# The Nuclear decision...what if?



## Seawitch (Oct 8, 2007)

Hi all
What if.........Germany hadn't made many of the mistakes we debate here and the War in Europe was happening a lot slower than it did.
I wonder where the very limited Nuclear capability created in 1945 would have been applied? 
Would taming Stalin have been more important than the awful prospect of invading Japan if it's use abroad didn't convinve them it was time to give up?
I've thought about this one quite a lot, but never managed to establish an opinion.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 8, 2007)

The Americans made the atomic bomb. The reason was the needs of war. The sheer scale would perhaps not been availble in peacetime. 

So one scenario is that Germany is not at war with US so no atomic bomb. 

Also the Germans in Moscow by Dec 41 and game over...Germany conquered Europa.

Or Dunkirk evacuation never happened and UK makes peace with Hitler.
If Germany made the right moves then the war would be over too soon for the bomb to be developed.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 8, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Americans made the atomic bomb. The reason was the needs of war. The sheer scale would perhaps not been availble in peacetime.
> 
> So one scenario is that Germany is not at war with US so no atomic bomb.
> 
> ...



The US and Britain were going to develope the bomb one way or another.

Just because in your scenario the Germans are not at war with the US, doesnt mean the US trusts the nazi's.

The bomb will be developed just as scheduled with the Rhur or Berlin as the first target.


----------



## Seawitch (Oct 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The US and Britain were going to develope the bomb one way or another.


Yes
And perhaps Germany too...and with weapons like the V2 about possibly with an invulnerable delivery system too!
With such advanced weapons about, a very real fear that Germany might soon have a Nuclear weapon?
But I have started this thread with American involved still in mind
Could the increased risk of a European delivery of the two available weapons in August 0f 45 been enough to go East?
Then again, the last U.S ship to be sunk in WW2 had delivered one of the Bombs, perhaps I'm making a mistake there!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 9, 2007)

Seawitch said:


> Yes
> And perhaps Germany too...and with weapons like the V2 about possibly with an invulnerable delivery system too!
> With such advanced weapons about, a very real fear that Germany might soon have a Nuclear weapon?
> But I have started this thread with American involved still in mind
> ...




The V2 didnt have the payload to carry an atomic weapon from that era.

And its very difficult to scale up rockets to carry more payload. I wouldnt see the Germans being able to build a reliable booster with the payload and range capabilities untill long after the US bombed Germany first with B29's, or delivered a nuclear "mine" into Hamburg via sub.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2007)

Seawitch said:


> Yes
> And perhaps Germany too...and with weapons like the V2 about possibly with an invulnerable delivery system too!
> With such advanced weapons about, a very real fear that Germany might soon have a Nuclear weapon?




Very unlikely scenerio because we have all seen how big the A-Bombs were during WW2 and a V-2 would not have been able to carry such a payload. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt it.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 9, 2007)

Don´t forget France, friends!

France had a reasonable -if not perfect- chance to stop the german advance in mid june 1940 and France by then was the most advanced nation in nuclear physics. Even the germans estimated that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would have been exhousted in mid 1940 and initially aimed Fall Rot, conquering the remainder of France, to mid 1941. So asuming France does not orders to evacuate 1.800 of it´s most modern planes on june 17th and keeps up we have a reasonable chance for a shorter war.


----------



## Seawitch (Oct 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The V2 didnt have the payload to carry an atomic weapon from that era.


This is correct, but it's also wisdom with hindsight. I mentioned the V2 because, like Nuclear weapons....it's about fear.
I don't want to sound like Doctor Strangelove!
But it's a fact that the Germans persistanly produced weapons that outclassed anything their enemies had....the ME262, the Tiger tanks, the V weapons...so why not a very real fear of a more efficient (and therefore smaller) Nuclear weapon? 
Also, there was a need to deter Stalin, would that purpose have been better served by a European use of the Atomic bomb?
I hope I'm not causing a Political thread


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 9, 2007)

The allies had their own set of advanced weapons the Germans didnt have.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 9, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Don´t forget France, friends!
> 
> France had a reasonable -if not perfect- chance to stop the german advance in mid june 1940 and France by then was the most advanced nation in nuclear physics. Even the germans estimated that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would have been exhousted in mid 1940 and initially aimed Fall Rot, conquering the remainder of France, to mid 1941. So asuming France does not orders to evacuate 1.800 of it´s most modern planes on june 17th and keeps up we have a reasonable chance for a shorter war.



The way in which France fell in 1940 is perplexing. Cannot be written off to a single factor, but this is what I've learned. Most accounts I've read seem to indicate there was a severe paralysis in decision making not only in the French high command, but also throughout the army. It appears that they were always waiting for the 100% solution - and the constantly changing situation means you will never have such a thing. Leaders were waiting for this tank company to move up into position to counter-attack, or this arty bat could support an assault in 5 hours.

Perhaps you right, but I don't think that evac would have made a critical difference. The problems were far deeper.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 9, 2007)

France fought well considering the circumstances. I too suspect problems in the leadership but France´s fate does deserve attention and isn´t easily explainable. Whenever french tank forces fought Wehrmacht tank forces in a moving, coordinated battle, the germans lost . The french tanks got slaughtered once they ran out of ammunition, gazoline or leadership. Preferably when they were told to hold a position X.
The french air force was underutilizing it´s strength while the Luftwaffe overutilized it´s strength, resulting in a higher exhoustion during the campaign. In mid june 1940, both air forces had reached parity in operational strength, an aspect I would credit as a success for France. Till this time, the UK holded a foothold in Dunkirk and no german units have penetrated deep into France. The french forces fell back on their logistical bases and enjoied infrastructural advances and the inherent advantages of fighting a defensive war (esspeccially for warplanes lost over french terretory) .Considering that the main bulk of french fighter and bomber forces -contrary to what is repeated often- were modern units in june 40 the decision to flee from France is questionable at best. In mid June 1940, France indeed could have delivered a substantial blow to the german advance from here onwards if they decided to concnetrate on this with proper tactics.


----------



## Seawitch (Oct 9, 2007)

Hi Guys
Trying to keep this thread on topic is like the defence of France...a lost cause!
Lets get in on the act...enter 'french military victories' into ...google.... click on 'Im feeling Lucky...


----------



## david johnson (Oct 9, 2007)

since we're mulling over alternate history, read the harry turtledove 'world at war' series. it's a lot of fun for me because much of takes place where i live.

hitler, himmler, molotov, patton, einstein...they're all there. early jets, lasers (skelwanks - one of my favorite new words)...

dj


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2007)

david johnson said:


> since we're mulling over alternate history, read the harry turtledove 'world at war' series. it's a lot of fun for me because much of takes place where i live.
> 
> hitler, himmler, molotov, patton, einstein...they're all there. early jets, lasers (skelwanks - one of my favorite new words)...
> 
> dj




Great books. I have all of them including the Colonization series. I have just started reading the Colonization ones though.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 11, 2007)

The Germans could've developed a deliverable nuclear weapon, maybe by '46, but there was too much disinterest in higher circles to support the atomic research that was going on in Germany in the late '30's/early '40's; Hitler considered atomic research a "Jewish scince" and, therefore, dismissed it out of hand (see David Irving's book _The German Atomic Bomb: The History of Nuclear Research in Nazi Germany_). Germany actually built the first operational heavy-water facility in Vemork, Norway before it was sabotaged by British commandos in '40. 

They also had plans on the drawing board for a "boosted" V-2 capable of reaching the East Coast of the USA (it would've been the world's first true ICBM) known as the A-10 (there were also much larger rockets projected beyond this known as the A-11 A-12). In theory, one of these "boosted" V-2's probably could've lofted an atomic weapon on the US, but the Germans were years away from that when the War ended.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 11, 2007)

I read that the V 2 costed about as much as the Manhatton project. So the Germans could have had a nuke had they wanted to. They could have put it in a Ju 390 with a one way ticket to Manhattan at night. 

I think it was the A-12 which was to be the first intercontinental ballistic missile. They were years away from that even though the V 2 was the biggest Army project.
Kris


----------



## david johnson (Oct 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Great books. I have all of them including the Colonization series. I have just started reading the Colonization ones though.



colonization is also good.

in 'world at war', some secret usa science shenanigans are going on up in myrtle, mo. my wife worked at the school there for the past few years.

since much of it also occurs in arkansas, i feel right at home in the books.
i've been to all the places turtledove mentions.

i've forgotten some details...seems like one protagonist joins the raf and another flies german jets...neat stuff. i liked the guy who figured out that, if you had the guts to wait, you really could blow up a lizard tank.

my favorite part was after a truce when the us sgt and a lizard sgt were setting around talking at night in a blasted american city.
'why you guys fighting us?'
'hell if i know, the emperor said do it and that's what us soldiers do.'

i bet that conversation has happened between foes in most wars!

dj


----------



## Hop (Oct 11, 2007)

The V-2 wouldn't have been a suitable delivery mechanism for a nuclear warhead. Apart from the fact the early nuclear weapons were far too big, the V-2 had very poor accuracy and was very unreliable. 

Of the 1350 or so fired at London, just 520 hit within the greater London area, which was about 20 miles across. Almost a quarter of the missiles broke up in flight.

With a 25% chance of losing a precious nuclear warhead, and less than 40% chance of hitting the largest city in the world from 200 miles away, the idea of launching nuclear weapons at the US (3,500 miles) was pure fantasy. 



> I read that the V 2 costed about as much as the Manhatton project. So the Germans could have had a nuke had they wanted to.



It wasn't just a question of money. The Germans had some of the basic science wrong.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 11, 2007)

Hop said:


> It wasn't just a question of money. The Germans had some of the basic science wrong.


Like what?

Kris


----------



## Hop (Oct 12, 2007)

Their development of a nuclear reactor was hindered by a mistaken belief that graphite was no use as a moderator. That meant they needed lots of very pure heavy water, which was expensive and difficult to make (I'm not sure they ever got enough). Graphite is actually an excellent moderator, still used in most reactors today. It's cheap and easy to produce.

They also appear to have been unsure how much enriched uranium or plutonium they would need for a critical mass, with Heisenberg at times believing it would take several tons, rather than the tens of kilos actually needed.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 12, 2007)

America may have developed the bomb but in which time frame...without the rush of war then it may have taken years.

The issue is that maybe the right decsions were taken at the right time but turned out to be historically wrong.


----------



## Soren (Oct 12, 2007)

Without the absolute crucial help from the fleeing German scientists the US would've never gotten the A-bomb. Quite simple. 

Remember the German nuclear research was boycotted by Hitler, so they never really got the time or money to ever be able to compete with the highly prioritized Manhattan Project which was a cooperation between many countries, the major contributions coming namely from German British scientists.

As to wether the the Germans would've (had the Greman nuclear program been funded) been able to launch rockets with nuclear warheads , yes they most certainly would've. The V-2 carried a ~1 ton warhead across the sky at 800 m/s, so I think it completely possible that the Germans could've built a rocket capable of carrying a warhead in excess of 4 tons - esp. since they wouldn't need many. As to the accuracy of the V-2, well considering the slave labor used to construct it and rush to launch them it was remarkably accurate - and there's no doubt that a "V-3" (Lets call it that) carrying a nuclear warhead would've been constructed with the outmost care by professionals to ensure nothing going wrong, which would ensure a safe and accurate delivery of the warhead - like I said not many direct hits were needed


----------



## Civettone (Oct 12, 2007)

Hop said:


> Their development of a nuclear reactor was hindered by a mistaken belief that graphite was no use as a moderator. That meant they needed lots of very pure heavy water, which was expensive and difficult to make (I'm not sure they ever got enough). Graphite is actually an excellent moderator, still used in most reactors today. It's cheap and easy to produce.
> 
> They also appear to have been unsure how much enriched uranium or plutonium they would need for a critical mass, with Heisenberg at times believing it would take several tons, rather than the tens of kilos actually needed.


Well, that's not really the same as saying they had the principles wrong. 
The heavy water would have been produced and the amounts of plutonium needed would also have been found out given some more research. 

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 12, 2007)

Soren, given the genocidal tendencies of the Nazi's towards the Jews, none of the scientists would have stayed in Germany to help them develope an atomic weapon.

So yes, the German scientists helped the allies in developing the bomb. Your loss, our gain.

Another thing to ponder about the development and construction of the bomb..... you need a huge industrial plant to work on the various components of the bomb. All of which would be known to allied intelligence and bombed.

And then there is the issue of the Soviets allowing the Nazi's to build a bomb.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 14, 2007)

They had developed finally a sound understanding of a nuke and the necessary technologies behind (breed reactor formulated by Heisenberg 1942, recyclotrons build by v. Ardenne and others, gaseous centrifuges installed in Hamburg, Bad Saarow and elsewhere, infrared fuze designed and builded by Trinks). But as Syscom noted, not the industrial background, necessary to invoke building nukes. 
Graphite was, contrary to popular believe, utilzed as a moderator in Heisenbergs Haigerloch pile.
Diebners G IV, a shortliving pile got critical in 1944 using heavy water as a moderator.
Seriously, the V-2 IS NO SUITABLE CARRIER.


----------



## Hop (Oct 14, 2007)

> Graphite was, contrary to popular believe, utilzed as a moderator in Heisenbergs Haigerloch pile.



The Haigerloch reactor used heavy water as the moderator. Graphite was used around the core as shielding, not as the moderator.

From an interview with Heisenberg:



> ERMENC: Why wasn't there more interest in graphite knowing that heavy water was very scarce ?
> 
> HEISENBERG: It was because of the experiment of Bothe's on graphite which was not correct. Bothe had made a measurement of the neutron absorption coefficient of pure carbon and an error had slipped into his experiment. His values were too high but we assumed they were cor-
> rect and so we did not think carbon could be used.
> ...





> We intended in the later development of the thing
> to use carbon for shieldinq around the reactors.
> 
> ERMENC: This is what you did at Leipzig?
> ...



It's worth pointing out that the Haigerloch reactor never worked, and never would have. It was too small to achieve criticality.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 14, 2007)

While it is correct that Haigerloch used water as moderator, the graphite shielding of the core contributed to neutron reflection on a measurable scale and was recognized as such. Any later projects therefore would return to graphite (indeed even Ardenne, who didn´t participated in Haigerloch knew this and suggested graphite as moderator to the soviets, who refused to accept his proposal and build their first pile with heavy water as moderator).

BTW, Haigerloch WOULD have worked incase:

A) Heisenberg would have gotten access to the remaining heavy water and uranium stored in Stadtilm /Thuringia, or
B) Heisenberg would have allowed a change into spherical arrangement of the core according to Diebners G III and G IV results. Heisenberg perhaps was the most conservative of the german nuclear physics by this time. Either intended or not remains debatable.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 14, 2007)

Even a German nuclear warhead going off in a Vermont wheat field might scare a couple people!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 14, 2007)

Look at the industrial capacity needed to build an atomic weapon. The Manhattan project involved 10's of thousands of skilled workers needed to build the massive infrastructure. And thousands of scientists and technicians were needed to research, design and build the weapons.

Its lucky that the US had enough manpower and excess industrial capacity to do it. Now consider the implications for Germany in which vitally needed resources would have to be diverted to a nuclear weapon program that might or might not work.

And then factor in the British and Russian bombardments on these plants and the resultant delays.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2007)

If it's true that the V2 rocket project costed as much as the Manhattan project it would also mean it would have been possible for the Germans to collect the resources to build a nuke. Also remember that there is no reason to believe that the Germans would have needed as much resources as the Americans. The Germans usually designed and build new weapons with much less personnel and resources than the allies.

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> If it's true that the V2 rocket project costed as much as the Manhattan project it would also mean it would have been possible for the Germans to collect the resources to build a nuke. Also remember that there is no reason to believe that the Germans would have needed as much resources as the Americans. The Germans usually designed and build new weapons with much less personnel and resources than the allies.
> 
> Kris



Go read the history of the Manhattan Project and then tell me Germany could have accomplished the same thing with less. The US and the UK had a bigger population, was far richer, had the advantage of having the key scientists and technicians.

Plus there was nothing the Nazi's could have done to bomb the industrial plants spread about the continental US.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

I already gave my answer. The Germans usually accomplished the same as the Americans with less. So I'm using the same logic for the nuke program.

The costs for both projects was about the same, close to US$2 billion. 

It's true that Germany was being bombed. But yet the V 2 program succeeded. 

Perhaps you're also underestimating the size of the German V 2 project. It was by far the largets German undertaking. It took years for the allies to get to their standard, even with the full cooperation of the German scientists. Just to give you an idea on how advanced the project was. It was no less impressive than the Manhattan one.

Kris


----------



## delcyros (Oct 15, 2007)

My vote for the more impressive project goes to the US Manhatten project.
The V-2 is interesting but it would require an enlarged A-10 to carry a nuke intercontinentally via ballistic missile. this almost certainly was beyond german possibilities.

Germany also lacked proper funding of the nuke project. Mainly because Heisenberg refused to assure that it could be done in this war ( a statement he made in 1942!).

As it turned out, they at least had the prime ressources: Uranium. Germany was No. 1 producer of Uranium in prewar times and produced enough Uranium in ww2 to fuel the most of the soviet nuclear projects well into the late 50´s (without the material captured in Berlin, Viennes and Thuringia, the SU could not hope to agglomerate enough Uranium to start a pile in the 40´s according to Kurchatov).
They also had a number of enrichment facilities, betatrons and cyclotrons, altough compared to the Manhatten project these aren´t competetive in quantity.

So if the question is could they have done it, I have to say yes. But if the question is Could they have afforded the project in a briefer time than the Manhatten project the answer has to be NO-and that´s what counts finally. The one who has the bomb in possesion as first will win.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

That doesn't make sense. They spent as much money on the V 2 project as the Americans on the Manhattan project. So in terms of resources they definitely could have had their own Manhattan project. Of course they would have had to give up on their rockets completely.

Kris


----------



## david johnson (Oct 15, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Even a German nuclear warhead going off in a Vermont wheat field might scare a couple people!



they grow wheat in vermont?

dj


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2007)

The V2 program might have been big by German standards, but it couldn't come close to how big and complex the Manhattan Project was. 

How many people know that the B29 program turned out to be even bigger than the Manhattan Project?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

The B-29 program bigger than the Manhattan project? 

I'm sorry but that makes me feel that the Manhatten project wasn't all that gigantic. 

In any case, what do you base your claim that the MP was bigger and more complex than the V 2 project? 
Kris


----------



## Graeme (Oct 16, 2007)

_The making of the atomic bomb had been a prodigious enterprise, by far the most sophisticated large-scale effort ever made by man. According to Groves the cost was $2,000,000,000, and the workforce was more than 600,000. For comparison, the Great Pyramid, Herodotus relates, required a continuous force of 100,000 men working for twenty years; and the Great Wall of China may have involved 1,000,000 men._

From 'The Oxford Companion to the Second World War' edited by Dear and Foot, 1995.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 16, 2007)

And yet the B-29 program was bigger??


Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> And yet the B-29 program was bigger??
> 
> 
> Kris




Yes, the B29 program cost more and ended up using more workers.

But the difference was the B29 was an technological push of existing technologies that was then mass produced.

The Manhattan Project was pushing a brand new science and developing totally new technologies.


----------



## Soren (Oct 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> So yes, the German scientists helped the allies in developing the bomb. Your loss, our gain.



My loss ??! Are you serious ??!

For crying out loud Syscom, you've got to stop this little game of yours soon!



*Civettone,*

I agree with you completely.

I bet Syscom3 will be surprised to know just how much funding the introduction of jet technology into active service required. The V-2 project was very complex, so complex that it took the US longer to develop than it took them to develop the A-bomb - something which speaks volumes if you ask me.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> The Germans could've developed a deliverable nuclear weapon, maybe by '46, but there was too much disinterest in higher circles to support the atomic research that was going on in Germany in the late '30's/early '40's; Hitler considered atomic research a "Jewish scince" and, therefore, dismissed it out of hand (see David Irving's book _The German Atomic Bomb: The History of Nuclear Research in Nazi Germany_). Germany actually built the first operational heavy-water facility in Vemork, Norway before it was sabotaged by British commandos in '40.
> 
> They also had plans on the drawing board for a "boosted" V-2 capable of reaching the East Coast of the USA (it would've been the world's first true ICBM) known as the A-10 (there were also much larger rockets projected beyond this known as the A-11 A-12). In theory, one of these "boosted" V-2's probably could've lofted an atomic weapon on the US, but the Germans were years away from that when the War ended.



What was the first 'sputnik' in 1957 - 137 pounds? The first delivered atomic bomb was 10,000+ pounds that the V-2 derivative would nearly have to put in orbit to reach the US! It took a Loooooooong time before a 100 pound nuc was developed.. what source discussed a reasonable payload for the advanced V-2A-11 or 12?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> My loss ??! Are you serious ??!
> 
> For crying out loud Syscom, you've got to stop this little game of yours soon!
> 
> ...



If the V2 was more complex a weapon to develop than the B29 or A-Bomb, then its no wonder Germany lost the war.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 17, 2007)

Yet another in depth analysis by Syscom. At least now we know why the Germans lost the war...

Kris


----------



## delcyros (Oct 17, 2007)

I am with Syscom3 on this.
And it should be recognized that the missile technology was hyper advanced but conventionel (the first rocket engined flight was well before ww2).

But the Manhatten project not only was hyper advanced but also unconventional. The amount of reserach done and the amount of infrastructure building is a non neglectable argument.


----------



## Soren (Oct 17, 2007)

Delcyros,

I disagree, the Germans themselves were well into nuclear science, Meitner, Hahn and Strassmann's theories discoveries being the foundation for the work carried out in the manhattan project. What the was lacking was funding - the possibility of military use being denied by Hitler.

Also rocket science might have been conventionel, but self guided rockets weren't.


----------



## Bullockracing (Oct 17, 2007)

delcyros said:


> ...and France by then was the most advanced nation in nuclear physics...



I call BS!!! The Netherlands' Neils Bohr had come the closest in Europe to having an active pile, but the SAS had explosives rigged underground to blow it went active. France had their scientists, but definitely was not "the most advanced" Even Japan was further ahead than France (thanks to the good Dr. Nishina)...


----------



## Pilot of the B-17 (Oct 17, 2007)

I bet that would have been used

I bet we would have been threatened with the nuclear strikes

And i think we would have been taken down


----------



## Soren (Oct 17, 2007)

Niels Bohr is Danish.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Oct 17, 2007)

THE nuke on hiroshima and nakisaki required huge amounts of effort in it.
i have been reading a book on the subject just recently called "Hitlers scientists". British scientists cacluated that a smaller amount than had ever been thought of would be enough to generate a nuculear detonaltion and the following chain reaction through the particle of Uranium 235...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2007)

Where Did The Money Go?
(estimated cumulative costs through December 31, 1945)


Site/Project

Then-year Dollars/Constant 1996 Dollars

OAK RIDGE (Total) $1,188,352,000 $13,565,662,000
—K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant $512,166,000 $5,846,644,000
—Y-12 Electromagnetic Plant $477,631,000 $5,452,409,000
—Clinton Engineer Works, HQ
and central utilities $155,951,000 $1,780,263,000
—Clinton Laboratories $26,932,000 $307,443,000
—S-50 Thermal Diffusion Plant $15,672,000 $178,904,000
HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS $390,124,000 $4,453,470,000
SPECIAL OPERATING MATERIALS $103,369,000 $1,180,011,000
LOS ALAMOS PROJECT $74,055,000 $845,377,000
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT $69,681,000 $795,445,000
GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD $37,255,000 $425,285,000
HEAVY WATER PLANTS1 $26,768,000 $305,571,000

Grand Total 1945: $1,889,604,000 
Grand Total 1996: $21,570,821,000

Another price for the project was for 130 billion in 1996 prices, as factored into project cost per percentage of the GNP of 1945.

The Hanford and Oak Ridge sites had the benefit of abundant hydro-electric power needed for the project, none of which was easily available in Nazi Germany. These sites were also massive industrial facilities, that could not be hidden or their use disguised from aerial recon. If Germany had constructed similar facilities, they would have been bombed to oblivion once they were seen being built.

The number of scientists and technicians needed for this project was available to the allies, since they pooled their personnel to work on the many details of building the bomb. Germany did not have the resources to do this, without impacting many other programs and its war program.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 18, 2007)

> I disagree, the Germans themselves were well into nuclear science, Meitner, Hahn and Strassmann's theories discoveries being the foundation for the work carried out in the manhattan project. What the was lacking was funding - the possibility of military use being denied by Hitler.



I am not disputing the theoretical knowledge and the discoveries made before ww2, I am of the very opinion that they had come to the right track in ww2 but they actually lacked the industrial implementation how to use this "lab-knowledge". If You read Speers comments about this, it´s going to be pretty clear. the advance the germans had in possession in 1939 was already cast in doubt 1940 by France, 1942 by the UK and 1943 by the US. I would even go so far and say that without Heisenberg (the seperation of nucleus would have been discovered anyway this year as demonstrated by others), the germans might have an initial disadvantage but might turn out much better in ww2 as Heisenberg did his best to delay a german nuclear project. Keep in mind, it wasn´t the gouvernment, or Hitler or Milch or Speer who refused funding, it was Heisenberg who answered, beeing asked how much money he need to build a bomb, that only labour financing is needed at this stage and a bomb wouldn´t be practical in this conflict!




> I call BS!!! The Netherlands' Neils Bohr had come the closest in Europe to having an active pile, but the SAS had explosives rigged underground to blow it went active. France had their scientists, but definitely was not "the most advanced" Even Japan was further ahead than France (thanks to the good Dr. Nishina)...



Than I am sorry but You don´t know what France already was in possession of. Joliot Curie initiated the building of the worlds first cyclotron. This Paris cyclotron gave the germans in 1940 the prospect to analyse uranium and thorium preparates, including the theoretical analysys of plutonium if this would have been allowed. The germans agreed that both, french and german scientists may use the 7 MeV (later 12 MeV) installment for non-military research. It was the most powerful neutron source in german and german occupied terretory during ww2.
A cyclotron is essential in theories behind nuclear isotopes, the agglomeration of "artificial" isoptopes or elements (U-238 ). Had the germans used the Paris cyclotron in military capacity they would have agglomerated enough U-238 to build a bomb late in 44 or probably in 1942 enough U-238 to run a heavy water reactor and by 1944 to run a light water reactor.
The farsight with which the french undertook this project in 1939, the largest single nuclear technology related project in the world by then, is remarkable and deserves attention.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

I stand by my point that the V 2 project required as much resources as the Manhattan project. Therefor the Germans could have had a nuke. 

And the V 2 was a huge project which still wasn't bombed into oblivion. Imagine that!

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I stand by my point that the V 2 project required as much resources as the Manhattan project. Therefor the Germans could have had a nuke.
> 
> And the V 2 was a huge project which still wasn't bombed into oblivion. Imagine that!
> 
> Kris



The V2 did not require a vast cadre of engineers, technicians and scientists researching a brand new science and inventing technologies on the go. The V2 was just pushing the art of existing technologies to make a usable rocket engine. Although it was groundbreaking, there was nothing unusual about that.

The V2 did not cost 132 billion dollars, even with slave labor factored in.

The V2 was a weapon that could be mass produced and the production and assembly facilities dispersed.

Now lets see some evidence of how the V2 project was larger than the manhattan project.


----------



## Soren (Oct 18, 2007)

*Syscom3, *

you still fail to understand that it has nothing to do with the cost of the project. The German routinely built more advanced equipment than the Allies with less funding.

*Delcyros,*

I definitely do agree with you on some points, but on the bottom line I agree with Civettone.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I stand by my point that the V 2 project required as much resources as the Manhattan project.



Relative to each nation's respective GNP and population or is that an unqualified statement?

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Relative to each nation's respective GNP and population or is that an unqualified statement?
> 
> .



Naw it came from a consensus...


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Relative to each nation's respective GNP and population or is that an unqualified statement?
> 
> .


Perhaps in that case, the V 2 project was even bigger. I just know that both costed 2 billion US dollars.



> The V2 did not require a vast cadre of engineers, technicians and scientists researching a brand new science and inventing technologies on the go. The V2 was just pushing the art of existing technologies to make a usable rocket engine. Although it was groundbreaking, there was nothing unusual about that.


Is that way it took the Americans years to get to the same level of the Germans, even with full cooperation by the engineers?? 

Maybe you can read this: New Vanguard 82: V-2 Ballistic Missile 1942-52
V-2 Ballistic Missile 1942 - 52 - Wal-Mart
It gives a good view on how large and groundbreaking the project was. 
Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2007)

We are talking about what the allies did, and thats research the physics behind building an atomic weapon, then organizing and building a vast industrial infrastructure to manufacture the weapon. The Germans didnt do that, did they?

And of course the B29 program was far larger than the V2 program, and it to pushed the state of the art for logn range bombers and production. And again, the Germans never had such an industrial program that was similar, did they?

Now when will you provide some evidence of the following:
1) US dollar equivalants for the total cost.
2) The absolutely new sciences and technologies that were created in the course of developing the V2. 
3) Numbers of personell involved in the v2 program (excluding slave labor).

And sorry, post war research into rockets doesnt count in this thread.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2007)

From wiki....

"The cost of the V-2 program was approximately US$2 billion in 1944 dollars (approximately US$21 billion in 2005 dollars); and 6048 were built, 3225 launched (US$620,000 each in 2005 dollars). In fact the program can be seen as the German "Manhattan Project", which cost US$2 billion in 1944 dollars (approximately US$20 billion in 2004 dollars). To put the German effort to mass produce the V-2 in perspective, its cost was at the time estimated to be about 1,000,000 Reichsmark per rocket. This was about the same as four Tiger Tanks or eight Panzer Pzkfw IV tanks. For the 6000 V-2s built, Germany could have built up to 48,000 tanks. However, such comparisons of the opportunity cost of deploying the V2 versus other weapons systems need to consider the realities that Nazi Germany faced and the psychology of the senior Nazi leadership. For example, by late 1944 Nazi Germany did not have the fuel or qualified manpower to field an additional 48,000 tanks. The production of the fuel for one V-2 required 30 tons of potatoes. Sometimes as Germany lacked enough explosives to put in the V-2, concrete was used"

So to put it in perspective, it was an effort similar in scope to the B29 program (push the state of existing technologies for a mass production weapon), although smaller and with no military gain to show for it.

The cost was similar to the Manhattan project, but totally dissimilar when comparing the technologies and sciences developed and military benefits gained.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 20, 2007)

Ok...

So to go back to the original point. Could Germany have had a nuke? My answer is yes. Cancel the V 2 project and use a similar amount of resources, and given the fact that the Germans usually did more with less, I think they could have gotten an A-bomb. 
Second, after a while they could have chosen to go along one path, either the enriched uranium bomb or the plutonium bomb instead of developing both like the Americans did!

And the world would have looked quite differently if they had a nuke.
Kris


----------



## kjcarey2003 (Nov 2, 2007)

I am not sure Hilter would have used a nuke even if he had one. He was weird about what he considered the rules of war. Didn't the German's have Sarin gas by that point? I don't think they ever used it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2007)

Yes the Germans had gas and they never used it. There are several theories about why he did not. One thought is because he was scared of it because of what he saw in WW1.


----------



## Negative Creep (Nov 3, 2007)

I've always found that very odd. With all the atrocities that took place Hitler never employed chemical warfare, even at the end. If he had nuclear weapons I'm sure he would have used them, but only against the Russians. Even then, unless Stalin and the High Command were taken out, I doubt it would have stopped the Red Army by 44 or 45


----------



## Marcel (Nov 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes the Germans had gas and they never used it. There are several theories about why he did not. One thought is because he was scared of it because of what he saw in WW1.



My history teacher told me that it was because of the fact that Hitler himself fell victim of gas of his own army in WWII that he didn't allow the use of it in WWII. Not sure if it's true.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 3, 2007)

On _"Chemical substances..."_

_"They suited the defenders to just about the same degree as the offensive, and so they cannot be counted as an exclusive asset of the offensive."_ - pg.129

*Achtung-Panzer! - The Development of Tank Warfare* - Heinz Guderian (1936).


----------



## Aussie1001 (Nov 4, 2007)

Hitler would not have used it..... hmmm i wonder.....
Back in thoes times no one could have concieved that an explosion of the size created by the first atomic bomb was even remotley concievieble with the amount of material used in the first A-Bomb.
another thing correct me if i'm wrong but plutonium is a by-product of uranium that has been processed in a reactor.


----------



## Hop (Nov 4, 2007)

The main arguments against Germany using poison gas are:

a: the allies were far more capable of delivering gas attacks

b: the German army was largely horse drawn, whereas the allies relied on motor transport. Poison gas has no effect on a truck, but will kill a horse as easily as a man (and it's much harder to effectively protect horses than men)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Hop said:


> The main arguments against Germany using poison gas are:
> 
> a: the allies were far more capable of delivering gas attacks



How were the allies far more capable of deploying it?



Hop said:


> b: the German army was largely horse drawn, whereas the allies relied on motor transport. Poison gas has no effect on a truck, but will kill a horse as easily as a man (and it's much harder to effectively protect horses than men)



The German Army did use a vast amount of Horses but the fact that the majority of the Army was horse drawn is wrong and a myth.


----------



## Negative Creep (Nov 4, 2007)

Surely by that logic Germany wouldn't have attacked the USSR because they had a bigger army? Also, far more use was made of horses in the 1st World War, but that wasn't taken into consideration by either side


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2007)

I would have thought that my quote would have explained why the Germans did not use gas in World War II. The German military saw no potential in the use of chemical warfare, it slowed the advance and the counter-measures available made it a pointless affair.


----------



## Hop (Nov 5, 2007)

> How were the allies far more capable of deploying it?



Air superiority. Artillery superiority. The German transport infrastructure was so degraded getting supplies to the front was difficult.

All this is later in the war, of course, but there wasn't much incentive for the Germans to use gas when they appeared to be winning.



> The German Army did use a vast amount of Horses but the fact that the majority of the Army was horse drawn is wrong and a myth.



The German army had about 1 million horses by 1944. I believe the standard requirement for an infantry division was in excess of 4,000 horses.



> Also, far more use was made of horses in the 1st World War, but that wasn't taken into consideration by either side



But that meant neither side gained a particular advantage or disadvantage. In WW2, with the Germans relying heavily on horses, and the western allies in particular not, gas would affect German logistics in a way it wouldn't affect the allies.



> I would have thought that my quote would have explained why the Germans did not use gas in World War II. The German military saw no potential in the use of chemical warfare, it slowed the advance and the counter-measures available made it a pointless affair.



I certainly think that's true early in the war. When they were on the defensive gas would have had some advantages, though.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 5, 2007)

I think a lot of the reasons to not use gas were based on personal experiences by Hitler and a lot of his general staff. Most of them were WWI vets and had experienced it in one way or another and knew the horrors of it. Plus, tactically, it is not of any real effective use because of safeguards having to be used for the ones using the gas. It slows everyone down and the civilians would be the ones who suffer the worst for it as they would have less adequate protection.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2007)

Hop said:


> Air superiority. Artillery superiority. The German transport infrastructure was so degraded getting supplies to the front was difficult.



Allies certainly had air superiority but most gas would have been used by Artillary and Allied and German Artillary were about equal. Germany also could deploy there gas buy rockets.

I also dont think the Allies had a clear advantage of deploying it.

Now I agree for reasons stated by pB and the fact that Hitler recieved a dose of it in WW1 that Germany was not going to use Gas.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2007)

The first to use gas has the advantage of surprise. It takes weeks to get sufficient numbers of gas masks to the troops. Of course every country had them in reserve but would still have had to distribute them and produce more.

But I see Germany having one occasion where it could have been important: the end of 1942 when they were laying siege on Leningrad and Stalingrad. A sudden mass use of these would have meant the defeat of the Russian armies there and the taking of these important cities. With Leningrad taken, the nothern front pretty much closes except for Murmansk which could be taken later. Stalingrad taken would improve chances of the Caucasus being taken. After that only Moscow and the Ural were left. 1943 would be another year of German advances. It would have lengthened the war.

Even though quite possible, it's not certain that using gas on the Russian front would have meant it would be used on the western front. There were quite different rules on both fronts in terms of humanity. The cruelty you saw on the Ostfront were lacking in France or Italy. 



> I am not sure Hilter would have used a nuke even if he had one. He was weird about what he considered the rules of war. Didn't the German's have Sarin gas by that point? I don't think they ever used it.


I don't doubt that Hitler would have used the bomb. You cannot compare it with gas on the battlefield. He repeatedly said he wanted London wiped off the face of the earth. No doubt he would have wanted a nuke. Biggest problem was that he was too dumb to understand the principle behind it and therefor lost interest in this superweapon. According to Speer.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2007)

Civettone said:


> The first to use gas has the advantage of surprise. It takes weeks to get sufficient numbers of gas masks to the troops. Of course every country had them in reserve but would still have had to distribute them and produce more.



Depends on the country I guess. German soldiers had gasmasks on them most of the time anyhow. You probably have seen a pictures of them. They carry them in the metal cylinders. I have several of them at home complete with gas masks and all. Below is a picture of German soldiers with gas masks in case.







Picture taken from World War 2 Pictures In Color


----------



## Civettone (Nov 8, 2007)

I'm gonna be honest. I didn't know they carried gas masks. 

So those poor soldiers carried that stuff with them for 5 years without ever using it?
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2007)

Yeap better to be safe than sorry. 
I have a few of them and in those metal cases they were rather heavy to be carrying around for a long time.

I am pretty sure that most nations carried there Gas Masks. It is part of standard military issue equipment. You carry it incase you need it. It is better to have it and not need it, then not have it and need it.

This has not changed today. We call it MOPP gear and it is carried for the posibility that it is needed.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2007)

It was standard equipment in all World War II militaries; meaning that gas had no offensive or defensive potential. Hence the reason that Germany did not use it.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2007)

But did they really carry it with them all the time? Or was it simply available at HQ? Just so difficult to imagine German soldiers fighting in the Ukraine, or fighting in North Africa with gas masks in their bags.

Kris


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2007)

They should have had them at all times. I imagine in some situations soldiers 'forgot' or weren't issued gas masks...but it was standard equipment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

Civettone said:


> But did they really carry it with them all the time? Or was it simply available at HQ? Just so difficult to imagine German soldiers fighting in the Ukraine, or fighting in North Africa with gas masks in their bags.
> 
> Kris



No it was carried at all times.

You dont leave them at HQ and then a gas attack comes and you have to run back to HQ to get them.

If you are gassed you have litteraly seconds to get your equipment on. In the military we litterally trained for it in gas chambers. 

Same thing in WW2 they carried them so that they had them if they needed them.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 14, 2007)

Civettone said:


> But did they really carry it with them all the time? Or was it simply available at HQ? Just so difficult to imagine German soldiers fighting in the Ukraine, or fighting in North Africa with gas masks in their bags.
> 
> Kris



As Adler said, yes, they did carry them all the time; if you look at pictures of Wehrmacht infantry in WWII, most of them have their gas mask canisters with them. It would hang off the back of their webbing, mostly out of the way, but immediately available if necessary.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 2, 2007)

I do believe if any of the other countires had perfected the A-bomb, they would have surely used it. It had the potential to kill the most enemies with one weapon.
I do not believe Germany had all the resources to build their own bomb. I do not know all the details as intimately as you gentlemen do, but as Syscom has said, they were missing the resources, (ie factories, industrial base) and I think did not have the forsight to concentrate on the A-bomb instead of the V2. The V2 was nothing more than a terror weapon. Which one had a greater impact on the war? The A-bomb by far. What are the figures for total killed by both weapons? If they both cost about the same, the a bomb is the better value by far. I guess my point in this is that although Germany had the potential to build a bomb, those in charge lacked all the tools to build one either because of miscalculations, or because of lack of infrastructure, but most importantly, they thankfully missed the opportunity to perfect the bomb and build one because they chose to direct their resources into a weapon that did little to win the war for Germany, and stole valuable resources and manpower that the US had in ample supply. Once again, Germany's lack of a long term plan cost them dearly in the war.


----------



## T4.H (Dec 4, 2007)

Germany has had hundred thousands of tons of Chemical weapons and many production facilities to produce them.
Among this, more than 12.000 tons of Tabun, more than 30 tons of Sarin and little amounts of Soman. I think, this is more than enough for everything what you want to finish... They have had also the granates and the bombs to deliver them. They have had also more than enough Lost, Clark I, Clark II, Adamasit, Phosgen, Zyklon B and and and...
Let say it on this way. With Tabun, bombs and cases to deliver them and the AR 234 or the V2 (I'm not sure, but I remember to heared/read, they have had warheads to deliver Tabun with the V2), Germany has had the the stuff to less or more finish every enemy town in europe.

After WW2 the allied forces stored much of the chemical weapons (under it with Tabun filled granates and bombs) on several ships (like the Leipzig) and sunk them mainly in the baltic sea but also in the northsea. 

I would just say, Germany didn't need to develope the A-bomb.
Also the allied forces didn't need them in WW2.
The Royal Air force over Germany and US-Air Force over Japan prooved several times that it is possible to wipe out a whole town just with convential weapons (firestorm), just think of Dresden, Hamburg and several japanese towns. 

It sounds to be unbelievable but it has been shown, that AH was not willed to use chemical weapons in WW2.
It is known, that Bormann, Goebbels and Ley tried to force him to allow the use of Tabun.
There could be several reasons, why AH was not willed to use them.
1. He was wounded by gas in WW1. 
2. The germans feared, the allied would have something comparable (we now know, they didn't).
3. There was no drug to heal there own with Tabun or something comparable wounded soldiers (Atropin).
4. The germans believed the allied forces knew of the german gas program. Now we knew they didn't know anything. 
5. Because of the typical wind direction, gas weapons were not realy useful against allied western forces.

I'm think, if the allied forces would have used a A-bomb against a german town...
Germany would have answered with Tabun against a allied town.
In my opinion, if someone uses a weapon of mass destruction against you (especially against civilians), you are allowed to answer with weapons of mass destruction.
I think, germany would have send an horrorfiing answer.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 4, 2007)

T4.H? Do you think Germany would have used the A-bomb against the Allies had they perfected it first?
I am saying that Germany would have. One bomb too wipe out London? Hitler was trying to wipe out London by bombing and with the V2. Here was one weapon that could do it. How could he not use it?
Mitsuo Fuchida himself was quoted as saying that the US did the right thing by dropping the bomb on Japan. He said that the dropping of the bomb saved many lives on both sides as the Japanese people were willing to resist the American invasion down to the last man, woman and child. Amercian casualties would have been far greater that Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc.
Another Japanese pilot said that he could not hold any hatred towards the US for dropping the bomb as Japan would have surely used the bomb had they had it available. 
All this is most likely at home on another post.


----------



## T4.H (Dec 4, 2007)

A good question.
A question, only one person could answer...
And thisone is ash...and is good so...

To answer, what I think is one of your questions...
I don't think, germany would have surrendered, after one or two german towns had been wiped out by A-bombs. Why? Good question. Even as german I can't answer why it is so. I only knew, it is so.
In WW2, Germany fighted to the end. At least, there was just nothing left, less or more no airforce, no navy, no army...

AH would wipe out London with one A-bomb? They wouldn't throw it on London, if they would use it...
The would use Dover or Birmingham or something else as target.

AH could wipe out London at any time...

10 AR 234, each with 2 bombs filled with Tabun...
And you have only dead and deceasing bodys lying around. Much more than after a A-bomb explosion. 
They didn't do it.

If AH would believe, the allied side would answer with gas on german towns.
No...
If not... yes, perhaps yes, may be...

Did AH fear only chemical weapons or did he fear all weapons of mass destruction...This is the question, I can not answer.


----------



## Dan (Dec 4, 2007)

Why didn't they just wear the Gas masks most of the time then?

Obviously they didn't wear them for identification purposes, but other than that


----------



## T4.H (Dec 5, 2007)

We are talking about Tabun.
I 'm not sure, that the allied standard filter systems of the masks were working/properly working against Tabun.
It is a neuronal toxin, which is also going through the skin.

I knew, that in Great Britain each civiian has had a gas mask, in difference to germany.

You have to know, that you are attacked by gas, to use the mask.

A filter system is only working for a special amount of time, than it starts to fail and has to be exchanged. Do you have enough exchange filters?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2007)

I too dont think that Hitler would have dropped a bomb on London. Hitler was not trying to wipe out London just to wipe it out. He was trying to bring England into submission.

I think he if had the Bomb he would have used it on the Eastern Front against Russia not England...


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 5, 2007)

That is a very good point Adler. From what I have read and heard, Hitler did not hate the English. But he did hate the Russians. Would this be a correct statement?


----------



## T4.H (Dec 5, 2007)

AH did hate jews.
The russians were less or more "just only" living on the wrong place, a place, where the germans "should" life...(Lebensraum im Osten). Stupid idea.
AH did hate the communists. And the russians were not aryan.
I would just say, he didn't like the russians..

Yes Hitler didn't hate the Tommys. He hoped to work together with them.

A-bomb against russia?
You can't stop someone like Stalin just by wiping out some towns.
Perhaps you can kill him.

I think, it would be impossible for germany to attack an english town with an A-bomb.
An A-bomb is too heavy. The V2 is too small. The germans had aircrafts, which could transport an A-bomb. But these are to slow to get through the english air defence.
All one, who where fast enough...were to small.


At the end of 44 no one would be stopped by some A-bombs (in europe).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2007)

Messy1 said:


> That is a very good point Adler. From what I have read and heard, Hitler did not hate the English. But he did hate the Russians. Would this be a correct statement?



I will not say it is true but I will say he respected the English.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 6, 2007)

10-4.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2007)

At least at first. 
After the BoB and the first major British bomb raids he hated them as much as any other enemy nation.

Well in fact, what's curious about it is that his hate was also demonstrated by looking down on them. He looked down on Americans as they couldn't produce a decent car, and as such wouldn't be able to build decent tanks or aircraft. Naturally he thought the Russians would be even worse at it. This stuckup superiority feeling basically made him lose the war. But that's off-topic... 
Kris


----------

