ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Nik, Iasked this earlier . . . . do you know if Nevada left on its own initiative or per pre-existing orders (i.e. in case of air attack bugger off asap)?
While i don't have a direct quote i believe it was standard operating procedures. I note from one dusty tomb i own that after the attack other ships also got under way and fled to sea in order to not present themselves as sitting duck targets as well as to "look for the enemy fleet" (This included CL's St Louis, Phoenix, and Detroit, and destroyers Monaghan, Tucker, Bagley, Dale, Henley and Phelps.)
Like i said, it just wouldn't make sense for a fleet, before or after a threat of air attack, to sit in harbor. Thinking of Taranto.....same thing. Operational warships after that raid fled the harbor to safer waters. Most if not all navies considered a ship at it's most vulnerable when at anchor in a harbor. (again demonstrated by US CV policy for the months immediately following the PH attack. CV TF's were to only enter PH at any one moment and only long enough to fuel and re-provision and then....back out to sea.
You don't build a big expensive navy and then leave it for another navy to use as target practice. I don't care how strong the defenses are in theory. Nor do i think the USN naval command would think that way. A warship fights best when at sea, with room to maneuver and fight and fully manned at battlesations. Only a defeated, disabled or morale poor navy hides in port in the face of attack. (This of course does not include sitting in port to AVOID attack as was seen in large part during WWI)
