Robert B. Bruce

There are some odd constructions in the text of this book, such as using the term "Rearguard" when meaning "Rearguard Action." While the maps for a good many Napoleonic battles are competent, there is a better set of details on the French armies than any else's forces. This has led to several gaps in the non-French information. The book also uses the colour red for the French in the maps, and all their opponents are printed in Blue. Non-traditional at best, and unsettling. The maps also are not printed with a directional arrow for north, so the alignment for the battlefields are often confusing.
The chapter on Naval Warfare also suffers from a curious idea that carronades were not used for firing cannonballs, but were strictly anti-personnel weapons, firing grape. The coverage of naval battles is limited to three, and this is much weakens the value of the book for navalists. Therefore, this book is a two star performance with a misleading title.… (more)

This study flips the conventional wisdom on its head to argue that the Franco-American military marriage of World War I was effective, something of a precursor of joint operations in the modern age, and worth remembering for its own sake; points often obscured by the frequent outbreaks of policy friction between Paris and Washington over the last century. I'm not quite sold on the concept but Bruce is a good salesman; that he glosses over the race for Sedan at the end of the war does make me wonder what other points of conflict that the author is sweeping under the rug. If nothing else I'm amused with his puncturing of British posturings about the union of English-speaking peoples. Bruce also seems to be hard-headed, but fair, about the limitations of the American contribution in the Great War, from Black Jack Pershing on down.… (more)