= Engineers Of Victory =
=== Paul Kennedy, 2013 Beaverton Library 940.54 KEN ===

Silly me, I expected a book about individual engineers ... the folks who measure stuff, do calculations, create physical objects or processes, produce documents, train manufacturing staff, debug problems.  How many engineers (including inventors) are even mentioned (much less depicted)?

The book is actually about the dozens of major actions that took the Allies from threatened to "sure to win".  The "engineering" is a geopolitical metaphor.

Here are some "engineers" mentioned:

 .XXV Barnes Wallis (bouncing bomb)
 .XXV ''Percy Hobart (tank concepts, not engineering)''
 .056 Stewart Blacker (Hedgehog multiple mortar) 
 .059 John Randall, Harry Boot (cavity magnetron)
 .060 Adolf Herz (19th century inspiration for Randall)
 .061 Humphrey de Verd Leigh (Leigh Lights, antisubmarine aircraft searchlights)
 .070 Helmuth Walter (electric U-Boat)
 .077 Wright Brothers ("knocking at their door" ... nope, they tried to sell, were often rebuffed)
 .092 Sir Robert Watson-Watt (radar)
 .117 Sir Henry Royce (Rolls-Royce)
 .119 J.R. Mitchell (aircraft)
 .122 Withold Challier (performance engineer)
 .163 Jozef Kosacki (acoustic mine detector)
 .187 J. Walter Christie (M1928 tank)
 .187 Mikhail Koshkin (T-34 tank)
 .194 V. G. Grabin (57mm antitank gun)
 .270 American sergeant Curtis Culkin (Rhinoceros tank)
 .320 Grumman engineers (F6F Hellcat fighter)
 .324 Boeing teams (B-29 bomber)
 .328 Civil engineer Ben Moreell
 .329 Civilian Engineer Corps - Construction Batallions - Seabees
 .337 Torpedos - Navy "scientists" at Newport (Captain Christie again)

The book describes World War II (and other military history) as viewed from Paul Kennedy's perspective, which is mostly leaders and troop movements and weapons.  There are some interesting bits about the development of the Russian T34 tank, and the P51 Mustang, but both are mostly "production and deployment" views, not stories of the engineers who developed them.

The negative reviews on Amazon (some from well-informed people) agree with this assessment, and also point out some glaring factual errors.