Re: Carriers sunk in surface action
- From: azb@xxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Robert Breen)
- Date: 4 May 2006 20:40:38 +0100
In article <445a2f02.12027366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eugene Griessel <eugene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
azb@xxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
See D.K. Brown, Nelson to Vanguard, Chatham Press.
Another good one is Layman, R.D., Steve McLauglin. The Hybrid Warship:
The Amalgamation of Big Guns and Aircraft . Conway.
That's a book I need to get, right after I finally manage to get a
hold of David Lyon's 16xx-1815 volume on the sailing navy..
The cite I quoted was from Cmdr Montagu in "Beyond Top Secret U" where
it was decided to use the abandoned work as a deception to attempt to
convince the Japanese to take up the idea of the "battle-carriers".
Apparently the deception was continued even after VE day.
I like that very well indeed. Get the opposition to do something dumb.
I still have not received a single direct answer to my original
question which was, put a little differently, "apart from Glorious and
Gambier Bay how many full flight-decked non-seaplane carriers were
sunk largely by surface action".
The more I think of it the more I reckon that's the total.
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)