soc.history.war.world-war-ii

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

Of course it is. Losing a cruiser in the North Atlantic in 1941 would
have an order of magnitude less mathematical impact, than in the South
Pacific in 1941.

> Warships can be kept safe, but then they are no longer useful.

Strawman ...

> The British tradition, which
> the Australians inherited, was to risk ships in order to
> accomplish missions.

Depends on how much risk, for how much gain.

Would you suggest that those warships should have shelled homeland Japan
in early 1942? Allied carrier air raids (the conventional type as in
bombers flown from and to the carriers) on homeland Japan in early 1942?