lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 28, 2020 16:16:39 GMT
A great movie, i loved the F-14s versus the zero scene. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jun 28, 2020 16:34:53 GMT
A great movie, i loved the F-14s versus the zero scene. Recently, Binkhov's Battlegrounds did a scenario of this: |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 28, 2020 17:03:16 GMT
Well I must say Brinkov's video was entertaining. I think he setting it in mid 1942 is decisive to conclusions.
The movie is predicated on Nimitz being on station prior to 7 Dec.
There would be ways of stretching out the timeline for the advanced weapons, sensors and aircraft.
With the Kido Botai and it's superb aircrews gone the USN would be able to take the offensive.
I would think the limited number of advanced weapons would be used as silver bullets, that is only against targets that would materially enhance the ability of our WWII aircraft and weapons to do their job of destroying what is left of the Imperial Fleet.
With the sensors of the E-2s and S3s to guide them combined with offensive fighter sweeps of a few F-14 and/or F/A18s leading F4Fs and later F6Fs the attack birds be they SBDs or TBMs and a few A6s dropping mainly iron bombs the success rate goes way, way up.
One thing the 80's navy could be to make it clear the Mk-13/14/15 torps were defective and how to remedy them. US fleet subs with reliable torpedoes would be a game changer all by themselves.
I'm sure others can add their ideas.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 28, 2020 17:08:16 GMT
Well I must say Brinkov's video was entertaining. I think he setting it in mid 1942 is decisive to conclusions.
The movie is predicated on Nimitz being on station prior to 7 Dec.
There would be ways of stretching out the timeline for the advanced weapons, sensors and aircraft.
With the Kido Botai and it's superb aircrews gone the USN would be able to take the offensive.
I would think the limited number of advanced weapons would be used as silver bullets, that is only against targets that would materially enhance the ability of our WWII aircraft and weapons to do their job of destroying what is left of the Imperial Fleet.
With the sensors of the E-2s and S3s to guide them combined with offensive fighter sweeps of a few F-14 and/or F/A18s leading F4Fs and later F6Fs the attack birds be they SBDs or TBMs and a few A6s dropping mainly iron bombs the success rate goes way, way up.
One thing the 80's navy could be to make it clear the Mk-13/14/15 torps were defective and how to remedy them. US fleet subs with reliable torpedoes would be a game changer all by themselves.
I'm sure others can add their ideas. Here is the question, would a attack by the USS Nimitz against the Japanese Navy before the Pearl Harbor attack have made the US the aggressor in the Pacific War. Also here is a uncompleted version of a TL based on the movie: The Final Countdown (Version 1.0) |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 28, 2020 17:35:01 GMT
Re;The Final Countdown (Version 1.0)
Thanks lordroel , Vespucci writes a damn fine story. I am enjoying it very much.
Not such a tough question for me about the US becoming the aggressor. I'd say technically not, as the Zeroes had already attacked and sunk a US civilian craft and more to the point murdered US citizens. That is an act of war because those IJN pilots were carrying out the lawful orders of their officers and the civilian leaders of Japan.
The cold blooded side of me says who cares? They were about to attack Pearl Harbor.
Using he same logic as why we were not the aggressor, the CO of Nimitz was not carrying out the orders of the civilian leadership of the US. FDR and the navy Chiefs did not order him to strike the Kido Butai, so it was not a sanctioned act by the US government. He was committing piracy.
How do you like that reasoning? It's what passes for logic in my single malt marinated, 20th century Neanderthal mind. 
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 28, 2020 18:10:28 GMT
Re;The Final Countdown (Version 1.0)
Thanks lordroel , Vespucci writes a damn fine story. I am enjoying it very much.
Not such a tough question for me about the US becoming the aggressor. I'd say technically not, as the Zeroes had already attacked and sunk a US civilian craft and more to the point murdered US citizens. That is an act of war because those IJN pilots were carrying out the lawful orders of their officers and the civilian leaders of Japan.
The cold blooded side of me says who cares? They were about to attack Pearl Harbor.
Using he same logic as why we were not the aggressor, the CO of Nimitz was not carrying out the orders of the civilian leadership of the US. FDR and the navy Chiefs did not order him to strike the Kido Butai, so it was not a sanctioned act by the US government. He was committing piracy.
How do you like that reasoning? It's what passes for logic in my single malt marinated, 20th century Neanderthal mind.
First, yep it is a nice peace of what could happen next, to bad it never finished. Second about the US being the aggressor, you are right, the Japanese did strike a US flagged yacht, so yes, the Japanese fired the first shot in this The Final Countdown universe, do not know if they did such a thing in OTL. Also found this, Robert Farley offers some speculation on what next: Integrating Nimitz into the fleet would have taken a while ("We're here from the future!") and it's not obvious what the most efficient way to use Nimitz would have been. One option would be to have Nimitz spearhead a task force to turn back and defeat the IJN invasions of the Dutch East Indies. With history driven intel, the obvious technological superiority of Nimitz, and the rest of the USN carrier fleet, the IJN would have been hard press to carry out operations with any degree of success. Nimitz would have been nearly invulnerable to Japanese air attack, assuming that A-7s and F-14s could be kept in the air for CAP. A successful attack would require waves of aircraft and suicidal tactics (press forward until Nimitz and her CAP ran out of missiles), and even then might not disable the carrier. A Japanese submarine could certainly give Nimitz a very bad day, but against sufficient escort and modern ASW, getting into firing position would be difficult.
An alternative use of Nimitz would involve trying to end the war right away by sustained air attacks on Tokyo. Nimitz would have carried a dozen or so A-6s, which in a sustained operation could have dropped a lot of bombs on Tokyo. The rest of the USN would either support Nimitz or concentrate on the DEI invasions. I'm no fan of strategic bombing, but on the heels of the sudden destruction of the IJN carrier fleet, the likely impending defeat of the IJN in SE Asia, and an essentially unstoppable bombing campaign over the capital, it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see the Japanese sue for peace. Of course, even the Nimitz couldn't stay on station indefinitely; eventually ordnance and jet fuel would run short, forcing Nimitz to retire (potentially for an extended period of time). [...]
The other big question (which Final Countdown does not touch upon) would be the availability of nuclear weapons onboard Nimitz. I simply don't know enough about nuclear weapons policy on USN carriers in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it wouldn't be terribly surprising to find that Nimitz carried nukes. This would pose very interesting challenges; with sufficient weapons, Nimitz very likely could end both the Pacific and European wars before the end of 1942. Explaining the power of nuclear weapons to Roosevelt would be a challenge, as would convincing him not to use them, if Yelland and co. were even interested in going that direction. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 28, 2020 18:56:30 GMT
Farley's speculation about nuclear weapons on Nimitz got e to thinking.
I have no first hand knowledge about nukes aboard US naval Vessels in the 1990s.
Basically the answer was always I can neither confirm or deny nuclear weapons aboard ship.
Better was I have no idea and why do you want to know? 
So I looked it up and this is what I found UNCLASS Open Source. Declassified: US Nuclear Weapons At SeaPosted on Feb.03, 2016 in NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Tactical Nuclear Weapons, United States by Hans M. Kristensen From Federation of American scientists. "Remember during the Cold War when US Navy warships and attack submarines sailed the World’s oceans bristling with nuclear weapons and routinely violated non-nuclear countries’ bans against nuclear weapons on their territories in peacetime? The weapons were onboard ballistic missile submarines, attack submarines, aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and supply ships. The weapons were brought along on naval exercises, spy missions, freedom of navigation demonstrations and port visits." . . . "The declassified documents show that the United States during much of the 1970s and the 1980s deployed about a quarter of its entire nuclear weapons stockpile at sea. The all-time high was in 1975 when 6,191 weapons were afloat, but even in 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were 5,716 weapons at sea. That’s more nuclear weapons than the size of the entire US nuclear stockpile today. The declassified data provides detailed breakdowns for weapons in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean for the 30-year period between 1961 and 1991. Prior to 1961 only totals are provided. Except for three years (1962, 1965 and 1966), most weapons were always deployed in the Atlantic, a reflection of the focus on defending NATO against the Soviet Union. When adding the weapons in the Mediterranean, the Euro-centric nature of the US nuclear posture during the Cold War becomes even more striking. The number of weapons deployed in the Pacific peaked much later, in 1987, at 2,085 weapons. So it is plausible that Nimitz's Nukes could be used to tend WWII IF there were enough of them. Big IF!
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 28, 2020 19:00:40 GMT
Farley's speculation about nuclear weapons on Nimitz got e to thinking.
I have no first hand knowledge about nukes aboard US naval Vessels in the 1990s.
Basically the answer was always I can neither confirm or deny nuclear weapons aboard ship.
Better was I have no idea and why do you want to know?
So I looked it up and this is what I found UNCLASS Open Source. Declassified: US Nuclear Weapons At SeaPosted on Feb.03, 2016 in NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Tactical Nuclear Weapons, United States by Hans M. Kristensen From Federation of American scientists. "Remember during the Cold War when US Navy warships and attack submarines sailed the World’s oceans bristling with nuclear weapons and routinely violated non-nuclear countries’ bans against nuclear weapons on their territories in peacetime? The weapons were onboard ballistic missile submarines, attack submarines, aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and supply ships. The weapons were brought along on naval exercises, spy missions, freedom of navigation demonstrations and port visits." . . . "The declassified documents show that the United States during much of the 1970s and the 1980s deployed about a quarter of its entire nuclear weapons stockpile at sea. The all-time high was in 1975 when 6,191 weapons were afloat, but even in 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were 5,716 weapons at sea. That’s more nuclear weapons than the size of the entire US nuclear stockpile today. The declassified data provides detailed breakdowns for weapons in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean for the 30-year period between 1961 and 1991. Prior to 1961 only totals are provided. Except for three years (1962, 1965 and 1966), most weapons were always deployed in the Atlantic, a reflection of the focus on defending NATO against the Soviet Union. When adding the weapons in the Mediterranean, the Euro-centric nature of the US nuclear posture during the Cold War becomes even more striking. The number of weapons deployed in the Pacific peaked much later, in 1987, at 2,085 weapons. So it is plausible that Nimitz's Nukes could be used to tend WWII IF there were enough of them. Big IF! Well if Nimitz had nukes, it could up ended up like this: And the World Turned Upside Down which is in short about HMS Eagle being send back in time, finds a Japanese invasion fleet, nukes that invasion fleet, goes back to here present which turns out to be not here present as she knows it. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 28, 2020 19:07:21 GMT
Thanks Lordroel. Just took a quick look at "And the World Turned Upside Down". Looks like a good read.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 28, 2020 19:14:41 GMT
Thanks Lordroel. Just took a quick look at "And the World Turned Upside Down". Looks like a good read. It is a great story by a very good author who did a lot of British focus Royal Navy TLs, including this one which is one of my favorite he has written. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 29, 2020 13:24:21 GMT
All
The Binkhov video does raise some interesting problems that a future US carrier force brought back would have, with limitations on supplies, maintenance capacity and guidance among others. As well as ignoring the question of nukes however it avoids another big problem. If all the USN of the date - especially in June 42 - including by the sound of it land based staff and units the US have a much bigger issue than Japan, especially one that's lost much of its fleet. While Britain and Canada are still supplying the bulk of the convoy escorts in the Atlantic and deep oceans the war against Germany, or even just keeping Britain alive will take a hit while also L-L to Russia will be weakened. Also since the US were responsible for their coastal traffic and the Caribbean the 2nd happy time just got extended.
Provided Britain can keep fighting the allies will still win. If nothing else and even if the USS Nimitz had no nukes they will have enough technical and other knowledge to probably advance the allied bomb project at least a year as well as info on other advances. However with the rest of the USN having disappeared it will be long and bloody.
Given the total disappearence of the USN I don't think it would be smart to try and recover Wake, let alone Guam as the limited forces would then have to defend them.
In terms of the 7-12-41 appearance in time to stop the Pearl attack and the USN not disappearing then we have a much better situation for the allies. Even if for some reason Nimitz has no nukes the KB are dead and I like the idea of the Nimitz leading a USN force to prevent the loss of much of the DEI and even Malaya. That would greatly shorten the war in the Pacific. Then there is all the knowledge that the up-timers can provide in great detail.
One aspect of this is that the Nimitz is going to have far more computing power than the rest of the world put together so as long as its computers can be kept working code breaking and other information analysis - including for design and development of new equipment - is going to be a huge boost to the US in particular and the allies in general.
Given the boost in resources and the knowledge, even without any nukes I wonder whether there would be a significant difference in the position of the Iron Curtain? If the war in Europe was possibly ended sometime in 1944 say, while Russia might get a share of Germany for political reasons you could possibly see that being a rather isolated pocket and also very possibly a KMT victory in China. Both would have massive impacts on how the post-war world develops. Not to mention the loss of a lot of Soviet agents in the west.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 29, 2020 13:29:51 GMT
All The Binkhov video does raise some interesting problems that a future US carrier force brought back would have, with limitations on supplies, maintenance capacity and guidance among others. As well as ignoring the question of nukes however it avoids another big problem. If all the USN of the date - especially in June 42 - including by the sound of it land based staff and units the US have a much bigger issue than Japan, especially one that's lost much of its fleet. While Britain and Canada are still supplying the bulk of the convoy escorts in the Atlantic and deep oceans the war against Germany, or even just keeping Britain alive will take a hit while also L-L to Russia will be weakened. Also since the US were responsible for their coastal traffic and the Caribbean the 2nd happy time just got extended. Provided Britain can keep fighting the allies will still win. If nothing else and even if the USS Nimitz had no nukes they will have enough technical and other knowledge to probably advance the allied bomb project at least a year as well as info on other advances. However with the rest of the USN having disappeared it will be long and bloody. Given the total disappearence of the USN I don't think it would be smart to try and recover Wake, let alone Guam as the limited forces would then have to defend them. In terms of the 7-12-41 appearance in time to stop the Pearl attack and the USN not disappearing then we have a much better situation for the allies. Even if for some reason Nimitz has no nukes the KB are dead and I like the idea of the Nimitz leading a USN force to prevent the loss of much of the DEI and even Malaya. That would greatly shorten the war in the Pacific. Then there is all the knowledge that the up-timers can provide in great detail. One aspect of this is that the Nimitz is going to have far more computing power than the rest of the world put together so as long as its computers can be kept working code breaking and other information analysis - including for design and development of new equipment - is going to be a huge boost to the US in particular and the allies in general. Given the boost in resources and the knowledge, even without any nukes I wonder whether there would be a significant difference in the position of the Iron Curtain? If the war in Europe was possibly ended sometime in 1944 say, while Russia might get a share of Germany for political reasons you could possibly see that being a rather isolated pocket and also very possibly a KMT victory in China. Both would have massive impacts on how the post-war world develops. Not to mention the loss of a lot of Soviet agents in the west. Steve
One question i have, can 1942 United States produce JP-4, if not, the F-14s will run out of fuel soon. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 29, 2020 14:22:04 GMT
All The Binkhov video does raise some interesting problems that a future US carrier force brought back would have, with limitations on supplies, maintenance capacity and guidance among others. As well as ignoring the question of nukes however it avoids another big problem. If all the USN of the date - especially in June 42 - including by the sound of it land based staff and units the US have a much bigger issue than Japan, especially one that's lost much of its fleet. While Britain and Canada are still supplying the bulk of the convoy escorts in the Atlantic and deep oceans the war against Germany, or even just keeping Britain alive will take a hit while also L-L to Russia will be weakened. Also since the US were responsible for their coastal traffic and the Caribbean the 2nd happy time just got extended. Provided Britain can keep fighting the allies will still win. If nothing else and even if the USS Nimitz had no nukes they will have enough technical and other knowledge to probably advance the allied bomb project at least a year as well as info on other advances. However with the rest of the USN having disappeared it will be long and bloody. Given the total disappearence of the USN I don't think it would be smart to try and recover Wake, let alone Guam as the limited forces would then have to defend them. In terms of the 7-12-41 appearance in time to stop the Pearl attack and the USN not disappearing then we have a much better situation for the allies. Even if for some reason Nimitz has no nukes the KB are dead and I like the idea of the Nimitz leading a USN force to prevent the loss of much of the DEI and even Malaya. That would greatly shorten the war in the Pacific. Then there is all the knowledge that the up-timers can provide in great detail. One aspect of this is that the Nimitz is going to have far more computing power than the rest of the world put together so as long as its computers can be kept working code breaking and other information analysis - including for design and development of new equipment - is going to be a huge boost to the US in particular and the allies in general. Given the boost in resources and the knowledge, even without any nukes I wonder whether there would be a significant difference in the position of the Iron Curtain? If the war in Europe was possibly ended sometime in 1944 say, while Russia might get a share of Germany for political reasons you could possibly see that being a rather isolated pocket and also very possibly a KMT victory in China. Both would have massive impacts on how the post-war world develops. Not to mention the loss of a lot of Soviet agents in the west. Steve
One question i have, can 1942 United States produce JP-4, if not, the F-14s will run out of fuel soon.
Probably not but they might be able to construct something similar that will do with reduced function, probably increased wear and tear on the engines or reduced efficiency.
It might be that after the 1st 6 months or so when things start wearing out or running out of equipment most of the up-times could end up in technical roles away from the front line as they seek to pass on knowledge to the down-timer world.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 29, 2020 14:34:41 GMT
One question i have, can 1942 United States produce JP-4, if not, the F-14s will run out of fuel soon. Probably not but they might be able to construct something similar that will do with reduced function, probably increased wear and tear on the engines or reduced efficiency.
It might be that after the 1st 6 months or so when things start wearing out or running out of equipment most of the up-times could end up in technical roles away from the front line as they seek to pass on knowledge to the down-timer world.
So will the British and Americans thanks to the Nimitz jets in full service before 1944 if the war is still going. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 29, 2020 15:17:19 GMT
Since the Brits, without the help of the Nimitz, produced operational jets by late '44 and the chief factor was the engine I doubt much could be done to speed that up. Know what was needed and actually producing it are two very different problems. As I understand it, and I could be very wrong, it was a matter of metallurgy and that can't be rushed. From what I remember in the Nav
metallurgy was not a science a CVA would have much use for so I doubt there would any real experts.
As far as using Kerosene based Jet fuels as available in WWII I don't see degraded performance as that big a factor. An F-14 operating at 50 power is still going to be orders of magnitude more deadly than the best piston engine fighter. I also see engine/aircraft life extended by not pushing the birds anywhere near their top performance.
|
|
