soc.history.war.world-war-ii

aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> > aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
> >
> >> The RAN was to operate as a subordinate part of the RN ... and largely did so.
> >
> >Of course it is relevant. By November 1941 when this battle took place,
> >the RN was very heavily engaged in the European war, and knew that it
> >could only commit a small percentage of its warships to the South
> >Pacific region, which is on the other side of the world from Britain, if
> >a war broke out with Japan.
>
> I am glad that you acknowledge that I am correct.
>
> At last something we can agree on.
>
> It is, however, a pity that you still don't grasp that the RAN adhered
> to RN traditions.

I do understand that, and it was a relationship as well; and that the
navies of Canada and New Zealand had a similar tradition/relationship.

My point was about the mathematical impact of losing the cruiser,
which is a separate issue.

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.