Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: henkster

Now that I have read a couple detailed accounts of the last minutes of the Rawalpindi I have to wonder if Captain Kennedy did the right thing, or even the honorable thing, by failing to surrender to the two German battlecruisers. For the loss of over 200 men what did he gain? If they had stood down and waited for the Germans to board they could have provided a more accurate description of the enemy ships than they were able to before their radio was knocked out. The inflicted no damage whatever to Scharnhort and Gneisenau. The crew behaved nobly but it seems more like foolhardiness on the part of the Captain.


9 posted on 11/27/2009 10:11:45 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Homer_J_Simpson

The Royal Navy had a 300 year tradition of aggressive combat in total disregard of the odds. Captain Kennedy’s acts were foolhardy by any standards, except those prevailing in the tradition of his service. What he did by taking on two battle cruisers was hailed as an outstanding example of what a Royal Navy captain should be about.


10 posted on 11/27/2009 10:48:21 AM PST by henkster (0bamanomics: The "Final Solution" to America's "Prosperity Question.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson