soc.history.war.world-war-ii

thornley@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> >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.

Light cruiser excerpts seem to imply that 5 were used --

Prior to the outbreak of war in September 1939 --
HMAS HOBART Light Cruiser
HMAS SYDNEY Light Cruiser

On the 30 June 1945 the main combat strength of the RAN consisted of:
Light Cruiser 3

The major losses suffered by the RAN include:
Light Cruiser 2

> > 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.

Depends on how they are used, as to how much danger there is of sinking.

Would you suggest that those warships should have shelled Japan in early
1942? Allied carrier air raids on Japan in early 1942?

> 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.

Perhaps.