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?

[–] brifitz1980 10 years ago

Stopping the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been a major victory for the US. All 8 battleships would have been combat ready on Dec 8, 1941 rather than 4 sunk and 4 others damaged.

It's debatable how long the Nimitz could have been combat ready as fuel their aircraft needed wasn't readily available in those days. Even if Nimitz just sailed into Pearl after averting the attack they could have had a huge impact.

The nuclear engineers who run the Nimitz's nuclear reactors could just meet with the Manhattan Project scientists and explain to them how to do stuff that they wouldn't otherwise develop for several years.

The commander and other history minded types could meet with leaders like Nimitz/MacArthur and tell them about Japanese strategy and future plans that we only know because of history. "Attack here, don't bother with there, there is a fleet building up over in this area."

Obviously after stopping Pearl Harbor the butterfly effect would start to take effect but if they could smash the Japanese supply lines/war machines in the early months of the war it would have been over much sooner.

[–] Cairo-5 10 years ago

The nuclear engineers who run the Nimitz's nuclear reactors...

Well thanks for the compliment but we guys who ran the Navy's nuclear reactors weren't given any diplomas or academic degrees for completing Navy Nuclear Power School.

As for meeting with the Manhattan Project people and explaining things I guess I could have informed them that the bomb is going to make a really big BOOM but I don't expect Gen. Groves would have given me a plane ride to Los Alamos to deliver that earth shaking piece of information.

BTW, what would Chester Nimitz have to do with anything? It's not as if the Navy would replace Husband E. Kimmel after achieving "a major victory for the US."

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

[–] brifitz1980 9 years ago

Well thanks for the compliment but we guys who ran the Navy's nuclear reactors weren't given any diplomas or academic degrees for completing Navy Nuclear Power School.

My mistake. I'm not a military guy, obviously. I'm a movie guy with an interest in history but I don't have any first hand experience with how the military operates.

I still stand by my assertion that the commander and others could have met with some of the top brass and tell them about upcoming Japanese war plans so that the US would know exactly where/when to strike and cripple the Japanese fleet in the first few months of the war. Also if the Nimitz's planes destroyed all 6 of the Japanese carriers that were attacking it would would already be a pretty crippling blow to the Japanese.

[–] Cairo-5 9 years ago

Four of those six Japanese carriers were sunk at the Midway battle. Looking at this actual historical fact we see that this loss was a tremendous blow to the Japanese war effort. So there can be no doubt that if they had lost all six carriers half a year earlier, at the very outset of the war, the impact would have been enormous.

And this leads in to the fundamental problem with speculation about time travel. If it really were possible for people and things to go back into the past, and interact with those who were there, and make changes to what had been known to be history at the future point in time that they departed from, how can anybody predict what the new historical reality would be.

Suppose the sailors on the Nimitz really did meet with the top brass of 1941. They could tell them what happened in a history where the Nimitz did not go back in time and change things. But would that still be the way history was going to unfold now that the Nimitz and crew had actually changed things? Would the Nimitz sailors really know what was going to happen next?

Another possibility. What if someone from Japan living in the new historical reality then goes back and talks to their top brass? What if each time someone from one country goes back and changes history, someone from the other country subsequently goes back and makes another change?

American: Japan is going to strike at target A on B date. Be ready for it.

Japanese: The Americans know you are going to strike at target A on B date. Change your plans.

American: Japan knows you know they were planning to strike at target A on B date. So they've changed the plan and will now strike at target C on D date.

Japanese: The Americans know you originally planned to strike target A on B date. They also know you are now planning to strike at target C on D date. So strike at target E on date F instead.

American...

We can reach the end of the alphabet but this back and forth action could go on forever.

I think it's a good thing that as far as we are able to understand the laws of physics this kind of time travel does not seem to be possible. It would produce unimaginable complications if it were.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

[–] CGSailor 10 years ago

The nuclear engineers who run the Nimitz's nuclear reactors could just meet with the Manhattan Project scientists and explain to them how to do stuff that they wouldn't otherwise develop for several years.

Have to agree with Cairo.

You are making an obvious mistake in thinking that those trained on how to operate a plant is equal to those who designed and built the plant and all the underlying physics that had to be developed from scratch in the first place.

An Airplane mechanic knows how to fix a plane, a pilot knows how to fly a plane.... That does not mean either of them are fully versed in aerodynamics and can design a plane from theory.

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

[–] tngrecuts 9 years ago

that Senator would have become President, and we know he's a very trigger happy person (he blew up himself with that helicopter just because he didn't have his way)

so as President he would probably have caused WW3 and the end of humanity.
so it's good that they did not interfere in anything except making him disappear from history.

whoever caused the timestorm might have done it deliberately to prevent WW3 from happening.

[–] BrotherZed 9 years ago

All the Nimitz would have had to do is destroy that Japanese task force to virtually end the war in the Pacific. History showed how the loss of it's carriers crippled the Japanese. Now imagine them starting the war with the loss of those six carriers combined with the entire US fleet being unscathed. The US would have started the war with all of it's carriers, 8 more battleships, 3 more cruisers, assorted smaller ships and 2400 more trained sailors.

At that point, all the Nimitz would have had to do is sail along and provide AWACS support...we would have owned them. Not to mention all of the assorted intel the Nimitz was carrying. There was a lot of stuff that for some reason took forever to implement, like drop tanks and midair refueling. Imagine if the US started developing carriers with angled decks and catapults in 1941 lol.

Not to mention that the Nimitz was carrying an arsenal of modern small arms. How long would it have taken to get cloned assault rifles in circulation, and how surprised would the military have been to see M2 Brownings still in service.

The existence of Nimitz would have revolutionized our military doctrine inside of a year.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

With all consumables (food, jet fuel, etc) on strict ration how long could Nimitz operate without replenishment?

What would be the best way for Captain Yelland to make contact with friendly forces in 1941?

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

[–] kurt-2000 8 years ago

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.

run out of missiles...

Exactly OP. It was almost cartoonish in planning this flick.

And after the ammo, missiles and everything else was used up the carrier would have fell victim to reverse engineering in dry dock.

And all the techs on board would have been sent to the defense contractors to build the Saber jets, because the technology would have existed to build rapid production - first generation jets, ASAP, but even that would have taken time.

But ummmm....thought I read somewhere that carriers can sometimes have nukes on board? I might be wrong about that, but inventory could have included some. Who knows.

[–] strntz (12224) 6 years ago

Well, jet fuel is basically kerosene. I'm sure the petroleum companies could duplicate the characteristics that the F14s needed.

[–] overseas7 (4236) 6 years ago

If the Nimitz would have defeated (I hope I have written it correctly) the Japanese before the attack to Pearl Harbor, may be the United States had not used the atomic bomb.

Related to Europe, who knows how the nazis would have reacted when they were aware that the USA was able to use such a weapon against them.

[–] Artisan (3464) 4 years ago

Someone already said it (6 years ago) but their real power is knowing the future events. And they have already been spotted and have people from that time on board.

They only have so much armament on board to last so long in battle although they would be able to do a lot of damage with what they have.

[–] Esterhowse (468) 4 years ago

"What would have happened? Could the Nimitz have even stayed combat ready long enough to shorten the war?"

The War in the Pacific between Japan was never a contest. Take a look at the order of battles.

- Pearl Harbor/Philippines/Wake Island:

You might so foolish to think it was a Japanese victory.

Strategically it was a total disaster. In the words of Winston Churchill. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor they lit a furnace that was going to heat the world. That attack ended all internal opposition to war in the US and flipped the switch on making the greatest industrial power in the history of the world from a peace time industry to a war time one.

Tactically it was also a total disaster: Yes Japan took control of Wake Island and the Philippines. Neither of those territories greatly served Japan strategically or tactically. Yes they sank a lot of US battle ships in the harbor. NOTE: in the harbor. So by removing the US battleships the US Navy went from a 16 knot Navy to a 28 Knot Navy. Battleships were the center of the US's naval philosophy and tactics but were slow and really obsolete. Sinking them forced the US to fully embrace the carrier as the centerpiece. Also they sunk those battleships in harbor, which allowed the vast majority of the US sailors to survive. If they had sunk the ships at sea it would have killed 20,000 sailors. Now the us had 20,000 well trained sailors who became the trainers for the next wave of sailors.

Also the Japanese missed the fuel yards at Pearl. Those things contained 2 million gallons of fuel oil. It would have taken the US 2 years to replace that.

So.. Pearl Harbor... Japanese win? If you say so....

Next major battle was the Coral Sea. It is generally recognized as a strategic win for the US and a tactical one for the Japanese.. Well it was about a month before the battle of Midway.

[–] Esterhowse (468) 4 years ago

One thing that is generally not known about WWII ships is that there was no air conditioning on them and not great places for the sailors to sleep. So the Japanese sailors and in particularly the japanese pilots had been at sea for 6 months and had terrible sleep. It affected their performance in the battle of the coral sea and more importantly for the battle of Midway. Which happened a month later.

The battle of Midway was one sided crushing.. no curb stomping of the Japanese, victory for the US.

After that the US never lost another battle in the Pacific that mattered.