[bazso]

hello everyone i am back been busy still will be busy for me i got to ask this everyone is claiming on the ww2 online forums that my info is not correct about the ian v hogg series.

i got to know does Jane's really do mess up from time to time or is it total newbies that don't know what they are talking about this can range from kids as young as 13 all the way to adults.

please bare in mind everyone on a scale of 100% i would have to say that 90% of them relies very heavily on what i call wonder land web sites and that there info on most web sites do not have correct data.

i feel books are very much authentic but am i wrong in this thinking?

i got to really know am i crazy for going after books or a i on the road to great heavenly enlightenment and that i will be above the normal joe?

[McCoy]

It's hard to answer yer question right away without knowin' what they claim is wrong with Ian V. Hogg's books but I've got roughly 15 different books just on small arms n' Ian V. Hogg have written a couple of 'em n' my take is that you should continue to rely on him as a source. Sure, he can mess things up but so can you n' I as we're after all only humans. But I've got more than a fair grasp on weaponry n' my advice is that hard written facts trumps internet sites n' 13 year old know it all's on the net. Sure I rely a lot on the net but only 'cos I'm lazy n' know me stuff so I can tell a cat from a dog when I see a parrot on a weapon site. The single most important lesson when surfin' the net for information is source critique n' the more you know 'bout somethin' the harder it is to be duped on the net.

Jane's I can't tell how they is but the reputation over the years have been good.

You can find a lot of serious facts here at the Zone mainy due to the fact that a lot of the members here have hard knowledge on some stuff but you shouldn't just take it all in without question 'cos we tend to be in the wrong from time to time but we're a community that strives for hard fact n' do correct each others so it will be right in the end.

[bazso]

yeah i see what your saying if it is all right may i post some of the responses for what it is they are saying?

[Geek44]

I agree with everything McCoy says generally, and especially his faith in Ian V. Hogg. I have only one book by him (Artillery) but I have seen many. I believe Mr. Hogg is an ex-military man himself with some 'hands-on' experience with the things he writes about.
Jane's is also a highly respected and reputable authority on aircraft as far as I know. They certainly go to great lengths to aquire as much information and technical data as they can which can lead to their publications being quite 'dry' in terms of content. When it comes to 'facts' such as 'What was the wingspan of a Messeschmitt 109 F?' it's easy. Anyone can measure it or check the figure from any number of real sources including surviving aircraft. When it comes to 'truth' such as 'What Allied nation contributed most to the winning of WW2?', or 'What was Hitler's biggest mistake?', things get sticky. The 'truth' can be subjective and the answer will depend on who you ask.
Never listen to 13 year old kids mate...they're just young enough to know everything.
Peace.

[MAGNA]

This is always a problem on some parts of the net where you get a group who 'run' a sit according to whatever evidence suits their argument. Hard not to get really - shall we say - annoyed with that sort of thing.

Post away here though as this site is for the enlightenment of us all rather than for bashing anyone who doesn't agree with preset ideas. We all have things we thought were absolute truths when it comes to history. Many of the things I was told / taught / and yes - read in books have turned out to be untrue or slanted as more info comes to light.

If someone can only argue that you are wrong without giving reasons when you have provided info from a decent reference then you can be fairly sure you are on the right track.

[Tom Houlihan]

If in doubt, check your facts against any number of sources, including your forum buddies. Regardless of how much research is done, we are all human. It's easy to miss that one piece of information that you didn't know you needed so desperately!

As for Jane's, I've seen several of their books. I'll kill for a weekend in their research library!!! (I'd be a scanning fool!)

[bazso]

see this is why i love this community very much you guys place your trust on good solid information and don't trust web sites all that much ty everyone for letting me join this community if i had the money right now i would pay for a hosting service for team speak or ventrilo and offer each and everyone of you to join it i would fore see a busy day chatting about ww2 stuff all day and my head would be buzzing

[Geek44]

bazso, one has to aknowledge and applaud your concern for contributing accurate information to a site such as ours. When I use the word 'ours', it most definitely includes you.
Try not to get too bogged down with your search for truth and accuracy. You might miss out on some fun. Nobody minds if something you post isn't quite right...it's what we're here for. Learning. In case you hadn't noticed, the Zone Community doesn't tolerate flaming, bullying or anything that might make a member uncomfortable or indeed intimidated about contributing what they feel is appropriate. Clearly, you are making a huge effort to 'get it right' and that's great...following are links to all the posts where I messed it up...
Peace.

[MAGNA]

Umm... Geek. You seem to have forgotten to put the links in.....

[Tom Houlihan]

Geek44 said:

In case you hadn't noticed, the Zone Community doesn't tolerate flaming, bullying or anything that might make a member uncomfortable or indeed intimidated about contributing what they feel is appropriate.

Nick's right. You may have noticed that some of us pick on each other unmercifully. Like I told someone else, we only pick on people we like.

Every single one of us has posted something erroneous on here. We're all human, so we make mistakes. Someone points it out, we fix it, then pick on the offender for a bit. It's all in fun, because in correcting each other, we reinforce the learning.

There's a difference, though, between razzing someone who goofed, and being a jerk. We won't allow that. (if we're more annoying than fun, let one of us know. There're are a couple of strange ones around here...)

[McCoy]

MAGNA said:

Umm... Geek. You seem to have forgotten to put the links in.....

It appears that his list of messed up post grows...

[Geek44]

MAGNA said:

Umm... Geek. You seem to have forgotten to put the links in.....

I haven't got the time to add that many links mate.
Peace.

[bazso]

yeah that's a good point i am just so happy to belong to a community that is not like the rest and knows what they are talking about that's why after reading some post's before i signed up i said yup this is a community i want to belong to its not every day that you have a community that stands above the rest.

[McCoy]

Thanks mate! It means a lot for us to have you here!

[RAF Liberators]

History is in a state of flux, certain beliefs that may once have been fact have since been debunked due to the release of materials that were sealed for specific security reasons for a given period of time.
My main concern is that history will be rewritten using these new sources and sometimes with additional dubious sources. It is only a matter of time (probably within 20 years) before all means of first hand information about WWII will be gone.
I for my part have taken the time to "interview" as many survivors as possible to get their side of things down.
Written material is easier to "police" as certain guidelines have to be followed to avoid liable and other legal wrangling. On the other hand there is no "policing" for the internet or it's content and historical inaccuracies are bound to appear whether these are intentional or not they can pervert history.
Having said that, the good sites have their own "policing" in the form of it's members. If someone writes a load of bollox they will soon get shot down. If it's accurate others will post to back this up, my own advice is to read the forums of these sites, read the comments written by it's visitors and if in doubt cross check this data on other sites

[redcoat]

In respect of Ian V Hogg. He served in the British Army for 28 years and saw service in both WW2 and the Korean War. He was enlisted in the Royal Artillery and rose to the rank of Master Gunner and became Assistant Instructor-in-Gunnery at the Royal School Of Artillery. In 1966 he joined the staff of the Royal Military College Of Science to instruct on ammunition and explosives until he retired in 1972.
In the many books he wrote after he retired I doubt even he would have claimed he got everything correct, be I would place any info from him on a higher level than anything on the internet.

[bazso]

yeah that's good points i am preying and hopeing that i will be able to get some books today from amazon also that's why i am in a buying frenzy this has more priority then me getting a new pc system.

someone i live with says in order to get something good you got to put something in before you will see something good come out of it.

[Pirate-Drakk]

I have to agree with all the posts on this thread.

Jane's "whatever" and I. Hogg are both very reputable sources and I have a number of examples of both.

Typically books are better references then the web. The web lacks depth and detail on all subjects compared to books and web material is not as well edited or verified. However, there are a few sites such as this one that are the exception!

On the other hand, I have a number of books from the "Military Book Club" that have grevious errors in tank identifications. In general, it's good to have multiple sources when verifying any specific detail.

[bazso]

hey everyone i got my 5 books in last week and earlier this week i will tell you what they are as soon as i get back from doing some things today

ok i am done with doing things to day here they are

http://www.amazon.co...duct/1574882910

http://www.amazon.co...duct/0517565889

http://www.amazon.co...duct/0883656663

http://www.amazon.co...duct/0760311242

http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1

This post has been edited by bazso: December 11, 2008 - 03:07 PM

[Pirate-Drakk]

bazso said:

hey everyone i got my 5 books in last week and earlier this week i will tell you what they are as soon as i get back from doing some things today

ok i am done with doing things to day here they are

Amazon.com: German Aircraft and Armament: Informational Intelligence, Summary No. 44-32, October 1944 (Informational Intelligence Summary): Walter J. Boyne: Books

Amazon.com: American Fighter: Enzo Angelucci, Peter M. Bowers: Books

Amazon.com: Warplanes of the Third Reich: William Green: Books

Amazon.com: Illustrated Anatomy of the World's Fighters: William Green, Gordon Swanborough: Books

Amazon.com: American Aircraft of World War II: David Mondey: Books

Nice selection! I have none of those books.