"Russia is being seen increasingly oppositely by the US, but it takes a long time to dispel decades or longer of suspicion. Russia is much more Liberal than OTL, however, still less so than the UK, for instance, and the US had many concerns re British "Imperialism" there. They conveniently ignored the fact that they had become an imperialist power themselves in the 1890's."
By oppositely, I take it to mean more positively. British Imperialism - of course with plan Orange - remember reading somewhere that certain quarters in US Navy hated the Brits in lead up to WW1. Washington Naval Treaty of course SALT of its time.
Yes, more positively for sure than OTL. It would not say hated the RN, but they were certainly viewed as the main competition for a navy that desired to grab Neptunes trident unchallenged for themselves.
Windsor's hit:
CalBear had the Nazis hit them on purpose if I remember right, this one was accidental.
Yes, it was accidental. That won't stop the moral outrage which will be milked by Churchill I would think
3.9" = 100 mm Japanese guns:
Just on NavWeapons site - this would have been the way for them to go for AA all around looks like, bearing in mind the way the US went with the 3" AA gun from the kamikaze experience. Wonder if the Japanese would then make the leap to adapt this gun to ground service, even as an SP gun - like others did - - baby version of the "SU-130". Thinking that might happen here pretty quick. The T36 will be like Godzilla to them. But then again the feudal japanese army-navy rivalry.
The bigger Russian tanks are not in the Far East at this stage. However, I think it fair to say that Japanese armour will have to be upgraded sooner than OTL. By some time in 1941, it is likely that a few of the more modern Russian tanks will go East. When that happens, a response will be likely
Peril of being a Japanese admiral:
No criticism or argument, just thought it was observable and humorous in a morbid way.
Have read Neptune's Inferno on cruiser engagements in the Solomons - its paints a pretty clear picture of how ships and people get the heck beat out of them in surface actions - Hei for example - gutted by 5, 6, and 8". South Dakota got lucky in that campaign. Only imagine what accurate, heavier calibre fire exchanges would be like - OTL USN perspective more experience dishing it out than taking it. Was thinking about the one J. admiral who made it into the water in Curtain Call and was unhappy about it: he just didn't know how lucky he was did he?
Probably good here ITL to remember the title at all times.
Night surface engagements are always likely to be bloody as they often lead to confusion and short range engagements-a bad combination for both ships and men.
Curtain Call, He119: - from the pic, looked like a more streamlined version of the Misquito.
Not dissimilar to the Mosquito, that's for sure, although not made from wood of course.
Hoods = Admirals if I remember right?
Admirals: Seems like a pretty good design to make sure you hit hard first no matter your approach, for the sacrifice of more weight up front and some sea handling sacrifice I'd imagine from your earlier posts. more vulnerable to losing their fighting ability in anything drawn out. Not a nice thing to run away from either.
The Admirals are very similar to an early version of the French Richleau. They are not marvelous sea boats, but very strong defensively. The Hoods are very similar to a G3 battlecruiser design with it's all or nothing protection scheme, except slightly smaller with a less powerful power plant and a more conventional turret layout(two 16inch forward, one to the rear).
General comments:
Am guessing you are influenced in your writing by Robert Massie with some Barbara Tuchman mixed in as well.
Robert Massie for sure. Have always been a naval buff even back to when I was ten 40 years ago and I started reading Commando comics.
Between the two TL's thanks for "johnboy's school of late 30's, early-war, might-have-been aircraft" have learned a lot.
Thanks for that. There are some interesting aircraft that failed to see service.
Japanese feudal-decisive battle mindset, Shattered Sword and japanese sense of taking responsibility to fix problems:
Bearing in mind Sekigahara is still part of their history here, but Tushima is now a very different memory, be interesting to see how the last chapters of Shattered Sword would read - probably a different perspective this time out. In Tora Tora Tora Japanese scenes always seemed like watching a samurai movie, just different uniforms, not just because Kurasawa did them. Can't help but observe common features from Shattered Sword and how the Fukashima disaster was handled OTL: watching the US PBS special on the latter, felt like watching a version of the SS account of Akagi crew trying to fix the rudder as their ship burned. Some what SS covered about their capacity to corporately identify and fix problems seemed very much at work with the nuke disaster. This really seemed to get rammed home to me contrasting SS and watching the Rickover special again on PBS and his statement about responsibility:
“Responsibility is a unique concept... You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you... If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.”
On the surface of course it looks like the opposite with all the insert sword to stomach on failure. Maybe better to say: so fearful of responsibility and failing, its avoided - and very "brittle" and perfectionist about it all.
Finally, don't know if your familiar with, but Akira Iriye's Across the Pacific said something that's stuck with me, that the Japanese were good at copying Western things but not necessarily ideas and concepts - applied to the past, but not now of course.
No, I have not read it. I will endevour to do so.
