Re: "A ship in port is safe. But that's not what ships are built for"
UK was so afraid to lose its fleet in a battle that just tried to hide it in the ports hoping the war would have been won just killing soldiers on ground.
In both wars UK could have attempted to shorten them attacking Germany or Italy from the sea, and not only from the trenches. But commanders were too coward to attempt it and risk their precious ships (and careers). Let soldiers die, who cares. Which was the last great UK naval battle after Trafalgar, against a comparable fleet, and not in great superiority?
It feared so much submarines and other menaces it preferred to keep the big ship safe. Especially after the Hood sank as soon as it was hit, and it took a whole fleet to sink the Bismark.
Italy had the same fears, and instead of attacking Malta with the fleet kept it hidden as well - especially whem Malta air defense was almost depleted.
It is true UK carriers were so slow to deploy and refuel their few planes - that they weren't much useful in a true modern battle to enable a CAP and attack enemy ships.
Distant blockade? Germany didn't have a real fleet - and you don't use battleship for a commercial traffic blockade - while its u-boote almost blockaded UK, being free to operate - until US brought in a lot of ship and airplanes to fight them.
And what blockade was performed in the Mediterranean? The German took Greece, Crete, and almost the Egypt. Thank Suez... and Franco.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
