collecting information!

The Nord book I have in work is writing. You're right, it ain't easy. My sole point was that so many people like to sit in their easy chairs and nitpick, with no clue as to the realities.

Paraphrasing, those who can, do. Those who can't, bitch!

[Vor]

OK then, he is competent. English is obviously his frist language, he can spell, knows 1-10, can put sentences together...all that matters is that YOU are happy.

Tom, if you are turning over heaven & earth for your book...what are you doing here?

[Frederick L Clemens]

Hey Vor,

You might have a better case if you can provide concrete examples where Zaloga acts like a prima donna. At least David pointed out a specific example, but that example seemed to me a case where Zaloga was writing out of his area of expertise or the publisher botched a section. I'd like to see evidence of an intentional PATTERN of bad writing/scholarship before I accept a POOH-POOHING of Zaloga to be valid.

By comparison, I used to be rougher on Glantz before I saw his presentations in person. Although, I may be unhappy with some errors in his books, I can see that he is open to avoiding those errors and he is more likely the victim of the errors in his books rather than the perpetrator.

[Vor]

So, don't accept it. What do I care. Opinions were asked for, I gave mine, & I'm not here to write his biography.

[Uncle Joe]

My problem with the Armored Thunderbolt is Zaloga´s failure to see that what suits Jupiter may not suit Mars. I.e. he does not seem to understand that Germany was in NO position to try to win by quantity alone. And it also seems to be a general tone of his books that he treats the Soviet Union and the Third Reich with very different standards.

[Rich]

...all that matters is that YOU are happy.

So when did Zaloga pee in YOUR cornflakes? So far your criteria for his book writing competence seems to be based upon how he judges at modeling contests...pardon me if the only thing that strikes me about that is a great big WTF? Since you can's seem to articulate a relevent response the only thing I can do is throw it back at you...what do I care either?

Tom, if you are turning over heaven & earth for your book...what are you doing here?

I apologize for horning in on Tom's answer, but as far as I'm concerned, I WORK for a freakin' living, doing ten hour shifts on some occassionally stressful and topical subjects, so kibbitzing here and elsewhere is relaxation, since most responses to the peanut throwers like these last few require about 5 percent of my attention. I save important stuff - in no real order such as working on wrapping up my ms, answering substantive questions here and on other fora that require a modicum of thought, and having fun with my girlfriend - for the weekend. SO WTF is YOUR excuse for being here?

[Rich]

My problem with the Armored Thunderbolt is Zaloga´s failure to see that what suits Jupiter may not suit Mars. I.e. he does not seem to understand that Germany was in NO position to try to win by quantity alone.

I confess I haven't been reading it line by line in one sitting...frankly I've been going through it to try to figure out what he didn't cover that I could address in another book. But I haven't gotten that sense at all in this case...at least so far, although I have been skipping around a bit. But given his last sentence on page 293 I hardly think you could argue that he doesn't understand that argument? I think what he is saying is that the US Army missed several key indicators that could have allowed it to do both - win both by quantity and quality. In other words, this case he is criticizing the failure of the Americans rather than making arguments about what the Germans did wrong.

[Tom Houlihan]

Tom, if you are turning over heaven & earth for your book...what are you doing here?

It's a psychological concept known as "diversion."

Safer than , especially at work!

[Leo Niehorster]

Jumping on the bandwagon and adding my 2 Eurocents...

I have had the pleasure of contacting Steve for information, which was both rapidly forthcoming and voluminous.

And –– speaking from experience of having books published –– mistakes always seem to creep in, even when proofread by several people. And of course you spot them when you first read through your own freshly printed copy.

Cheers
Leo

[michael kenny]

I think one of the main reason Zaloga upsets people is his failure to accept the 'German was best' argument.

This was said over on ML:

" it is easily obvious that the author does not even attempt to be objective and neutral. Just the fact that he describes the King Tiger as a "monster" speaks volumes................
But more serious is Zaloga´s clear anti-German agenda..................
Zaloga´s assesment of combat qualities of Germans vs. Amis differ substantially from the conclusions of Martin van Creveld and Trevor Dupuy.................."

So then Mr Anderson it is partialy your fault (by association!)

[Frederick L Clemens]

Vor,

You have alluded in your PMs to having additional info about your criticism of Zaloga. I'd prefer you raise them here rather than privately. I don't understand your willingness to publicly criticize Zaloga without also publicly giving some concrete examples. Give us a recap or some thread links - and let's hash it out.

[Uncle Joe]

I think one of the main reason Zaloga upsets people is his failure to accept the 'German was best' argument.

This was said over on ML:

" it is easily obvious that the author does not even attempt to be objective and neutral. Just the fact that he describes the King Tiger as a "monster" speaks volumes................
But more serious is Zaloga´s clear anti-German agenda..................
Zaloga´s assesment of combat qualities of Germans vs. Amis differ substantially from the conclusions of Martin van Creveld and Trevor Dupuy.................."

So then Mr Anderson it is partialy your fault (by association!)

Those were my comments on ML and I stand by them 100%! I think it is quite interesting that Zaloga uses vague descriptions like "monster" without adequate definition while e.g. Jentz´s claim of Tiger´s lower height (compared to the Sherman) is proved by an illustration on the same page...