It's hard to rationalize, sometimes, which account of an engagement is the most accurate. I've read so many WWII books and watched so many documentaries only to end up with more questions than answers. There are so many different accounts, viewpoints and perspectives in these books/documentaries that, even trying to extrapolate the facts can be challenging. No doubt, the "black shoes" who held the upper hand until Pearl Harbor, believed in the "big gun" mentality and the battleship. Even after Pearl Harbor, there were those who continued to adhere to the "big gun" school of thought.
I've read so many different viewpoints as to what admirals fit into which category (black shoe .vs brown shoe) and who was a better or worse choice to lead a carrier TF that it boggles my mind. Anyway, the point is, western views seem to be
dictated (or perhaps
biased is a better word) by our own tactics and doctrines. We tend to believe or rationalize according to the way
we think. It's not intentional but rather, consequential. If the attack on PH didn't prove Billy Mitchell right, the sinking of the POW & Repulse should've layed all doubts to rest.
The British still believed in the Battleship before the sinking of these two BBs. Perhaps they needed a Pearl Harbor of their own to break the camel's back. I'm not saying anyone is correct over the other but, Armistead seems to rationalize a valid point. How could the BRN believe that their ships were out of range if the Japanese had already proven otherwise? Then again, how the heck did Singapore fall into Japanese hands, despite the historical archives? I'm not saying the Bristish didn't believe they were out of range. I'm asking, how could they believe they were out of range? Maybe something as simple as deprecation of the enemy and/or his capabilities?
