soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article <47EC138A.E408303C@comcast.net>,
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>My point was about the mathematical impact of losing the cruiser,
>which is a separate issue.
>
Which was not the issue. Warships can be kept safe, but then
they are no longer useful. The British tradition, which
the Australians inherited, was to risk ships in order to
accomplish missions.

>The actual losses of Allied warships and naval bases in the first few
>months of the Far East war, proved to be far more devastating than
>anyone had imagined before the war, and added to that was the
>subsequent losses of some of the ADBA warships in 1942.
>
Right, but this happened after Sydney vs. Kormoran, and nobody
would have predicted the Japanese successes. There was no
reason to conserve cruisers and let German raiders prey on
merchantmen unchecked.


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