What do you think?
Rate this book
Grunts: Inside the American Infantry Combat Experience, World War II Through Iraq
“A superb book—an American equivalent to John Keegan’s The Face of Battle . I sincerely believe that Grunts is destined to be a classic.” —Dave Grossman, Author of On Killing and On Combat
From the acclaimed author of The Dead and Those About to Die comes a sweeping narrative of six decades of combat, and an eye-opening account of the evolution of the American infantry.
From the beaches of Normandy and the South Pacific Islands to the deserts of the Middle East, the American soldier has been the most indispensable—and most overlooked—factor in wartime victory. In Grunts , renowned historian John C. McManus examines ten critical battles—from Hitler’s massive assault on U.S. soldiers at the Battle of the Bulge to counterinsurgency combat in Iraq—where the skills and courage of American troops proved the crucial difference between victory and defeat.
Based on years of research and interviews with veterans, this powerful history reveals the ugly face of war in a way few books have, and demonstrates the fundamental, and too often forgotten, importance of the human element in serving and protecting the nation.
From the acclaimed author of The Dead and Those About to Die comes a sweeping narrative of six decades of combat, and an eye-opening account of the evolution of the American infantry.
From the beaches of Normandy and the South Pacific Islands to the deserts of the Middle East, the American soldier has been the most indispensable—and most overlooked—factor in wartime victory. In Grunts , renowned historian John C. McManus examines ten critical battles—from Hitler’s massive assault on U.S. soldiers at the Battle of the Bulge to counterinsurgency combat in Iraq—where the skills and courage of American troops proved the crucial difference between victory and defeat.
Based on years of research and interviews with veterans, this powerful history reveals the ugly face of war in a way few books have, and demonstrates the fundamental, and too often forgotten, importance of the human element in serving and protecting the nation.
544 pages, Paperback
First published July 22, 2010
56 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
John C. McManus
24 books194 followersJohn C. McManus is an author, military historian and award-winning professor of military history at the Missouri University of Science and Technology. He is one of America’s leading experts on the history of modern American soldiers in combat.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
August 23, 2021
An 18 and a half hour unabridged audiobook.
There's a certain truism to the old adage about "there is only infantry, every other unit is just support" (paraphrased). While listening to this book I was also seeing social media and news accounts about the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. I knew there are thousands of American (and some Allied countries) soldiers and Marines who are at the airport manning a perimeter ensuring the safety of those we are trying to evacuate.
So it's timely to listen to a book about the infantry in battle. This book gives an overview from a grunts perspective, of ten noteworthy 20 and 21st century battles in American military history.
I found the entry on the CAP (Combined Action Platoon) program in Vietnam particularly interesting, having not heard of them before.
Ultimately I felt this book was just okay. It seemed like a history of over a dozen notable battles that had no connection with one another besides mentioning the overall theme, that infantry were instrumental. I was hoping for more.
There's a certain truism to the old adage about "there is only infantry, every other unit is just support" (paraphrased). While listening to this book I was also seeing social media and news accounts about the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. I knew there are thousands of American (and some Allied countries) soldiers and Marines who are at the airport manning a perimeter ensuring the safety of those we are trying to evacuate.
So it's timely to listen to a book about the infantry in battle. This book gives an overview from a grunts perspective, of ten noteworthy 20 and 21st century battles in American military history.
I found the entry on the CAP (Combined Action Platoon) program in Vietnam particularly interesting, having not heard of them before.
Ultimately I felt this book was just okay. It seemed like a history of over a dozen notable battles that had no connection with one another besides mentioning the overall theme, that infantry were instrumental. I was hoping for more.
May 1, 2013
A really great read, depending on why you decide to dig into it.
If you're looking for an enthralling perspective into the hairiest, most gritty infantry conflicts waged during the twentieth century, you're going to enjoy yourself quite a bit.
The evangelizing for the role of infantry in modern combat I feel more mixed about. McManus makes a pretty strong case that the American military machine places too great an emphasis on impersonal weapons systems in the naive belief that we can win wars without putting boots on the ground.
I buy that.
But I don't think his examples all totally support that. Sure, Aachen probably couldn't have been won without infantry going building to building... nor could Fallujah. But is the question really the proportion of forces we should be throwing into these conflicts, or is it a question of whether we should even be there?
From Peleliu to Baghdad with Vietnam in between, all I could think about is why we shouldn't have been in these conflicts to begin with. I mean, if we REALLY need to be in a conflict, I agree that boots on the ground is the way to win it.
But the American reticence towards committing ground forces may stem less from stupidity and more from a totally justified allergy to prolonged conflicts in which the costs vast exceed the benefits.
If you're looking for an enthralling perspective into the hairiest, most gritty infantry conflicts waged during the twentieth century, you're going to enjoy yourself quite a bit.
The evangelizing for the role of infantry in modern combat I feel more mixed about. McManus makes a pretty strong case that the American military machine places too great an emphasis on impersonal weapons systems in the naive belief that we can win wars without putting boots on the ground.
I buy that.
But I don't think his examples all totally support that. Sure, Aachen probably couldn't have been won without infantry going building to building... nor could Fallujah. But is the question really the proportion of forces we should be throwing into these conflicts, or is it a question of whether we should even be there?
From Peleliu to Baghdad with Vietnam in between, all I could think about is why we shouldn't have been in these conflicts to begin with. I mean, if we REALLY need to be in a conflict, I agree that boots on the ground is the way to win it.
But the American reticence towards committing ground forces may stem less from stupidity and more from a totally justified allergy to prolonged conflicts in which the costs vast exceed the benefits.
July 21, 2024
Up front I have to say that I've been reading about WWII (especially the military strategy) for 15+ years at this point and I'm finally...done. It's just not interesting to me anymore. I think this is at least in part due to the current political climate and the disgust I have for people who think Nazi symbolism is cool.
ANYWAY...
Grunts is about US infantry soldier from WWII through Iraq/Afghanistan. The author says in the introduction that he believes military success comes down to the bravery and capability of infantry soldiers and not to technology. This is a bold claim, and certainly not a popular one (both now and when this book was written 10+ years ago). I have to admit that I went in disagreeing with him. While infantry soldier have all of my respect because they do a job I simply couldn't do...their success is tied intimately to the technology, intelligence gathering, and leadership decisions going on around them. I would also argue that their success in a mission rarely if ever has anything to do with their courage.
Throughout this book, the author highlighted various battles where the infantry were in particularly hard situations and success (or failure) of the mission was on their shoulders. It's gruesome, regardless of the time period the battle came from. Violent deaths and horrific trauma in urban battle in Aachen, jungle battles around Dak To, fighting suicidal terrorists in Iraq...it's hard and the men and women who put themselves in those places deserve respect, mental and physical health care, and support for going through that. Every single one.
But, ultimately, my opinion of what drives success has not changed. In each case the author highlighted, the success of the mission was tied to technology being used to the best effect, intelligence gathering that gave infantry necessary insights, and leadership making decisions that were trustworthy. The courage and capability of the infantry was never in doubt (as presented in this book) so the difference really is the other things.
It's worth noting, the author is not a veteran and sometimes comes across a little fanboy-ish. It's off-putting for me. War is nothing to fan over. He presents the American soldier in nothing but a positive light and presents situations like the killing of civilians as unfortunate accidents that are rare. He blames the media for portraying it otherwise (this is particularly notable in the chapters on Iraq/Afghanistan). I think it would be more honest to acknowledge that these gruesome situations sometimes break people and terrible things have happened because of it.
Overall, this one is only for the military history nerds. It's interesting, if you're in the brain space for so much violence. For me personally, the chapters on the Vietnam War were emotionally draining because of how violent it was and knowing that I had family members there that never fully healed from the experience.
[Trigger Warnings: death, violence, war, racism]
ANYWAY...
Grunts is about US infantry soldier from WWII through Iraq/Afghanistan. The author says in the introduction that he believes military success comes down to the bravery and capability of infantry soldiers and not to technology. This is a bold claim, and certainly not a popular one (both now and when this book was written 10+ years ago). I have to admit that I went in disagreeing with him. While infantry soldier have all of my respect because they do a job I simply couldn't do...their success is tied intimately to the technology, intelligence gathering, and leadership decisions going on around them. I would also argue that their success in a mission rarely if ever has anything to do with their courage.
Throughout this book, the author highlighted various battles where the infantry were in particularly hard situations and success (or failure) of the mission was on their shoulders. It's gruesome, regardless of the time period the battle came from. Violent deaths and horrific trauma in urban battle in Aachen, jungle battles around Dak To, fighting suicidal terrorists in Iraq...it's hard and the men and women who put themselves in those places deserve respect, mental and physical health care, and support for going through that. Every single one.
But, ultimately, my opinion of what drives success has not changed. In each case the author highlighted, the success of the mission was tied to technology being used to the best effect, intelligence gathering that gave infantry necessary insights, and leadership making decisions that were trustworthy. The courage and capability of the infantry was never in doubt (as presented in this book) so the difference really is the other things.
It's worth noting, the author is not a veteran and sometimes comes across a little fanboy-ish. It's off-putting for me. War is nothing to fan over. He presents the American soldier in nothing but a positive light and presents situations like the killing of civilians as unfortunate accidents that are rare. He blames the media for portraying it otherwise (this is particularly notable in the chapters on Iraq/Afghanistan). I think it would be more honest to acknowledge that these gruesome situations sometimes break people and terrible things have happened because of it.
Overall, this one is only for the military history nerds. It's interesting, if you're in the brain space for so much violence. For me personally, the chapters on the Vietnam War were emotionally draining because of how violent it was and knowing that I had family members there that never fully healed from the experience.
[Trigger Warnings: death, violence, war, racism]
November 27, 2017
In Grunts: Inside the American Infantry Combat Experience, World War II Through Iraq, military historian John McManus argues that no matter how technologically advanced the United States military becomes, no weapon or force is more important to success on the battlefield than the American combat infantryman. To prove his point, McManus takes his readers on a journey through American military history from the amphibious assaults on Guam in 1944 to pre-surge counterinsurgency operations in Iraq circa 2005. Though the author's narrative-style writing brings the action to life for readers, there is a consistent hole in the book: he rarely shows how the battle reinforces his argument until the very last chapter on Operation Iraqi Freedom counterinsurgency. For some readers, it may be considered annoying to not bring back the thesis into the narrative; but for others, like me, I think it was purposefully pushed to the side to let the readers see how the military has grown to see the importance of the combat infantryman in warfare, especially when they are thrown into Iraq to fight insurgents among a skeptical populace. Overall, Grunt was a fantastic book on the common soldier's experience in warfare. I would highly recommend this to any military history buff.
November 24, 2025
McManus beautifully defends his claim that "from World War II through the present, American ground combat soldiers, especially infantrymen, have been the lead actors in every American war, at the very time when new weapons and technology were supposed to make them obsolete." He does this by describing in great detail, often in the participating infantrymen's own words, four battles from WWII (2 in the Pacific and 2 in the European AO), two battles from Viet Nam, one from Gulf War I and two from Gulf War II in Iraq, including Fallujah.
For history, it is an incredibly well-written, fast read. I highly recommend it!
For history, it is an incredibly well-written, fast read. I highly recommend it!
December 18, 2019
Very detailed description of 10 historical battles, taking the perspective of the individual officers, NCOs and soldiers, showing the importance and development of the infantry in the 20th century. The meticulous collection of thousands of diary entries and war reports gives the 10 chapters a very multi-faceted face. Unfortunately, the classification into the overall context is sometimes lost. This expectation is awakened by the valuable introductory chapter, a proper plea for the infantry, but not really satisfied.
July 29, 2019
Great way to look at the realities that people in the Infantry have to go through. It covers the experiences in WWII (European and Pacific theaters), the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and the recent war in Iraq. Would recommend it to anyone intersted in military history.
May 16, 2024
Excellent
June 15, 2019
Not Forgotten
This book languished on my shelf for years too long. It was a thought-provoking look into the role of infantry in American combat. I can't say much else other than I'm a big fan of Mr. McManus after this book and one other.
October 8, 2016
Outstanding narratives of US Infantry battles from WWII through Iraq (omitting Korean War as too similar to WWII and pretty much forgetting that Afghanistan exists). The author has chosen his battles well, frequently selecting battles that are Pyrrhic victories or tactical victories but strategic defeats. I would agree with this choice from the standpoint that you can often learn more from failure than from success. I was pleased to see the story of Fallujah and 3rd Battalion 1st Marines told here because on its next trip to Iraq after Fallujah I was dropped to 3/1 from 1st Battalion 4th Marines with 2 deployments under my belt and just time enough left in my enlistment for a third. They were good guys and you could tell it'd been tough on them.
He did choose to end his book with one of the most reprehensible metaphors of modern times in which human beings are categorized as sheep or wolves, or as sheepdogs protecting the flock from the wolves. First off that's an inadequate way to categorize men (and women now too) that, whether draftees or volunteers, stepped up to fight. Secondly, as a Veteran of Wars that have been used by government to justify further curtailing of the freedoms we were supposedly defending and now as a happy Civilian I resent being called a Sheep and am far more unnerved by those that label themselves Sheepdogs than I am by the would-be Wolves out there.
Personal Note: finished this book in the Columbus, OH airport waiting for a flight home.
He did choose to end his book with one of the most reprehensible metaphors of modern times in which human beings are categorized as sheep or wolves, or as sheepdogs protecting the flock from the wolves. First off that's an inadequate way to categorize men (and women now too) that, whether draftees or volunteers, stepped up to fight. Secondly, as a Veteran of Wars that have been used by government to justify further curtailing of the freedoms we were supposedly defending and now as a happy Civilian I resent being called a Sheep and am far more unnerved by those that label themselves Sheepdogs than I am by the would-be Wolves out there.
Personal Note: finished this book in the Columbus, OH airport waiting for a flight home.
September 7, 2013
McManus argues that it is boots on the ground that wins wars, not fancy weapons systems alone. Despite predictions for the last 60 years, it is the infantry men that have made the US military great. McManus walks the reader thru 7 battles from WWII to Iraq and explains what it was like to be there and what was necessary to win.
Why I started this book: I've been eye-balling this book for over a year. It looked fascinating (and it was!) but it was also big.
Why I finished it: It took me a while to read this book, partly due to size and partly due to the fact that a soldier actually needed it for a school project when I was in the middle of it and it checked it out to her. It was an interesting perspective on how war has changed and how it hasn't.
Why I started this book: I've been eye-balling this book for over a year. It looked fascinating (and it was!) but it was also big.
Why I finished it: It took me a while to read this book, partly due to size and partly due to the fact that a soldier actually needed it for a school project when I was in the middle of it and it checked it out to her. It was an interesting perspective on how war has changed and how it hasn't.
October 31, 2010
A scholarly, but very readable, advocacy for the conitnuing utility of the rifleman in an era of exotic warfare technology. Grunts present case histories from World War II through the current Middle Eastern conflicts to bolster this premise.
McManus, a respected military historian, really did his homework on this tome and it shows. His writing chops are nothing to sneeze at, either.
McManus, a respected military historian, really did his homework on this tome and it shows. His writing chops are nothing to sneeze at, either.
September 9, 2013
World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq. This book presents the fact that throughout history, despite technological advances, the presence of infantry has always been irreplaceable in conflicts. A good read to balance the perception of how air and naval power alone can solely meet strategic warfare goals.
March 22, 2015
A well written and researched account of infantry actions, but fails to meet its billing. Not on par with The Face of Battle, the author never seems to describe how the events support this thesis that close combat is immutable. While weak in this area, the book provides great detail of several small unit actions that are worth a look. An easy read but and a pure history.
July 28, 2017
Excellent perspective and analysis. Gruesome and descriptive battle descriptions. He is now one of my favorite authors...will definitely be reading his other works in the near future. I LOVE how he calls out bullshit, in all its various forms haha.
October 14, 2011
A retrospective anthology on the American infantry combat experience.I was principally interested in the Vietnam period; it is well laid out to research specific conflicts, and well-told.
October 9, 2019
Reading list
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews