After a reading few rather good Campaign books from Osprey lately this book was a disappointment and I find it hard to think of anyone enjoying it or finding it useful. A mature WW2 reader will find little if anything new and a beginer could be put off from reading WW2 history altogether.
The author makes a decent selection and reasonable arguments about British tactical and command failings as well as lists the generally poor equipment of the early Desert Rats army but most of this has been better presented before, like for example in the first pages of Osprey's Campaign books Tobruk, Gazala or El Alamein, here it is stretched to 96 pages and make that boring 96 pages. Proof reading is also bad, there are text errors and map errors like on page 73 where Montgomery is listed as GOC for the Gazala battle of July, basically wrong on all accounts, wrong Commander, wrong month etc and in the wrong place in the book. But editing is even worse, unabridged I quote from the top of page 38:
"The mechanized war waged in the desert required other skills such as driving in wiedly dispersed desert formations spread out over miles of ground and leaguering at nigh for protection. A practised eye was needed to recognize undulations, depressions and other accidents of ground providing covered approaches, positions for defensive layouts and hull-down positions for tanks. The conduct of armoured warfare under desert conditions placed great demand on crews and high levels of training were required in driving, navigation, tank gunnery, inter-communications and vehicle recognition. For AFV crews an essential skill was to find cover in the slightest undulations in the ground and hull-down positions, and desert driving." /End quote.
There you are - skill in desert driving cannot be stressed enough and why use fancy words like undulations only once? Admittedly this is an extreme example but it gives an idea what the book is like. No wonder it stretches to 96 pages.