soc.history.war.world-war-ii

aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> >We're talking about the RAN, not the RN, and while the RAN stemmed from
> >many of the same traditions as the RN, the RAN had few enough cruisers
> >that losing one had a large negative impact.
>
> You simply don't get it.
>
> The RAN was essentially a clone of the RN in all the areas that counted.

Except numerically. Of warships of light cruiser power or higher, I
count the total used during WWII by RAN at 2 heavy cruisers and 5 light
cruisers.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/ww2.html

One light cruiser was a substantial percentage of the total naval power.

Given the size of the RN, to lose the same percentage of the total naval
power, would probably amount to at least (tell us how many) fleet
aircraft carriers.