| green beanie | 14 Mar 2010 6:36 p.m. PST |
If you could only add one book to your collection, would choose Conway's Fighting ships 1906-1922 or Jane's fighting ships WW 1? Let me hear your pros & cons and let me know which book I should go with? I look forward to your help. |
| No Reserve | 14 Mar 2010 6:40 p.m. PST |
Conway's. It has a description of each ship that puts it in context, and gives a brief summary of what happened to the major ship classes. Jane's really only gives you data. I look at my Conway's every few days, but only pick up Jane's every month or two. The only advantage Jane's has is, depending on the edition, it may have overhead views which are sorely lacking from Conway's. |
| E Murray | 14 Mar 2010 6:49 p.m. PST |
Conway's. Jane's is a contemporary publication. If a country had a successful disinformation campaign that was only discovered later, Jane's will have printed the false information. |
| ElGrego | 14 Mar 2010 6:56 p.m. PST |
Conway's for its more accurate info. But, I have a copy of Jane's, as it is useful: some of the pics, especially of British and German ships, show ship recognition details such as stripes painted on their stacks, and Jane's has some rather detailed maps of various harbors around the world. |
Virtualscratchbuilder  | 14 Mar 2010 6:58 p.m. PST |
Conway's. The drawings in Jane's are not particularly accurate in terms of relative scale, and occasionally the overhead for a ship does not even accurately match the side view. |
McKinstry  | 14 Mar 2010 8:08 p.m. PST |
Conway's. Jane's was contemporary in every respect meaning that a fair amount of the 'data' that went into the ship information was hyperbole or misinformation coming from that nation's naval intelligence people or fluff from the builders looking for customers. |
Shagnasty  | 14 Mar 2010 8:46 p.m. PST |
These guys have it on target. Jane's is fun for the "period" feel and background data but Conway's is much more accurate. |
GildasFacit  | 15 Mar 2010 3:59 a.m. PST |
For the period post 1906 I'd have to agree with the other posters that Conway is the better source but, for the period before 1906 you really need both because Conway lacks details of the effectiveness of armour and weapons that Jane's gives (at least to some extent). There was also less secrecy and misinformation around then so the data in Jane's is somewhat more reliable. |
| Cke1st | 15 Mar 2010 8:20 a.m. PST |
Conway's is more accurate. Jane's gives you top views of the deck plan and more photos. Also, Jane's is often sold at a major discount (I paid $10 USD at Borders), so why not go for both? |
| dmclellan | 15 Mar 2010 9:59 a.m. PST |
Buy Conway's first. It's research seems better than Janes for all the above reasons. Then look through the discount book stores. I picked up Janes for $5 USD at Half Price Books a few years back. |
| The Monstrous Jake | 15 Mar 2010 1:26 p.m. PST |
Conway's. Jane's is good for odd bits of information that were left out of Conway's ("Where exactly was that twelfth tertiary gun mounted?") but I always reach for Conway's first. |
Saginaw  | 16 Mar 2010 3:26 p.m. PST |
Put me down for Conway's too, greenie, for all of the above explainations. |
| TheDreadnought | 17 Mar 2010 6:49 a.m. PST |
LOVE my set of Conway's. My wife made fun of me because I lugged them around of vacation a couple times while working on Naval Thunder. LOL. |
| Jeff of SaxeBearstein | 23 Jun 2010 9:35 p.m. PST |
Gee, that makes it 12-0 in favor of Conways. I would make it 13-0 except that, having Conways, I have never seen the need to buy a copy of Jane's. -- Jeff
|
| Captain Gideon | 26 Jun 2010 5:29 p.m. PST |
For me it's hard to say since i like both Jane's and Conways for different reasons which has been stated above. I also like the set of books that Doubleday did many years ago,i think i have the whole set including the Austro-Hungarian Navy of WWI which i've nbeen told it's very hard to find. Captain Gideon |
| MortyVA | 06 Jul 2010 11:03 a.m. PST |
I have a .pdf electronic copy of Conways 1906-1922; it is much more useful than Jane's |
| Jeff of SaxeBearstein | 06 Jul 2010 12:36 p.m. PST |
MortyVA, Can you send me a link to where you got your .pdf? I'm don't have that Conways and I can't afford the prices/shipping most are asking. My email is bluebear@uniserve.com -- Jeff
|
| Old Warrior | 07 Jul 2010 3:23 a.m. PST |
MortyVA, Ditto for me. PDF would be great! hamackcf at bmi.net |
| MortyVA | 07 Jul 2010 10:46 a.m. PST |
its almost 300 MB; so it wont go via email. I can try to put it up on rapidshare tonight or after historicon. MLR |
| MortyVA | 07 Jul 2010 11:03 a.m. PST |
|
| Jeff of SaxeBearstein | 07 Jul 2010 12:24 p.m. PST |
MortyVA, Thank you. However, now that I've downloaded this file, my computer (a Linux system) does not recognize the .rar extension. What do I need to read a file with the .rar extension? -- Jeff
|
| Cloudy | 08 Jul 2010 10:33 p.m. PST |
.rar is a compressed file like a .zip file and generally requires a special program to "unzip" it. |