Quote:
Originally Posted by zed055
I read this just the other day and I immediately thought it rang true, compared to all the potential explanations for the logic behind the decision to proceed without air cover:From the Wikipedia entry:
"Regarding Phillips' decision to proceed without air cover, Naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote:Those who make the decisions in war are constantly weighing certain risks against possible gains. At the outset of hostilities Admiral Hart thought of sending his small striking force north of Luzon to challenge Japanese communications, but decided that the risk to his ships outweighed the possible gain because the enemy had won control of the air. Admiral Phillips had precisely the same problem in Malaya. Should he steam into the Gulf of Siam and expose his ships to air attack from Indochina in the hope of breaking enemy communications with their landing force? He decided to take the chance. With the Royal Air Force and the British Army fighting for their lives, the Royal Navy could not be true to its tradition by remaining idly at anchor."
Better to fight and lose the battle than to sit back and watch fellow Brits die in the attempt.
|
Sad logic, often better to live and fight another day, if the US didn't do this early war, we probably would've lost Midway.