Sventex

While I don't think all that highly of Admiral Nelson and I don't have every single battle of his memorized, but he never lost a ship at the Nile, Copenhagen or Trafalgar. Nelson simply had a vastly superior fleet in all instances. While the Spanish had some impressive ships at Trafalgar, the years of blockade and eroded the seamanship and gunnery of those ships to the point it was no longer a contest. Admiral Yi had vastly superior ships vs the awful awful Japanese ships. The Japanese's ability to sink ships was almost zero, relying on fire arrows which of course helped Admiral Yi. This does not translate into Yi being able to win at Midway because Midway was an even contest. If the Japanese had Korean Turtle Ships, you can expect Admiral Yi to sustain heavy casualties.

No, none of the US Battleships that capsized at Pearl Harbor ever entered service again. All capsized Battleships at Pearl Harbor either were scrapped, or capsized a second time on it's way to being scrapped.

The invasion plans are on wikipedia. Already the major cities of Japan had been destroyed by the bombing campaign. I think it's also worth mentioning that an invasion of Japan by the US would have a devastating effect on the 1,124,900 Japanese soldiers stuck in China as their supply lines would be totally cut.

Well the UK nearly destroyed itself building Battleships in the lead up to WWI, which is why all those London and Washington Naval Treaties were voluntarily signed. Those pre-dreadnoughts were actively poison to the fleets and to the nation itself, draining of them of funds and personal. While certainly those 60 pre-dreads could prevent a theoretical naval invasion, they would never catch a German Battlecruiser Squadron and 60 pre-dreadnoughts would be to expensive to deploy in a Napoleonic style blockade, so effectively the British blockade would be broken after Jutland. Even a 3kt difference is enough for the pre-dreadnoughts to fail at intercepting another fleet. And another problem is that the "hail of fire" concept make the Pre-Dreadnought weaker because they had difficulty in figuring out which guns were making what splashes, which badly affected fire control and accuracy. The all big guns Dreadnought was like taking combining 2 and 2 and getting 5. It's like when the French invented smokeless powder. It effectively reset all the other nation's weapons technology to zero. All weapons development was halted in favor of emergency programs to develop smokeless powder, because the French now had a gun that could shoot twice the far, could do more damage, didn't cloud the battlefield with smoke and didn't foul their own barrels. Yes a black powder rifle could still kill and some were deployed in WWI, but smokeless powder was superior in all respects and did not cost more then black powder. The obsolete weapons belonged with garrisoning and defence duties and not much more.

It comes down to combat effectiveness. HMS Dreadnought not only well over double the big guns of a Pre-Dread, she was faster at the same time. There is no overstating how dangerous that would be, a ship like that could outfight 2 Pre-Dreadnoughts at the same time, dictate the range and win. While Pre-Dreadnoughts could assist in the Fleet-In-Being concept and assist in a blockade they were no longer war winning assets, despite being almost as expensive to maintain as Dreadnoughts. Pre-Dreadnoughts were effectively dead-end technology and a waste of money to build any more of them after HMS Dreadnought.

By WWII, their slow speed damned them. Just about the only thing they could overtake was a merchant vessel. While a Pre-Dread could certainly outfight a Destroy or an old Cruiser, it would have to be the Destroyer or Cruiser that would initiate the battle with their superior speed. With the in-ability to actively engage any ship it would be superior against because of the colossal speed differences, you begin to see them as a waste of funding.

I would agree that the Siegfried Line could have held longer if they didn't throw away their supplies and King Tiger tanks in the Battle of the Bulge. The less the German Army moved around the West, the more combat capable they would have been. However the Eastern Front was a lost cause in my opinion and the Allies would ABSOLUTELY not accept a ceasefire because of the memories of WWI. Berlin had to fall no matter what, but the US would not endlessly throw men onto fortified defences either. The Allied Bombing fleet with saturation bombings would eventually just destroy the line an certain points.

There's very little to gain from invading Switzerland. It's not going to stop the US from manufacturing their licenced products because the US doesn't give a damn about Hitler's occupation laws given Hitler was a liar and breaker of treaties. It's not like the 12 Chrysler factories building Bofors 40mm guns are going to take any licencing lawsuit from Hitler seriously if he controlled Sweden. As for Sweden, this may better answer your question: Sweden was a "friendly" trading partner to Germany so why attack a friend? And when Sweden began leaning more and more to the Allies, Germany was getting weaker and weaker. When Sweden found out about Germany's invasion plans of Sweden, they mobilized half a million men in 1943. By then the German forces occupying Norway would have been badly outnumbered if they invaded Sweden.

The Scandinavian countries made some good stuff. The first US adopted bolt action rifle was the Norwegian Krag–Jørgensen. Certainly there was a controversy and cries of corruption from US gun manufacturers that a foreign rifle would beat out all other US rifles in trials, but when the US military saw quality it bought it. Bear in mind the US military had a penny pinching mindset back then, they wanted quality weapons that were robust. They were far less interested in letting patriotism make the choices for them if it was going to cost them more in the long run. By WWI the US were using French planes, French tanks and even French Chauchats because the US was under equipped and really only a 2nd tier power. During the Depression the US military tech fell behind the times, with no viable tank engines to use or large turret designs ready for manufacture until 1942. It would be in such times the US would look elsewhere to handle all the research and development costs. Also as I understand it, the US at the time had a reverence for Scandinavian weapons, a stereotype in their mindseye of old master craftsman working on these weapons by hand.

Yeah, even with the US not having carriers, Midway is far easier for the US to defend and attack because of its proximity to Pearl Harbor with just Battleships. The Fleet In Being concept would apply here. Whatever forces Japan would leave to defend a captured Midway would end up inadequate to defend against the might of the USN without carriers.

Your not listening, the entire Japanese Fleet cannot anchor at Midway forever. It's not a port and it has no oil to maintain a fleet indefinitely. So you listing the fleet of Japan means nothing to me. The IJN fleet has to go home eventually, otherwise the ships will run out of oil and US submarines will finish them off. These American 16 inch guns and 14 inch guns would be used on Japanese soldiers, not Battleships. And without the fleet, a theoretical Japanese garrison of Midway cannot withstand a counterattack.

Just send the Battleships USS Arkansas, USS Colorado, USS Idaho, USS Maryland, USS Mississippi, USS New Mexico, USS New York, USS North Carolina, USS Pennsylvania, USS Tennessee, USS Texas and USS Washington. All these United States Battleships were combat capable by the time of the Battle of Midway. If needed, the British might even lend some of their Battleships for added support. Japan cannot have air superiority over Midway indefinitely. Their Kido Butai would need to return to home bases to refuel and rearm and their Midway invasion operation damaged the Midway airfields meaning they would have no air presence at all if the United States Navy chooses to retake Midway. Also, Midway is just in range of the Flying Fortresses from Hickam Air Force Base in Pearl Harbor. It would be the US with an air presence, even it if was strictly bombers and the Kido Butai would most certainly not want to anchor at Midway because of this. The USN's fleet even during the Midway period was vastly stronger then the IJN fleet in the defence.

No. A spaceplane could be launched by rocket because it's aerodynamic and docked with a space station on standby, so you don't need space side construction. Space navies could have existed at the inception of space travel if so desired. Wernher von Braun discussing space travel

Wake Island shows a listed strength of 449 USMC personnel consisting of: 399 infantry of the 1st Defense Battalion 50 det. VMF-211 6 coastal artillery pieces 12 aircraft 12 anti-aircraft guns 68 U.S. Navy personnel 5 U.S. Army personnel the result being the first Japanese assault failing. The 2nd assault, with 2500 Japanese infantry succeeded, partly to the result that Wake Island could not be resupplied on the US side. The US were outnumbered 5:1 on the ground. As for Guam, the territory is far close to Japan then it is to Hawaii. The US were outnumbered 11 : 1. Strength Land: 547 marines and sailors Sea: 1 minesweeper 2 patrol boats 1 freighter Land: 5,900 infantry and marines Sea: 4 heavy cruisers 4 destroyers 2 gunboats 6 submarine chasers 2 minesweepers 2 tenders Air: unknown air forces The Japanese Midway Occupation Force Transport Group carrying about 5000 troops under Capt. Minoru Ōta IJN and Colonel Kiyonao Ichiki IJA. The American garrison on Midway in June 1942 consisted of the 6th Marine Defense Battalion, reinforced by elements of the 3rd Marine Defense Battalion and the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion. These units would have been joined by personnel from Midway's airfield, and from Motor Torpedo Squadron 1 (based in Midway's lagoon) had a landing occurred. This gave the US a garrison of between 3000 and 4500 men (depending on sources). The Japanese did not even have a 2:1 advantage in troops in their invasion force and the US had cracked Japanese codes and were well aware of the invasion. - Hypothetically speaking the Japanese take Midway, the IJN fleet is going to have to return home to resupply and refuel, what's the stop the USN Battleships from sailing from Pearl, bombarding Midway till their ammo runs dry and utilizing some of the 142,613 Marines the USMC had by 1942 to retake it? Any hypothetical Japanese occupation force is then going to be completely cut off from supplies. Midway does not any local water sources, freshwater must be shipped in regularly and Midway is a long long way from Japan. As for the defences of Pearl Harbor: In December of 1941 the Army's Hawaiian Department was led LT General Walter Short and consisted of about 43,000 Army soldiers. Organized around 2 under strength infantry divisions (24th and 25th), 4 Coastal Artillery, and 4 Anti Air Artillery regiments, and assorted support and auxiliary formations. In the air he had 1 Pursuit and 1 Bomber Wing, having on strength about 60 bombers(less than half were of the most modern make), and 150 fighters, of which 100 were P-40's and the rest older models. - Additionally there was a modest USMC ground presence based around Pearl and Ewa Field, totaling about 700 men and about 60 aircraft. Add to that the 10,000+ combat personal manning the Fleet in Pearl Harbor. As for The Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces formed around thirty-five of these battalion-sized units (about 650–1200 men) during the war. Those units which were raised prior to the start of the war had some assault training but as the war progressed the quality of the troops and the training declined and they were used solely for defense and garrison duties. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_Land_Forces

The Capitalists require profit to setup infrastructure in space. Since there are hardly any resources for the current technology to exploit in space, there will be no manufacturing in space. We already have the power sources and engines that can do a lot like the NERVA nuclear engines and nuclear reactors. The question is what you'd do with such a spacecraft in the 21st century? Nuclear technology is expensive to build and it doesn't pay off in space yet.