Alternate History

[Pterano]

I wasn't debating that though Malte. All I was saying was I think psychological factors played less into it than his diet and genetics did. He lived in such a way that he probably had a better chance of survival (he had half his mother's genes after all) than his father did, but that various other factors played into it, regardless of psychological ones. The medical evidence basically says that either way he would've died from this, though I am by no means claiming it would've been on the exact date he died as well. Some other accident could've befallen him before then of course.

I don't disagree with you that he probably would've lived longer too had it not been in exile, though how much longer I think is debatable, and I doubt he would've lived past his fifties given his diet and genetics.

[Ghostfishe]

Alternate human history doesn't often appeal to me a lot since it tends to be set in recent times. I'm not sure I've seen any that involved ancient peoples, which is where my interests in history usually lie. But I love speculative zoology, if that counts.

[DarkHououmon]

Ah yes. I love alternate history involving animals, like what if x animal became dominant instead of y animal, or what if x animal never went extinct, so y animal never existed.

[Chomper98]

Battles that were truly decisive, as Waterloo would have been a minor victory if Napoleon won, as, like Pterano said, he would still have to contend with Russia and Austria, and if there's one thing history has taught us, it is NOT to invade Russia. The only time I remember actually getting defeated was in 1917, as Germany actually knocked out Russia, were Gettysburg and Stalingrad.

Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War, and if Lee won, Washington D.C. would have been in striking range, and we all know what would happen if they captured Washington. It was also the largest battle in North America, 165,000 troops, that is nothing compared to Stalingrad, but still was large, and it was decisive.

Stalingrad was the second largest in WWII, and was the bloodiest day in human history, more then the entire western front combined. It was the battle where the Soviets turned the tide, and could take the offensive. If it was lost, the war would be lost, first, Russia would have been forced to retreat, and the Germans could take Moscow, which would have been a German version of the Battle of Berlin.

And with no eastern front, Germany could turn to the west, where their millions of soldiers could be stationed. Normandy would have been a bloody battle, and even if it was a victory, Germany would throw its entire army at the allies, overwhelming them, and likely causing America to sue for peace, withdrawing from the war, and Britain falling to a renewed Operation Sealion. Likely, America would focus on Japan, and defeat it with the A-bomb.

This would result in two Superpowers(England would have been defeated, Italy already was by 1944, and Japan would still be defeated), the United States and Nazi Germany.

A cold war would likely happen, and Germany and America would support different sides in Proxy wars. If Germany developed the H-Bomb, then the world would be screwed, Hitler would eventually threaten the United States with nuclear war, and either America would surrender, or the world would be obliterated.

Scary huh? We are lucky Stalingrad was a Russian victory.

[Malte279]

The only time I remember actually getting defeated was in 1917, as Germany actually knocked out Russia

Though this one was owed more to the revolution of a large part of the Russian people rather than the German army. It created the wrong impression for Hitler of the Soviet Union as a defenseless giant (an impression further fostered by the Soviet Unions extreme difficulties in dealing with so small a victim as Finnland). What was overlooked was that Stalin in his earlier terror regime had systematically killed off pretty much everyone who might rise up against him resulting in an atmosphere of fear that made such an uprising less likely than it was in 1917.

...and we all know what would happen if they captured Washington.

There is some likelihood that the north would have given up, especially because of the series of defeats preceeding the year before Gettysburg which resulted in the morale on the northern homefront to be relatively low.
However, I would not quite go so far as to consider the war as won by the south if they had won at Gettysburg. Let's assume that Pickett's charge would have conquered Cemetery Ridge and that the north decided to withdraw in spite of still having more significant reserves than the south did (Sedgewick's VI. Corps had seen only relatively small action the previous day). It would have been another huge triumph for the south, but nevertheless it would have been a triumph that reduced Lee's army quite a bit. Of course the Federal losses where heavy too, but not enough to bridge the superiorty in numbers between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. If after Gettysburg the North had retreated to Washington it would have been a huge prestige gain for the South, but they would now face a numerically superior enemy in heavy fortifications. When Jubal Early got within sight of Washington in 1864 with the fortifications manned by the VI. Corps (same that had been mostly in reserve at Gettysburg) he deceided against a major attack that would have almost certainly resulted in the destruction of his command.
Nevertheless the thought can be driven further. What IF the South had captured Washington? Let's assume Lee had followed the course of action advocated by Longstreet to place himself and his army in a defensive position between the Army of the Potomac and Washington. Let's assume the north as a result would have been defeated in Fredericksburg style and that Lee's triumphant army afterwards would have marched into a barely defended Washington. Lincoln and many members of Congress would probably be evacuated by boat. This would have been the ultimate disaster for the North. Chances are that it would have resulted in protests in the north growing too strong to continue the war and that there might have been a peace.
It would have been a peace caused by the inner resistance within the North rather than the military defeat though (similar in that sense to Russia 1917). Such a scenario is possible given the morale in the North and the strong rifts between republicans and democrats.
However, I don't think that a capture of the highly symbolic D.C. would have won a war because of anything other than the symbolism. The strategic significance of Washington (town in a former swamp surrounded by slavestates) was minor compared to that of some of the large industrial towns in the north. America had lost its capitals two times before. It was torched by the British in 1814 (revenge for the Americans torching York = Toronto earlier in the war), but the war went on. During the American Revolution (which, given the high number of Loyalists had the character of a civil war), the British captured Philadelphia and the Continental Congress had to be evacuated first to Lancaster and then to York (I wonder if anyone then appreciated the allusion of these town names to the English Wars of the Roses) but the war continued.
Perhaps the capture of Washington in 1863 would not have ended a war which other than by breaking the northern morale or by gaining the support of other powers could not have been won by the south in the long run given the northern superiority in almost everything but cotton.
The main aim of the South, to gain political recognition and military support by England and France (the later was inclined to grant that support, but not without England) is not likely to have been achieved by the capture of Washington in 1863. The proclamation of Emancipation had made the political recognition of the south by a European power extremely unlikely by that time.
The battle of Gettysburg was unquestionably a turning point of the American Civil War, but if I was to settle for one single turning point I think I would consider the battle of Antietam and its consequences more decicive and more suitable for "what if" scenarios.
A tactical draw resulting in the withdraw of the South only after it was clear that the day after the battle (the 17th of September 1862 still is the bloodiest single day in American history) Federal commanding General George McClellan would not renew his attacks may seem an "unsatisfactory" turning point, but nonetheless I think it was. The significance of the battle was of course mainly political. Declaring the battle to be a great victory for the north it allowed Lincoln to pass the proclamation of emancipation which had been resting in a drawer for a while already. Lincoln had been advised to wait for a victory to pass the proclamation as anything else would have appeared like a measure of despair in the face of defeat. This proclamation (as mentioned before) made it practically impossible for a European power to recognize and support the south which left the south with the only chance of breaching the northern morale and the will to fight (a morale that turned out to be much stronger during the huge bloodshed in 1864 than many had expected).
Antietam is very suitable for "what if" scenarios in both directions.
If the south had won a distinct victory here it might in fact have resulted in recognition for the south by England and France which might have made it possible for the war to be won militarily rather than by just holding out with the hope that the morale of the north breaks first. If England had joined the war on the side of the south there would have been the superior British navy to lift the blockade and also the North would have had to fight a two front war along the south as well as the Canadian border.
The other direction of "what if" scenarios would be what if McClellan had been more determined at Antietam. I don't think there has been another time in the war when there was an army so "ready to be captured" as the army of Northern Virginia was with the Potomac in its back at Antietam. Had McClellan sent Porter's corps and all reserves in he probably would have been able to capture most of Lee's army which lacked much of a way of retreat (just one ford over the broad river). The destruction of the army of northern virginia (and a possible capture of commanders such as Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet) would have all but opened up the entire eastern theatre of the war for the North. A total federal victory at Antietam might have cut the war short by two years or even more, spared a lot of destruction and loss of life and perhaps it would have even limited the degree of the "Lost Cause" legend.

[Malte279]

Stalingrad was the second largest in WWII, and was the bloodiest day in human history, more then the entire western front combined.

The battle of Stalingrad lasted for months though. The casualties included many prisoners (though many of them would die). The bloodiest single day in human history was not part of the battle of Stalingrad. The bloodiest day in European history (I think there may be an even bloodier day in Chinese history, but I'm not quite sure) was probably the 1st of July 1916, the first day of the battle of the Somme during WW1. British losses alone on that day ammounted to more than 57 000 men almost 20 000 of whom were dead rather than wounded (many of the wounded would later die or be disabled for life) or captured. French casualties are estimated to have been about 7000 and German losses about 10 000 that day. So it would ammount to about 74 000 people being killed or maimed or captured on a single day.

[Chomper98]

The only time I remember actually getting defeated was in 1917, as Germany actually knocked out Russia

Though this one was owed more to the revolution of a large part of the Russian people rather than the German army. It created the wrong impression for Hitler of the Soviet Union as a defenseless giant (an impression further fostered by the Soviet Unions extreme difficulties in dealing with so small a victim as Finnland). What was overlooked was that Stalin in his earlier terror regime had systematically killed off pretty much everyone who might rise up against him resulting in an atmosphere of fear that made such an uprising less likely than it was in 1917.

...and we all know what would happen if they captured Washington.

There is some likelihood that the north would have given up, especially because of the series of defeats preceeding the year before Gettysburg which resulted in the morale on the northern homefront to be relatively low.
However, I would not quite go so far as to consider the war as won by the south if they had won at Gettysburg. Let's assume that Pickett's charge would have conquered Cemetery Ridge and that the north decided to withdraw in spite of still having more significant reserves than the south did (Sedgewick's VI. Corps had seen only relatively small action the previous day). It would have been another huge triumph for the south, but nevertheless it would have been a triumph that reduced Lee's army quite a bit. Of course the Federal losses where heavy too, but not enough to bridge the superiorty in numbers between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. If after Gettysburg the North had retreated to Washington it would have been a huge prestige gain for the South, but they would now face a numerically superior enemy in heavy fortifications. When Jubal Early got within sight of Washington in 1864 with the fortifications manned by the VI. Corps (same that had been mostly in reserve at Gettysburg) he deceided against a major attack that would have almost certainly resulted in the destruction of his command.
Nevertheless the thought can be driven further. What IF the South had captured Washington? Let's assume Lee had followed the course of action advocated by Longstreet to place himself and his army in a defensive position between the Army of the Potomac and Washington. Let's assume the north as a result would have been defeated in Fredericksburg style and that Lee's triumphant army afterwards would have marched into a barely defended Washington. Lincoln and many members of Congress would probably be evacuated by boat. This would have been the ultimate disaster for the North. Chances are that it would have resulted in protests in the north growing too strong to continue the war and that there might have been a peace.
It would have been a peace caused by the inner resistance within the North rather than the military defeat though (similar in that sense to Russia 1917). Such a scenario is possible given the morale in the North and the strong rifts between republicans and democrats.
However, I don't think that a capture of the highly symbolic D.C. would have won a war because of anything other than the symbolism. The strategic significance of Washington (town in a former swamp surrounded by slavestates) was minor compared to that of some of the large industrial towns in the north. America had lost its capitals two times before. It was torched by the British in 1814 (revenge for the Americans torching York = Toronto earlier in the war), but the war went on. During the American Revolution (which, given the high number of Loyalists had the character of a civil war), the British captured Philadelphia and the Continental Congress had to be evacuated first to Lancaster and then to York (I wonder if anyone then appreciated the allusion of these town names to the English Wars of the Roses) but the war continued.
Perhaps the capture of Washington in 1863 would not have ended a war which other than by breaking the northern morale or by gaining the support of other powers could not have been won by the south in the long run given the northern superiority in almost everything but cotton.
The main aim of the South, to gain political recognition and military support by England and France (the later was inclined to grant that support, but not without England) is not likely to have been achieved by the capture of Washington in 1863. The proclamation of Emancipation had made the political recognition of the south by a European power extremely unlikely by that time.
The battle of Gettysburg was unquestionably a turning point of the American Civil War, but if I was to settle for one single turning point I think I would consider the battle of Antietam and its consequences more decicive and more suitable for "what if" scenarios.
A tactical draw resulting in the withdraw of the South only after it was clear that the day after the battle (the 17th of September 1862 still is the bloodiest single day in American history) Federal commanding General George McClellan would not renew his attacks may seem an "unsatisfactory" turning point, but nonetheless I think it was. The significance of the battle was of course mainly political. Declaring the battle to be a great victory for the north it allowed Lincoln to pass the proclamation of emancipation which had been resting in a drawer for a while already. Lincoln had been advised to wait for a victory to pass the proclamation as anything else would have appeared like a measure of despair in the face of defeat. This proclamation (as mentioned before) made it practically impossible for a European power to recognize and support the south which left the south with the only chance of breaching the northern morale and the will to fight (a morale that turned out to be much stronger during the huge bloodshed in 1864 than many had expected).
Antietam is very suitable for "what if" scenarios in both directions.
If the south had won a distinct victory here it might in fact have resulted in recognition for the south by England and France which might have made it possible for the war to be won militarily rather than by just holding out with the hope that the morale of the north breaks first. If England had joined the war on the side of the south there would have been the superior British navy to lift the blockade and also the North would have had to fight a two front war along the south as well as the Canadian border.
The other direction of "what if" scenarios would be what if McClellan had been more determined at Antietam. I don't think there has been another time in the war when there was an army so "ready to be captured" as the army of Northern Virginia was with the Potomac in its back at Antietam. Had McClellan sent Porter's corps and all reserves in he probably would have been able to capture most of Lee's army which lacked much of a way of retreat (just one ford over the broad river). The destruction of the army of northern virginia (and a possible capture of commanders such as Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet) would have all but opened up the entire eastern theatre of the war for the North. A total federal victory at Antietam might have cut the war short by two years or even more, spared a lot of destruction and loss of life and perhaps it would have even limited the degree of the "Lost Cause" legend.

Hmmm, yes I get that Gettysburg was not that symbolic, but I do believe that, with much of the north tired of war, that Gettysburg would probably be a hammer bloq, and Northerners would likely demand for peace, and if Lincoln refused, he would likely be impeached for his refusal, because if the will of the people is ignored, it makes him a dictator in a way, and the congress would impeach him for it.

But had Lee won Gettysburg, then Britain and France would have likely recognized them, because they were leaning towards doing that by 1863. With 2 world powers against them, America would likely be defeated.

If Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, then it would be seen as desperation.

Russia actually lost to Germany in World War I, because Czar Nicholas II insisted on taking control of the troops himself in 1915, and the German army outfought a larger Russian army, and the Czar's poor leadership caused more casualties, so it was a combination of losses, military defeats, and their monarch's incompetence, which combined, ended Russia's involvement.

[Chomper98]

Stalingrad was the second largest in WWII, and was the bloodiest day in human history, more then the entire western front combined.

The battle of Stalingrad lasted for months though. The casualties included many prisoners (though many of them would die). The bloodiest single day in human history was not part of the battle of Stalingrad. The bloodiest day in European history (I think there may be an even bloodier day in Chinese history, but I'm not quite sure) was probably the 1st of July 1916, the first day of the battle of the Somme during WW1. British losses alone on that day ammounted to more than 57 000 men almost 20 000 of whom were dead rather than wounded (many of the wounded would later die or be disabled for life) or captured. French casualties are estimated to have been about 7000 and Terman losses about 10 000 that day. So it would ammount to about 74 000 people being killed or maimed or captured on a single day.

Sorry. I didn't know it was more then a single day, but when I said bloody, I meant wounded and killed.

[Chomper98]

I came up with another alternate history, and this one is much darker, German victories in the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, and Moscow. I am NOT a nazi for doing this, just another possible timeline.

1940

14th September, the Lufwaffe(Germany's airforce) wins the Battle of Britain. First bombing the factories, airfields and bases, next taking on the fighters until there were no fighters left, all over the course of six weeks.

15th September, German paratroopers land in southern England from the air. The Homeguard are no match for these elite troops, and the port of Dover is captured.

16th September, 100,000 German soldiers and 3,500 Panzer tanks cross the English channel. They land in three waves on a wide front, and before the British can react, they secure a beach-head.

25th September- The British army fails to launch a successful counterattack, due to a lack of artillery, tanks, and harrasment from the Lufwaffe. Germans secure much of southern England.

1st October, London is bombed by over a 1,000 planes, Winston Churchill is killed in the raid.

5th October, The royal family is evacuated to Canada, the government makes a desperate plea to the United States for assistance, despite civilian sympathy, they refuse to get involved.

10th October, German troops march into London, the last beacon of freedom in Europe is extinguished, Germany reigns supreme.

November, With England defeated, Germany decides to focus on the last remaining neutral countries in Europe, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, and Yugoslavia. Ireland is given control of Northern Ireland, and Japan invades Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and India.

10th November, Germany issues an ultimatum to Europe's remaining countries, either join in an alliance, or be invaded. Greece, Sweden, and Switzerland stand firm, while Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Spain join Germany.

15th November, backed by Germany and Italy, Spain invades Portugal, while Germany invades Yugoslavia and Sweden, and Italy invades Greece.

13th December, Lisbon and Athens fall to German and Italian invaders, and Germany declares World War II at an end. By this time, Japan has conquered Australia and India, and have defeated China, the last remaining threat in Eurasia is the Soviet Union.

1941
14th December 1940-April 21st, 1941 Germany and the other Axis powers plan the invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japan is convinced by Germany to not attack Pearl Harbor.

22nd April, Germany begins the invasion of the Soviet Union, and quickly takes Poland, the Baltics, and the Ukraine. Finland, out of revenge, declares war on Russia and invades from the north.

23rd April, Japan follows Germany's lead and smashes into Russia.

16th May, Japanese troops destroy the Trans-Siberian railway and destroy Russian factories.

22nd August- Germans complete the conquest of Stalingrad and begin amassing their forces to attack Moscow.

13th October, German-led troops are closing in on the suburbs of Moscow, the Lufwaffe land paratroopers in Moscow.

15th October, Germany attacks Moscow, and Japan completes the conquest of the Eastern Soviet Union.

17th November, Stalin commits suicide just as the Germans march to the Kremlin. The Kremlin is captured, Germany declares victory over Russia, and the last pockets of the Red Army flee to Perm to make a final stand.

5th December, the Germans destroy Perm with a massive bombing raid, most of the remainder of the Red Army is killed, the survivors are hunted down by the SS.

6th December, Germany declares victory, and the war with the Soviet Union officially ends, Germany, Italy, and Japan carve up Eurasia. Italy takes Africa, Japan southern Asia, and Germany Europe and the Soviet Union, the middle east is split between them.

7th December- Tensions begin to rise between America and the Axis, widespread anti-Americanism spreads through Eurasia, Americans call for a non-aggression pact with the Axis.

In this timeline, World War II lasted from September 1st, 1939-December 7th, 1941.

10th, the Berlin-Washington treaty is signed, in it, the Axis agree to leave the Americas alone, tensions fall, peace is restored, but how long will it last?

[Malte279]

^ That alternate scenario however is based on fictional events which would start much earlier since it is assuming more tanks, and probably longer range planes than Germany (mercifully) had in fall 1940. German shipping space too would not have done to bring 3500 tanks across the channel on a single day. Even the D-day landings brought significantly less than 1000 tanks across the channel on one day. So the assumption must include a much stronger (and more visible) degree of buildup of arms (which likely would provoke similar reactions from other countries) prior to fall 1940.

[Chomper98]

^ That alternate scenario however is based on fictional events which would start much earlier since it is assuming more tanks, and probably longer range planes than Germany (mercifully) had in fall 1940. German shipping space too would not have done to bring 3500 tanks across the channel on a single day. Even the D-day landings brought significantly less than 1000 tanks across the channel on one day. So the assumption must include a much stronger (and more visible) degree of buildup of arms (which likely would provoke similar reactions from other countries) prior to fall 1940.

Okay. thanks for telling me that Malte.

[Dima02]

^ You can also check out some of the books by Peter Tsouras. He wrote Disaster at D-Day and Third Reich Victorious. I have never read the later, but the former was great, although a little overwhelming at times.

In the book, as well as in actuality, the invasion was off to a bad start. Allied level bombers completely miss their target, and the airborne assaults become scattered and disorganized. However, the Allies do manage to land.

However, in the fictional book, the German command reacted much more quickly, and a division of Panzer IVs overrun the Americas at Omaha Beach. The British and the Canadians are soon overwhelmed and driven back into the ocean.

The book stops short of proclaiming a German victory in WWII, and it's easy to see why. The Soviets were advancing on the Eastern Front, and the Western Allies were still advancing, albeit slowly, through Italy. This is not to say that Germany would still lost, but it presents too many possibilities for me or Tsouras to draw a definite conclusion.

The characters and dialogue are very realistic, and the descriptions are vivid and sometimes very graphic. The pages include various maps and pictures, but still, sometimes, the information is overwhelming. I eventually lost track of the divisions and locations of the troops. Still, it was a very good read.

[The Chronicler]

The genre of Alternate History is something that only in the last few years I've found interesting. (I guess you first need to have a good understanding of regular history before you can appreciate any alternate versions. )

Although there are some books I'm very interested in reading someday, I simply haven't had the time to even get access to them, let alone actually read them. However, I do know what exactly I would like to read, if I ever get the chance. There are two series of books, both written by Harry Turtledove (whom others have mentioned earlier in this topic).

One series is a "What if the South had won the Civil War?" The starting point is interesting in that it shows how one minor incident can have massive consequences. In 1862, (I forget the name of the battle) a Confederate messenger accidentally dropped a message with battle plans that was meant for General Robert Lee. In actual history, a Union soldier found the message, putting the Confederate troops at a disadvantage. In this series, a Confederate soldier finds the message, preventing those plans from falling into enemy hands and allowing the Confederates to win an overwhelming victory in the battle that soon followed. I won't say what happens from here, but I will say that the entire series ends with the end of WWII.

The other series is a little more out there with "What if a worldwide alien invasion had happened right in the middle of WWII?" These aren't the stereotypical aliens, but rather more like humanoid lizards. (Apparently, their world never had a K/T extinction event like ours did.) It's an interesting concept: the worst of enemies ever in history having no choice but to join forces to fight off an even greater threat. (Personally, I find this series more interesting than the other because there's a bit of science fiction thrown in as well.)

One more thing. A few days ago, I stumbled across something interesting:
Balkanized North America
A map and simple Chronology to show one possible way the continent of North America could have been fragmented into many different countries, rather than just the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Unlikely, yes, but still an interesting concept.

[Pterano]

I think I've heard of that series Chronicler... well both series. Turtledove is good from what I know, just haven't read him myself.

Speaking of alternate history, I tried out a battle game using my models for the Pacific War. I recently picked up a rules book the company that makes the models wrote, and I tried my own version of the Battle of the Eastern Solomons today in commemoration of the 70th anniversary.

It was... mostly accurate, with some differences. The attack on the Ryujo was pretty similar. Her two CAP fighters were useless, though the Ryujo managed to down one of the American dive bombers, which didn't happen in reality. Still, 29 of them made it through, and I scored 2 bomb hits (3-4 were scored in reality from 30 dropped). One bomb hit wasn't worth much, but the second started some bad fires in the hanger deck. I never got a chance to roll damage control for Ryujo, because the torpedo planes swooped in next. Heavy cruiser Tone shot down one, but the rest launched and one scored (pretty much what happened except they took no losses), ripping open Ryujo's side enough to sink her then and there.

The Japanese attack on the Enterprise group was... lively and pretty exciting. The Americans had a heavy CAP of 54, and I vectored 20 to deal with the 10 Zeroes, and 25 to deal with the 20 Vals attacking Enterprise, as well as 9 to handle the 7 Vals attacking North Carolina.

As it turned out, the North Carolina needed NO help whatsoever. Her AA was just so tremendous that she shot down or dispersed everything heading toward her. That ship is such a beast lol. The CAP wasn't fully able to stop the Vals, nor was the AA screen around Enterprise. I think 8 out of the 20 broke through, the rest were shot down or dispersed. Two bomb hits were scored on the Big E, one of not much consequence, and the other knocked our her AA fire control, so THAT was a pretty bad hit.

The rest of the Vals attacked the cruiser Atlanta (having been dispersed from other attacks) and scored on bomb hit on one of her turrets. It was eerie though how many Japanese planes were shot down in the attack. I shot down 5 Zeroes, and in real life, 6 were shot down. I destroyed 16 Vals, and in the real battle 19 were shot down. So you can see the numbers came pretty darn close to the real thing... which I found just freaky!

I rolled damage control for Enterprise, but the crew ironically failed to restored AA fire control, SO... because of that, her Task Force withdrew from the battle, as a carrier without AA is a liability at that point.

My final attack I played out was the Saratoga's torpedo planes on Abe's Vanguard Force. It pretty much went exactly like the real thing did lol. The torpedo planes all launched, but I scored no hits on the big battleships I was going for... for which I blame ridiculously low rolls on my d20 which made me want to kill it... but oh well. XD I was quite into the scenario by that point, and was hoping to change history and take out or at least damage either the Hiei or the Kirishima... but I guess it wasn't meant to be.

So while the outcome of the battle wasn't that much different, I found it creepy how close I was able to replicate Japanese losses without even aiming for that. I didn't even notice until after I did the final tally was I like wow!   I'll be looking forward to trying this again for Cape Esperance and Santa Cruz in October.