Personally i think the value of the german navy is two fold.
It provides something else for UK to think about. I think it makes it much less likely for you to see UK IC’s popping up UK1 or 2 if germany has demonstrated a clear intent to pursue a strong baltic navy.
Secondally it provides a shortening of the supply lines to the eastern front. I would consider a carrier + transport G1 buy. Possibly followed up with a second carrier buy G2, with steady destroyer purchases G3 and on.
My vote is that the VC is the most distinguished medal. Very difficult to obtain, long history, not very tarnished by political considerations. its still made from the metals taken from cannons used in the crimean war.
One of the criteria for awarding the VC is that the action in which it is earned must have a 90% or greater chance of resulting in death.
This is a VERY open-ended question, as it would ultimately come down to a couple of Major factors:
1. Only if Hitler does not get involved in strategic decisions.
2. Only if Hitler does not get involved in production
Unlikely as it was Hitlers -job- to be involved in strategic and production planning decisions.
The problem I see is more that Hilter got invloved in operational level decisions, which is what he should have kept his dirty political mitts off of.
I agree with most of your points Chris.
If germany has decided to build/maintain a baltic fleet they must build surface warships. And I also agree Sea Lion is unlikely but it does become something the UK must protect themselves against - potentially diverting attention away from the UKs preferred strategy (whatever that may be). Germanys income will grow dramatically while the UKs shrinks dramatically over the course of the game if Germany spends 10-15 income a turn to maintaining parity (focusing on defense) with British atlantic assets, they can still maintain an economic advantage over the USSR, while the UK must adjust to the possibility that a sea lion -might- occur.
A determined British player might still be able to wipe out the fleet but it will be at significant cost - costs that by mid game the UK may have difficulty absorbing. now if the US are determined to build an atlantic fleet then the equation changes somewhat…
The virtue of an atlantic baltic fleet as I see it is the ability to transfer 2 units per transporter much closer to the -russian-front each turn, while adding a strategic threat that the UK has to concern themselves with.
to be frank this is theorycraft I havent seen how it work in play, but I think its something I’d like to try one day. (ideally not against people who I have told in advance I was gonna try it 
The enemy won’t want to trade fighters and bombers for subs and therefore won’t attack your fleet to begin with. Subs can’t attack planes thats the problem! you can;t let subs take hits from planes… if they could that would be great!
No but they can attack the floating landing field the planes land on…everyone talks about how subs can’t hit planes like its a weakness -its a strength- being able to force my enemy to take hits on ships instead of realitively cheap fighters is a plus!
NoI didnt say it was going to -win- the pacific but it can stalemate it.
I agree that it will be difficult to make an attack with a sub only stack, but equally difficult for an enemy to approach that stack.
If the stack -splits- however it makes attacking possible - albeit difficult - you can only pre-emptively attack a number of stacks equal to your destroyers, in this case the sub commander will trade some subs for a new improved position on the map.
Too much theory crafting based on combat odds generators going on if people can’t see how Subs can help a player deal with a naval imbalance.