MovieChat Forums > The Final Countdown (1980) Discussion > What would have happened long term if th...

What would have happened long term if the Nimitz stayed in 1941?

posted 11 years ago by Hanz-Willhelm
66 replies | jump to latest

They could have defeated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and they could have been effective for a while but then what? They'd run out of jet fuel, they'd have no high-tech, sophisticated parts for the Nimitz and for all of the aircraft so they couldn't have been at fighting mode for very long.

How long would it take the U.S. to study and analyze the ship, plane, computers and electronics and try to catch up? With the technology of the day could they have even duplicated these technologies, the new metals in the jet engines and that make up the skin of the jets, all of the electronics that are so minaturized, the reactors on the Nimitz and so much more.

What would have happened? Could the Nimitz have even stayed combat ready long enough to shorten the war? They probably couldn't have helped in Europe at all. The ship that is part of the fleet that re-stocks the carrier is now gone so they don't have replacements for any 1979 materials. Now Japan would have reacted differently with their attack being crushed and they may not have been as bold with their Pacific attacks with this new U.S. weapon. They don't know it is the only one and it is a short term weapon. How would Japan have reacted with the defeat against an almost invincible ship and planes?

Lot's of questions. What do others think would happen? Are there any weapons/technology specialists who may guess as to how the U.S. in 1941 with 1941 technology could make use of this new technology? How long catch up and produce more of what the Nimitz has? How long could the Nimitz fight? How long of a jet fuel supply does the ship carry? How often do the jets need major maintenence?

[–] tea-rex 11 years ago

What you forget there, it wasn't just Pearl Harbour that got attacked that day. With the sun rising in the Philippines a few hours later (but due to the international dateline, Monday the 8th), the Philippines and other lands were attacked. So the war wouldn't be averted by repulsing the attack on Pearl alone and no matter how much firepower the ship has, it can't cover half the Pacific Ocean.

I think jet fuel as well as ammunition for the various guns would be the least problem.
Reverse-engineering the technology isn't that easy. It's one thing to analyse the alloys used for a fan-disk in a jet-engine. The real trick is making them. There are a few special methods involved and even if some of the crew have general knowledge about such methods, the specifics are closely held company secrets.
For the electronics; back then they could have taken a look at integrated circuitry with a visible light microscope. Unfortunately, that doesn't even give enough resolution to really see the details. And again, some of the crew might have general knowledge about how such circuitry is made, but not how to actually do it, how to design complex pieces like CPUs, or even simple ones.

In the end, it might give such fields a boost of a few years, but the war would still be over long before that would lead to usable results.

I did not save the boy, God did. I only CARRIED him.

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

You are applying a theory of time travel that does not apply to this film as it uses a different theory altogether.

The Events of the film took place in 1941.
Therefore the events were already a part of Nimitz's past before they ever went back. Already a matter of history.

The events you describe as a what-if, could not have happened because they were NOT a part of the historical record.

this is like the ONE FILM that does not subscribe to the typical Hollywood mindset on time travel and every time... someone has to try and make it into it.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Either you are being exceptionally dense, or intentionally dense.
You just don't get it do you?

Nimitz's actions took place in the past. NOT in some side pocket dimension or alternate parallel universe or split timestream.

Therefore those actions they took in the past were IN THE PAST and therefore were always a part of the history of their present. Since in their present, the Japanese were NOT stopped by some supercarrier from the future, then it never happened.

This film is not about altering history and CANNOT BE about altering history. From this films take on time travel, history cannot be "altered"

A time traveler can take part in and affect events in the past, but those events he/she affects, are not Changes or alterations from something else into something different.... It is the very actions that shaped the history as they already know it from the future.

Go watch Butterfly effect if you want a history altering version of time travel.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

Either you are being exceptionally dense, or intentionally dense.

Always the diplomatic sailor. And here I thought it was just me you bark at.

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Just stupid people. Like morons thinking that HAARP is sonar.

Oh wait... that would be YOU, wouldn't it.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

HAARP is sonar

Wrong. I never said HAARP is sonar. Sonar is sonar. HAARP is multifaceted research that includes sub detection and atmospheric technology.

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with sub detection. Nothing at all.

Statements like that is why you are such a moron.

Tell me... HOW is it supposed to detect Subs.

Using sound to detect subs is SONAR you fraking idjit.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

HOW is it supposed to detect Subs.

History will expose the truth. And the Navy reputation will be in the toilet. Don't even attempt to blame me for that folly.

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Lol.. typical response from an idiot without an argument.

You don't know.
Its not that you won't answer.
You CAN'T answer.
If you could answer, if you had any actual facts... you would not hesitate to put this sailor in his place.

But you cannot. Your position is unsupportable bullsh!t and you know it.
How stupid to keep attacking a man in the right simply because you refuse to admit you're wrong and don't know wtf you're talking about.
You're pathetic.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

You already confirmed part of the argument that sonar kills and neither you or the navy could care less. I'd be interested in seeing the list of technology, including radiation damage, that killed sea life. That's the part I find pathetic.

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

What's pathetic is your assertions.

ACTIVE Sonar... Not PASSIVE Sonar.. CAN kill, not DOES kill. And then only at close ranges.

Passive sonar does nothing at all to them and 99% of the time Passive sonar is all that's used.

You know how often we use active sonar? Almost never.
You know how many Whales have actually KNOWN to have been killed by active sonar?
None. Zero, Zip, Nada.

it can kill them. We know this because we know what Active is capable of.
But there are no known incidents if a whale actually being killed by one.
Whales tend to steer clear of Subs for the most part (though there is an incident of a Sub ramming into and killing a whale)
We rarely use active sonar and when we do, the odds of a Whale being around and close enough to be killed is slim to none.
And it is not that we don't care. It's just a necessity where the needs outweigh the risk.

Of course you are just an anti-military jackass... so.

They sure as hell not causing whole pods of whales to beach themselves when there is not even a Sub nearby, much less using active sonar.
And again.. HAARP has nothing to do with it.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

I don't believe any of the assertions claiming the Navy is a victim of false information. The navy has a long history of polluting the oceans with toxic hazards. From dumping garbage into the oceans, and unwanted equipment before the environmental revolution, to huge amounts of lead and toxins that ended up in the oceans. So no, I don't believe your take on alleged harmless technology. I prefer independent sources, and it's going to be a long time before history coughs up the truth about the navy.

They sure as hell not causing whole pods of whales to beach themselves when there is not even a Sub nearby, much less using active sonar.
And again.. HAARP has nothing to do with it.

HAARP is deemed by many to be a black project with classified aspects that aren't presented to the public. The description you're attempting to sell is the public face. And the navy sells the program just like you do.

"It's totally harmless so don't worry about it."

So as far as I'm concerned, you're a navy lap dog, and an admiral should feed you a treat for being a team player.

Of course you are just an anti-military jackass...

Your hysterical comments are the reason people here consider you to be an antagonist. Copy and paste where I stated that I'm anti-military. The sentence doesn't appear anywhere.

But since you want to bring it up, I'm certainly not the "Guns before butter" type that you are. As the nations infrastructure ages and falls apart, the military continues to get increases, and just like you, they have tantrums that no amount of money is enough. Time for the U.S. to stop being the international police officer of planet Earth when the tax payers can't afford you ingrates. Trump is right: the international community needs to take on the responsibility of policing the planet and the U.S. military needs to be scaled back.

20 carriers needed? No - too expensive

F-35 program at over $1.5 trillion? - Totally senseless when F-15's and F-16's still rule the skies. Not to mention Raptors for stealth missions. Unless you'd like to share your theories on how America will someday go to war with our trading partner China, which makes no sense. I love that fear mongering because then you kooks have to explain why you wanted China to be a preferred trading partner in the first place.

The examples are endless, but do I hate the military or want it to disappear? Wrong, and please be a grown up for a change sailor. Scaling back on the pork isn't "anti-military". it's called 'budgeting for civilian needs' as well.

They sure as hell not causing whole pods of whales to beach themselves when there is not even a Sub nearby,

I find it interesting that you know where all subs are at any given point in time, admiral. lol Do the Joint Chiefs send you coded emails?

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Copy and paste where I stated that I'm anti-military. The sentence doesn't appear anywhere.

Your very first paragraph:

I don't believe any of the assertions claiming the Navy is a victim of false information. The navy has a long history of polluting the oceans with toxic hazards. From dumping garbage into the oceans, and unwanted equipment before the environmental revolution, to huge amounts of lead and toxins that ended up in the oceans. So no, I don't believe your take on alleged harmless technology. I prefer independent sources, and it's going to be a long time before history coughs up the truth about the navy.

}}}Drops Mic{{{

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

I don't believe any of the assertions claiming the Navy is a victim of false information. The navy has a long history of polluting the oceans with toxic hazards. From dumping garbage into the oceans, and unwanted equipment before the environmental revolution, to huge amounts of lead and toxins that ended up in the oceans. So no, I don't believe your take on alleged harmless technology. I prefer independent sources, and it's going to be a long time before history coughs up the truth about the navy.

}}}Drops Mic{{{

That's not anti-Navy, those are environmental facts.

I think you expect people to agree with everything the Navy has done, and that's not going to happen in reality.

If you truly want to see an anti-navy comment it would be from the far left that wants the navy nearly put entirely on dry dock, and charged with crimes against people and the environment, which I'm not calling for.

Maybe you should put away your mic and soap box.

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

F-35 program at over $1.5 trillion? - Totally senseless when F-15's and F-16's still rule the skies. Not to mention Raptors for stealth missions.

Most of the rank and file in the navy are against the crap F-35. Just as we are against the LCS (which we call the Little Crappy Ship)

These are programs unwanted, being foisted upon us by Politicians, Defense Contractors, and their politically correct lapdogs in the upper reaches of the Flag Ranks of the military.

LCS is a deathtrap which is going to get sailors killed.

Scaling back on the pork isn't "anti-military". it's called 'budgeting for civilian needs' as well.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.. Yeah. no one denies we needed to be scaled back and scale back we did.
The problem, is that Clinton, scaled us back TOO FAR. A situation that was halted but not reversed under Bush, then accelerated again under Anti-Military Obama.
Right now we are so "scaled back" that we cannot even meet daily operational requirements.

And Budgeting for Civilian Needs...

You mean all the "Occupy" freeloaders wanting to live off government handouts without working for or earning one damned dime.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

Most of the rank and file in the navy are against the crap F-35. Just as we are against the LCS (which we call the Little Crappy Ship)

These are programs unwanted, being foisted upon us by Politicians, Defense Contractors, and their politically correct lapdogs in the upper reaches of the Flag Ranks of the military.

LCS is a deathtrap which is going to get sailors killed.

I won't argue with the point regarding LCS, and you might be correct regarding (most) admiral perceptions of the F-35 program, but the Joint Chiefs aren't fighting the F-35 program either. But many people like myself see wasted tax dollars, which is a shame. I don't have any chance of stopping it.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.. Yeah. no one denies we needed to be scaled back and scale back we did.
The problem, is that Clinton, scaled us back TOO FAR. A situation that was halted but not reversed under Bush, then accelerated again under Anti-Military Obama.
Right now we are so "scaled back" that we cannot even meet daily operational requirements.

I won't argue against that point, since the operational budget has been sadly cut back.

And Budgeting for Civilian Needs...

You mean all the "Occupy" freeloaders wanting to live off government handouts without working for or earning one damned dime.

Agreed. I don't defend those people. But I'd like to see roads and bridges repaired. The national electric grid is in need or major investment, and underground water and sewer problems are extensive nationally. This will come back to haunt everyone.

[–] Jack_rabbit 11 years ago

america joining the European war shortened it, but the Allied forces were already in the ascention and would have won anyway.
However without the actions of the Allied forces keeping the forces of Japan occupied on several fronts, america would almost certainly have lost to a more focused foe.

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 11 years ago

Take the US out of the equation all together, and Germany still loses. They were fighting a two front war, getting pounded by Russia. It may have taken longer without the US, but certainly they would still have lost.

--
If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!

[–] FarmerTed (186) 10 months ago

The wild card in your scenario is Britain. I think Britain surrenders by 1943 without US help. Then fearing that Nazi Germany is the only buffer between Britain and the Soviets they reluctantly commit resources to help Germany. If Hitler decides to again go for broke in the East that might open the door for the Soviets to capture all of Europe. I know the poster I am replying to is long gone but maybe someone else might want to discuss that.

[–] Hans-Wilhelm (1355) 6 years ago

I don't think this guy understand "what if" scenarios.

[–] bing-57 11 years ago

> They'd run out of jet fuel, they'd have no high-tech, sophisticated parts for the Nimitz and for all of the aircraft so they couldn't have been at fighting mode for very long.

For a little while. But, recall that the Nimitz has modern people and modern textbooks on it. It wouldn't take the US very long to back engineer the parts of the ship and jets.

We saw that Owens was able to use his knowledge of the future to become a billionaire.

Unfortunately, this is time travel. So, anything that the US would do in response to the Nimitz entering the war would already have happened in the Nimitz' history. Since the history we were shown did NOT include the Nimitz being in the war, she wasn't.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] tea-rex 11 years ago

It's one thing to read in a textbook that XYZ part was made using the ABC procedure, or even having explained how the ABC procedure works, if you can't reproduce it because the tools to do so haven't been developed yet.

It would take years just to produce the means to make modern steel.
And even though you might be able to reproduce the procedures, the specifics are closely held company secrets.

I did not save the boy, God did. I only CARRIED him.

[–] bing-57 11 years ago

> It's one thing to read in a textbook that XYZ part was made using the ABC procedure, or even having explained how the ABC procedure works, if you can't reproduce it because the tools to do so haven't been developed yet.

Necessity is the mother of invention. If you have a jet sitting on the runway and you need to invent jet fuel for it, you'd be darn surprised how fast you can invent some and the tools needed.

Generally, scientists don't invent things until they are needed.

> It would take years just to produce the means to make modern steel.

Yes. But, we would do it because we know that it is possible.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] LukewarmCereal (88) 4 years ago

"It would take years just to produce the means to make modern steel."

They were perfectly capable of making modern steel in 1941.

[–] ronaldt49 11 years ago

"We're so sorry, Uncle Albert".

[–] Hanz-Willhelm 11 years ago

Please explain?

[–] jpowell180 10 years ago

The butter wouldn't melt, so we put it in the pie.

[–] Hanz-Willhelm 11 years ago

I wonder how long the Nimitz would act independently, doing whatever Yelland ordered verses reporting to the U.S. government at that time and then taking directives from President Roosevelt and the current Naval leaders? Would they have stayed hidden, doing what they thought best or would they have sailed to Pearl or the U.S. West Coast and reported their existence?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hanz-Willhelm 11 years ago

I would assume that the complete truth would be the best approach. The truth that they existed formerly in 1979-80 and through some unknown phenomenon ended up there. They would have all the physical evidence on hand that the leaders in 1941 couldn't deny. The knowledge they could supply of historical events that were set to transpire for the next 4 years would be invaluable.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mhansen-25806 9 years ago

Can you imagine Nimitz being spotted by search planes from Enterprise (CV-6) which was on the area. Let's see Captain Yelland explain his presence to Admiral Halsey who was aboard "Big E."

My original posting of this message was deleted for some reason.

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

Enterprise was no where near the area that Nimitz was in.

Nimitz was North of the Hawaiian chain, along the approach route of the Japanese fleet.
Enterprise was to the Southwest, returning from Wake.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

I thought Nimitz was to the west or southwest of Pearl since Commander Owens told Captain Yelland the Japanese were, "off the scope but an educated guess would be around about here. They'd have to be here up around the Northwest sector." See 44:50 into the movie. Captain Yelland then sent the E-2 there to search.

But, maybe not.

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Owens position information was where the Japanese were in relation to Nimitz, not Hawaii. The Japanese aporoached Hawaii from the north.

The Japanese being Northwest of Nimitz means that Nimitz is somewhere East and north of Hawaii.

Enterprise was to the Southwest of Hawaii

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

OK. Still, it would have been interesting if Yelland had to explain his presence.

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

We found something we can agree on.

lol

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Oh you finally agree that an Ionospheric research facility using high frequency radio transmissions into the upper atmosphere has nothing to do with sonar and hurting sea mammals.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

You posted your comment on the wrong thread, but I'll assume that was intentional since you're a comedian sailor.

And again...I don't agree with your characterization of the technology in question since critics point out that underwater technology was also developed under this program, but obviously we'll never agree on that.

Again... accounts of ship location based on reported directs in history is a subject we can agree on.

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

And again...I don't agree with your characterization of the technology in question since critics point out that underwater technology was also developed under this program, but obviously we'll never agree on that.

Your "Critics" are not professionals in the field. They are armchair commando internet conspiracy nutjobs with zero understanding of wtf they're talking about. Like... YOU.

The HAARP site is a landlocked facility in the middle of Alaska. It has no connection to any oceans, nor does any of it's research have anything to do with water. Those are fraking FACTS, you dumbass.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

Your "Critics" are not professionals in the field.

Your assumption and evasiveness tactic.

armchair commando internet conspiracy nutjobs with zero understanding of wtf they're talking about. Like... YOU.

http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

If you quote infowars, you've already lost.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

None... not one of the claims you make are a part of those "conspiracies proved true".

And because some conspiracies are proved true does not mean all conspiracies are and will be proved in time.

Additionally... every one of those "proved true conspiracies" fall into one of several categories.

1) normal criminal conspiracies. Not nutcase pseudo-science "grand conspiracies". The one about the Mafia for example

2) Not conspiracies at all. just programs that were classified at the time and later declassified after the need for secrecy was over. Manhattan Project and Operation Paperclip for example.

3) Still not proven and still bullsh!t. Its the same BS arguments made to "prove" their crap theories as have always been claimed by conspiracy sites. Infowars is a conspiracy site.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

Actually these were all branded as conspiracies, and the military discredits anyone that challenges the group decision making you're a victim of.

[–] KylaDollz 11 years ago

Forgive my ignorance if this has been stated, as I don't have the desire to read every response to the original post. My opinion would be that you are looking at it all wrong, yes the advanced weapons would be nice for a short while, and while they would eventually run out, what they would have is MUCH more important...knowledge. As Sheen said in the movie, they would know 40 yrs worth of mistakes to avoid, they would know every turn every country would make. As long as they were careful to not drastically alter history, but simply counter move every move of their opponents with precision...it would have been a much more mild war.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

sailing around trying to find something to do and being spotted by aircraft from ENTERPRISE (CV-6) which was nearby on that day.

Actually it would be more likely he would have come across Rear Admiral Newton's USS Lexington, that Halsey's Enterprise.

Enterprise, while closer, was to the West of Oahu (returning from Wake), and after the attack, and searched to the south of Hawaii looking for the Japs.

Lexington on the other hand was to the Northwest, en route to Midway. They turned around after the attack and searched to the North of Hawaii (which is where the Japs and USS Nimitz was).
Lucky for us... Lexington failed to locate the Japanese during their retreat.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] truther 10 years ago

The Nimitz would have won the war within a month. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. All you'd need would be the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier itself, which is designed to go months (if not years) at sea; and then just a handful of aircraft. You could cannibalize the machines to keep a few of their airworthy while at the same time dumbing-down the armaments. An F-14 could be rigged up to drop a couple of 1941-era bombs, for example. Nothing the Japanese had (and recall they didn't even have radar) would have been able to stop an armed F-14 flying at the speed of sound. We would have known where their fleets were and we would have sunk their ships the minute the Nimitz steamed into range. It's like being the only guy with a rifle in a battle fought by swordsmen. Plus I don't know whether the Nimitz was carrying any nuclear warheads in the movie, but it would have been able to greatly speed up the US nuclear program. We would have had the bomb by 1942. So even if the Nazis refused to believe what was happening to the Japanese was real, and kept fighting, we would have nuked them.

[–] marktayloruk (2502) 2 years ago

Also.revealing the future would hopefully have stopped the Holocaust and Roosevelt’s fawning on.Stalin.