text: does anyone else feel annoyed at the writen history of the british pacific war? considering how badly the yank needed us.????? your questions and comments indicate a great degree of cluelessness concerning royal navy operations in the pacific theatre.  i'll try and address your comments in the order that you made them:   "gentlemen, gentlemen aren't we forgetting that the british navy steamed with the americans for the entire pacific campaign?? in fact the british carriers were the only ones to have steel decks, therefore making them a little more durable during jap kamikarzi attacks????"  first off, the rn did not steam with the usn during the entire pacific campaign.  from the time of nagumo's carrier raids in the indian ocean in april 1942 until operations against targets in the far east indies starting in april 1944, the rn didn't operate with the usn at all, with the exception of the loaning of hms victorious to the usn towards the end of the guadalacanal campaign due to the carrier losses suffered by the usn.  she didn't see any action, so that's pretty much 2 whole years where the rn did nothing to support the usn in the pacific.  the rn carriers did have armored decks, and they were fairly effective against kamikaze raids.  however, they made a severe trade-off because the armored decks reduced the size of the hangar decks, and rn carriers typically carried an air group only half the size of their usn counterparts, which limited the usefulness of their air groups.  "my grandfather was an officer on the indfatigable, the largest aircraft carrier this country built, certainly during the war, and the whole company of 5000+ men are forgotten......."  your grandfather was a fine man for serving, and has my utmost respect for doing so.  i don't know where you get the 5000+ figure from, the implacable class carriers had a designed crew of 1,585, but actually had a complement near 2,300 during actual service, which is still not even half your figure.  "austrailia was never a target, the japs had no intention of overstretching them selves they were only after the mineral and oil reserves of the philipeans.... get a grip man. the fact that the british fleets pacific home was austraila says that the country would have been defended..."  yet the british pacific fleet wasn't established until 22 november 1944, who was defending australia up til then?  not the previous british far eastern fleet, as the were based in the maldives and were of no use to australia.   you are correct in saying that the japanese wouldn't have invaded australia, they simply didn't have the resources, logistical support, or the troops to do so.  "as for the early british losses the japs took us by surprise too, but that was nothing to the incompetence of pearl habour, where as luck would have it the carriers were out on exercise. the americans knew they were coming and did nothing."  what about the loss of princes of wales and repulse?  no surprises there, it was simply hubris and incompotence which led to them making a sortie with no air support and a miniscule destroyer escort in the face of large numbers of shore-based japanese bombers.  i think the question you should have asked is:  "why is there such a paucity of books concerning royal navy opeartions in the pacific and indian ocean theaters during wwii?"  in my humble opinion that would have been a better question which would have yielded more fruitful answers.  oh, and i would like to know why bearstirringfromcave thinks rn carrier design was superior to usn carrier design?  (and the experiences in the med didn't have much to do with it, as they changed almost nothing in their carrier designs even after the med was secure).