Re: Habakkuk: Is it more American or British design?
I can't see the US building the Habakkuk. By the end of the war the US was quite good at building quite good steel aircraft carriers; the US was also quite good at taking out the U-Boats from the air. And at the end of the war aircraft such as the B-35 and B-36 were on the horizon capable of carpet bombing Germany from the CONUS. The US didn't *need* the Habakkuk.
The alternate history would have to be quite remarkably different for the US to go ahead with this. The Germans succeed in their invasion of the USSR, say, taking out the Soviets by the end of 1942 and then devoting all their effort to trouncing the Brits by, say, the end of 1943. If the Germans only had to devote a trivial percentage of their effort to the USSR, then *maybe* having a floating, nigh invulnerable way station in the Atlantic might've made some sort of sense.
I can't see the US building the Habakkuk. By the end of the war the US was quite good at building quite good steel aircraft carriers; the US was also quite good at taking out the U-Boats from the air. And at the end of the war aircraft such as the B-35 and B-36 were on the horizon capable of carpet bombing Germany from the CONUS. The US didn't *need* the Habakkuk.
The alternate history would have to be quite remarkably different for the US to go ahead with this. The Germans succeed in their invasion of the USSR, say, taking out the Soviets by the end of 1942 and then devoting all their effort to trouncing the Brits by, say, the end of 1943. If the Germans only had to devote a trivial percentage of their effort to the USSR, then *maybe* having a floating, nigh invulnerable way station in the Atlantic might've made some sort of sense.