soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article <47E9830E.C91D288@comcast.net>,
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
They operated three heavy cruisers during the war: Australia,
Canberra, and Shropshire (transferred to the RAN as they were
running a bit short of cruisers). Of course, not all were in
the RAN at the same time, Shropshire being transferred after
the loss of Canberra at Savo Island.

I'm not coming up with five light cruisers off the top of my
head.

>http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/ww2.html
>
Which lists only three light cruisers.

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

However, you're still missing the point.

The traditions were the same. Warships existed to be used. Warships
that were used were in danger of sinking, but warships not used were
useless.

And, of course, the RAN did have British resources behind them,
to some extent. They did receive one heavy cruiser from the
Brits during the war, and could have been supplied with more.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-