Others have supplied lengthy amounts of information for the purposes of improving your ideas and giving deeper context.
It is not simply a case of those who support such an idea being the only positive input, and to characterize others as "all Brits are running mad about the idea of an airraid on their home base by German aircraft, starting from carriers" is incorrect just as it is incharitable. Some aren't even British.
You make this observation that this is alternate history. Alternate history timelines are realistic and viable developments that include reaction to developments in the same manner that they occur in the real world. No event - alternate or otherwise - exists in a vacuum.
Changing naval construction is not merely a matter of shifting workers, money and steel from project to project. There are several sites online that detail some of the problems and bottlenecks involved in building capital ships of any sort, particularly carriers, for the first time.
If you only choose to react to support, then you won't get the full experience of writing a good timeline, and you won't craft a realistic one.
Some criticism has used the term ASB. It is a term I've never really warmed to as it tries to manipulate those most ephemeral of things - ideas - into firmly set categories.
This timeline is an example of the difference between extremely, extremely improbable and the literally impossible. It relies upon the RN doing nothing to respond to massive changes in German doctrine and equipment at a time when the major trend of RN doctrinal thinking was heading towards the carrier. It requires the British defence establishment as a whole to do less to protect Scapa Flow than they did in response to the historical reconaissance flights and sinking of Royal Oak.
Unless and until you can fully address those issues, then all you'll have is a story that will be pleasing to a select audience, but not a realistic and respected timeline.
As said previously, the best option is to keep tinkering with things back in the 1920s as you have already started on doing, and to either think up a better way to get around what will be the majorly improved defences of Scapa Flow (if the Home Fleet even uses it still) or shift the idea of a German carrier action to the North Sea.
Even then, people will raise issues as to the response of the Royal Navy. This is inevitable. Events do not occur in a perfectly sterile testing laboratory, but in the real world where friction occurs.
This forum arguably has too many threads that have everything going right for one side every time. This is an opportunity to change that and to explore the very interesting potential ramifications of a German carrier force.
As mentioned earlier, there are a lot of people around here with a lot of knowledge on and resources about the RN in this era, and about Scapa Flow no less. Make the most of it.
It is not simply a case of those who support such an idea being the only positive input, and to characterize others as "all Brits are running mad about the idea of an airraid on their home base by German aircraft, starting from carriers" is incorrect just as it is incharitable. Some aren't even British.
You make this observation that this is alternate history. Alternate history timelines are realistic and viable developments that include reaction to developments in the same manner that they occur in the real world. No event - alternate or otherwise - exists in a vacuum.
Changing naval construction is not merely a matter of shifting workers, money and steel from project to project. There are several sites online that detail some of the problems and bottlenecks involved in building capital ships of any sort, particularly carriers, for the first time.
If you only choose to react to support, then you won't get the full experience of writing a good timeline, and you won't craft a realistic one.
Some criticism has used the term ASB. It is a term I've never really warmed to as it tries to manipulate those most ephemeral of things - ideas - into firmly set categories.
This timeline is an example of the difference between extremely, extremely improbable and the literally impossible. It relies upon the RN doing nothing to respond to massive changes in German doctrine and equipment at a time when the major trend of RN doctrinal thinking was heading towards the carrier. It requires the British defence establishment as a whole to do less to protect Scapa Flow than they did in response to the historical reconaissance flights and sinking of Royal Oak.
Unless and until you can fully address those issues, then all you'll have is a story that will be pleasing to a select audience, but not a realistic and respected timeline.
As said previously, the best option is to keep tinkering with things back in the 1920s as you have already started on doing, and to either think up a better way to get around what will be the majorly improved defences of Scapa Flow (if the Home Fleet even uses it still) or shift the idea of a German carrier action to the North Sea.
Even then, people will raise issues as to the response of the Royal Navy. This is inevitable. Events do not occur in a perfectly sterile testing laboratory, but in the real world where friction occurs.
This forum arguably has too many threads that have everything going right for one side every time. This is an opportunity to change that and to explore the very interesting potential ramifications of a German carrier force.
As mentioned earlier, there are a lot of people around here with a lot of knowledge on and resources about the RN in this era, and about Scapa Flow no less. Make the most of it.
') but adding the Japanese to help the Germans will be an issue as in the 20's the British and Japanses navies were quite friendly so that will make keeping the secret German/USSR/Japanese building program a lot harder. And that the British navy missed their wet dream turn up on their doorstep is hard to swallow 
