| Author |
Message |
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
Re: General historical Accuracy of March's British Destroyer |
 |
|
|
The two works are really somewhat complementary. One (March) is descriptive. The other(s) (Friedman) are expository.
Accuracy is not really an issue, especially for ships built prior to the end of World War II, where all of the relevant material has been declassified for many years now.
March is much better regarding overall technical details, is better organized, and includes a large number of drawings showing details of internal arrangements etc. which are very rarely seen in published works. Friedman's books describe the politics and tradeoffs behind a specific design in more detail.
If I had to pick one over the other, I'd take March as it's much easier to find specific details there. If you want technical description, use March. If you want evolutionary analysis, use Friedman.
Bill Jurens
The two works are really somewhat complementary. One (March) is descriptive. The other(s) (Friedman) are expository.
Accuracy is not really an issue, especially for ships built prior to the end of World War II, where all of the relevant material has been declassified for many years now.
March is much better regarding overall technical details, is better organized, and includes a large number of drawings showing details of internal arrangements etc. which are very rarely seen in published works. Friedman's books describe the politics and tradeoffs behind a specific design in more detail.
If I had to pick one over the other, I'd take March as it's much easier to find specific details there. If you want technical description, use March. If you want evolutionary analysis, use Friedman.
Bill Jurens
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:32 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
Re: General historical Accuracy of March's British Destroyer |
|
|
|
My understanding from other discussions on-line forums, the short answer is yes the Friedman's two volume set is better. Does that mean everything in March's book is wrong ... no. Is there worth to getting March's book at a reasonable price ... probably yes. I have never had a copy of March's RN Destroyers book and can not compare textual information or drawings/photos used. I do have Friedman's RN Destroyer books and they have excellent drawings, too small for some (but there are many drawings there), and an engaging textual record. RN destroyers went through many different configurations during the WWII in particular. Did Friedman capture every configuration and camo appearance ... unlikely, but likely the results have advanced the knowledge base.
I have many older reference books on USN (and a few other navies) and I keep them even though there are newer and better sources available. Many times I find things (like a photo or drawing) that isn't covered in a newer book because the older reference cover it.
My understanding from other discussions on-line forums, the short answer is yes the Friedman's two volume set is better. Does that mean everything in March's book is wrong ... no. Is there worth to getting March's book at a reasonable price ... probably yes. I have never had a copy of March's RN Destroyers book and can not compare textual information or drawings/photos used. I do have Friedman's RN Destroyer books and they have excellent drawings, too small for some (but there are many drawings there), and an engaging textual record. RN destroyers went through many different configurations during the WWII in particular. Did Friedman capture every configuration and camo appearance ... unlikely, but likely the results have advanced the knowledge base.
I have many older reference books on USN (and a few other navies) and I keep them even though there are newer and better sources available. Many times I find things (like a photo or drawing) that isn't covered in a newer book because the older reference cover it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post subject: |
General historical Accuracy of March's British Destroyers? |
|
|
|
What's the verdict around here on the accuracy of Edgar March's " British Destroyers". So far she looks rather impressive, how does it compare to, let's say, Friedman's book? are there any blatant issues corrected by later research?
What's the verdict around here on the accuracy of Edgar March's " British Destroyers". So far she looks rather impressive, how does it compare to, let's say, Friedman's book? are there any blatant issues corrected by later research?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:43 am |
|
|
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ