# If Hitler had the A Bomb how would he have used it?



## michaelmaltby (Oct 20, 2011)

This news story from last summer got me thinking:

Nazi nuclear waste from Hitler's secret A-bomb programme found in mine | Mail Online

MM


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2011)

Hitler ran for political office on an anti-communist platform. That makes Stalin's Soviet Union the obvious priority target.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 20, 2011)

I would agree DB, but by the time he got the bomb (say November 1944) could he have deployed it effectively against the Soviets.

I have been mulling this thread ever since Old Sage warned us to get back on Night Fighters and not linger OT 

There is nothing about the Atomic program that pre-supposes air born release (although I grant that is the most effective and dramatic). Using an atomic device as a "mine" (in the WW1 sense of that word) seems a more likely deployment.

Where on the Eastern Front would there be the necessary concentration of Soviet assets - and within striking range (by land or by water). Think outside the box -- the British raid on Saint Nazaire, France, for example, where the Navy and Commandos drove an ex-USN 4-stack destroyer into the locks and then blew it up on time delay.

A nuclear device used in that manner would make quite an impression, I am sure, but what's the target?


MM


----------



## N4521U (Oct 20, 2011)

The target would have been A.H.!

It was delivered via the B-29, did the Germans have the capability to deliver by air? 
I'm pretty basic in my knowledge of these things, as well!


----------



## BikerBabe (Oct 20, 2011)

Fascinating article, thanks for sharing.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 20, 2011)

"... The target would have been A.H.!"

Huh .... clarification please.

MM


----------



## N4521U (Oct 20, 2011)

Adolph hisownself Hitler.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 20, 2011)

Thank you. That's a twist I hadn't thought of  although it does seem a strange way to kill yourself .

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 20, 2011)

Depending on the size of it, but I would think a V-2 would have been a great delivery system for it.


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2011)

That depends on how big it is. The historical 4,633 kg "Fat Man" atomic bomb could be carried by quite a few German aircraft types.

Probably the easiest delivery system would be to assemble the nuke in the wide body fuselage of a Ju-290 cargo aircraft. The Ju-290 had huge endurance so range is not an issue. Mount a fighter aircraft on top in a Mistel configuration. Or accompany the delivery aircraft with a Ju-88S control aircraft loaded with fuel. A night flight to the target is unlikely to be intercepted. And you're not going to catch a Ju-88S even during the daytime.






The February 1945 Yalta conference would make an ideal target. Approach route over the Black Sea. The Livadia Palace is an easily identifiable target located next to the beach. Germany could bag Stalin, Churchill, FDR and quite a few other top Allied leaders all at once.


----------



## RabidAlien (Oct 20, 2011)

Personally, I'd load up a captured freighter or some neutral-flag ship, and sail that puppy up into London. That would take out a lot of shipping capacity in a very short time. Although the shock value would not be as great as he would expect, since Londoners were used to lots of V1/V2/bomber explosions. Now...if he were to sail into, say, New York or Boston Harbor and set it off...maybe a submarine at night...the public outcry from a nation that had no clue what it was like to live through constant bombardment would have been tremendous, and caused the US to pull a lot of resources back to the states to guard our home soil and territorial waters. Knocking out Stalin, while a big help to the rest of the post-war world, I don't really think would have made much more of an impact other than to create a martyr for the troops to rally behind. Unless he started Barbarossa off with a bang (yeah...bad pun...sorry) and nuked Moscow from the start, before the Communist War Machine got its rusty gears turning and churning, that might have helped out a lot on the Eastern Front. But by the end of '44, I think the Allies had too much momentum for the loss of leadership to really grossly affect the eventual outcome of the war. Heck, FDR died unexpectedly, and that didn't stop American troops one bit. For it to have been effective, it would have had to have been used a lot earlier than he would have had it available in the first place. The only reason it worked for us was because we were on the offensive, not the defensive; it gave the Japanese high command a way to surrender without losing a lot of face; and dropping two so closely together led them to believe that we had a lot more available than we really did (which ties in with point #2). Hitler would not have had those advantages.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 20, 2011)

I had two thoughts - the first doesn't quite meet my availability timeline (November, 1944), but I'd ship the device to a Black Sea port in Romania (still an allie in May, 1944) and take the device by ship into Sevastopol -- as German forces were withdrawing (early May, 1944) and Soviet forces were pouring in . That whole region in the Ukraine would be neutralized.

The second thought was to use it against American troops in R&R disposition in the Ardennes, December, 1944. Penetration thrust deep into Belgium to get the device into the heart of American troops. Using such a weapon on American troops would be more devastating than using it on Soviets, IMHO. 

MM


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2011)

No but it did force abandonment of the Morgenthau Plan which would have destroyed central Europe for decades to come. FDR and Churchill both agreed to this plan during September 1944. Naturally Stalin loved it. 

Eliminate all three Allied leaders during February 1945 and Europe might get a better then historical peace treaty. Especially if people think Germany has a second atomic bomb ready for use.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2011)

If the Germans decided to hit the Soviets, it could have been done with either a V2 or a Mistel...especially if they were going to use the "Virus House" bombs which were not very large in proportions (think dirty bomb here)

If they were going to hit the U.S., then that would have taken the efforts of a long range aircraft (which has been rumored to have been done) and would have been pretty difficult to pull off logistically.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 21, 2011)

"... Eliminate all three Allied leaders during February 1945 and Europe might get a better then historical peace treaty. Especially if people think Germany has a second atomic bomb ready for use."

It's a diabolical plan, DB. The stuff of movies .

MM


----------



## stona (Oct 21, 2011)

Why would Hitler have used his nuclear weapon to attack a military target? Surely he would have used it in the same way the U.S. did. Use it as a terror weapon with the threat that you'll keep on using it until the other side quits. Target any cities within range. It would have been Germany's ultimate vengeance weapon.

BTW the German's were many years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Heisenberg had made some serious mistakes.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 21, 2011)

"... BTW the German's were many years away from developing a nuclear weapon"

No doubt. 

MM


----------



## herman1rg (Oct 21, 2011)

If Adolf had the Atomic Bomb I'm sure he would have used it, against the Russians.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 21, 2011)

IMHO

Depends on when that lunatic would have got it. Early in the war, I doubted he would have used it even when the tide first turned against him (even though he didn't believe it had). My reason to believe that was the fact that he didn't use "Chemical Weapons", the best comparision weapon I can think of. At the end of the war, I believe he would have used it at the last minute in Berlin and gone out with a literal bang!


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2011)

The reason chemical weapons weren't used was because there was the threat of retaliation. If Hitler's Germany was the only country with a nuke capability, then I could see him using it. In terms of targets and timeframes, I'd go for early 1944 (if available) and attack Moscow. Cutting the head off the USSR might have gained Hitler enough breathing room to enable a more robust defence against the US and Commonwealth forces massing in the UK.

Or he could go the other way round and nuke London, which was far less remote, and then concentrate on the Eastern Front.

More whiffing to follow, no doubt.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2011)

stona said:


> Why would Hitler have used his nuclear weapon to attack a military target? Surely he would have used it in the same way the U.S. did. Use it as a terror weapon with the threat that you'll keep on using it until the other side quits. Target any cities within range. It would have been Germany's ultimate vengeance weapon.
> 
> BTW the German's were many years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Heisenberg had made some serious mistakes.
> 
> ...


The U.S. didn't arbitrarily fling nukes into neighborhoods, they were industrial centers who had the benefit of being warned to evacuate long before they were bombed.


----------



## davebender (Oct 21, 2011)

Why? Hitler's long term goal remained the same from 1933 to 1945. Eradicate communism. Give him a nuke during 1935 rather then 1945 and Stalin will still be the target.


----------



## stona (Oct 21, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> The U.S. didn't arbitrarily fling nukes into neighborhoods, they were industrial centers who had the benefit of being warned to evacuate long before they were bombed.



The intention was to destroy a city and its inhabitants and the threat,made,not implicit was that this would continue until Japan surrendered. That is hardly attacking industrial centres. How could that be done with a weapon even more indiscriminate than a conventional area raid. We know now that the U.S.didn't have anymore bombs but the Japanese did not. It fits the definition of terror for me.
Let's play spot the factory,spot the residential area in this image.







Cheers
Steve


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 21, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> The reason chemical weapons weren't used was because there was the threat of retaliation. If Hitler's Germany was the only country with a nuke capability, then I could see him using it. In terms of targets and timeframes, I'd go for early 1944 (if available) and attack Moscow. Cutting the head off the USSR might have gained Hitler enough breathing room to enable a more robust defence against the US and Commonwealth forces massing in the UK.
> 
> Or he could go the other way round and nuke London, which was far less remote, and then concentrate on the Eastern Front.
> 
> More whiffing to follow, no doubt.




But I think our retaliation against his use of the atom bomb would be Chemical (or biological) Weapons, which you say kept him in check from using his. The gloves would truely have been off at that point and anything would have been on the table as a weapon for use by the allies. The Imperial Japanese Army/Navy was in no position to "up the ante" so to speak after having the bomb dropped on them, while in our theoretical situation, the allies - even after being bombed would definately have enough industrial base left, mixed with a healthy dose of desire for vengeance to think up any number of devilishly horrible ways to punish Nazi Germany.

I think weapons delivery for the Nazi's would have been an issue for either one of your proposed targets as well. Mine assumes that they had not developed a suitable aircraft in parallel to deliver the weapon and thus only have the ability to use it as a truck bomb of sorts.

In the end however all speculation is moot, as we won and I believe there is no way they could have.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2011)

stona said:


> The intention was to destroy a city and its inhabitants and the threat,made,not implicit was that this would continue until Japan surrendered. That is hardly attacking industrial centres. How could that be done with a weapon even more indiscriminate than a conventional area raid. We know now that the U.S.didn't have anymore bombs but the Japanese did not. It fits the definition of terror for me.
> Let's play spot the factory,spot the residential area in this image.
> 
> 
> ...


I don't intend for this to stray much further off topic, since the discussion is what Hitler (of Germany) might have done, not what the U.S. did or how people _feel_ about the Americans using them, etc etc...wrong topic, wrong thread.

In short, however, the facts are:
Hiroshima:
Command and Control center for the Southern Defense of the homeland, 2nd General Army, Field Marshal Shunroku Hata commanding.
Also, 5th Div Headquarters as well as communication and assembly area for ground forces. Additionally, munitions equipment storage and dispersal for the region.
Light industry and cottage industry for war goods.
Casualties: 70-80 thousand killed, nearly as much wounded.

Nagasaki (secondary target):
Major shipbuilding port facilities and heavy industry including Mitsubishi steel and weapon works, etc.
Casualties: Estimated 70 thousand killed, though reported to be as high as 80 thousand. Wounded figures vary but can be compared to Hiroshima.

Of the 67 cities bombed conventionally just prior to these two nuclear bombs, Tokyo suffered great losses in it's light to heavy industry and residential areas.
Casualties: Close to 125 thousand (although some estimates double that figure) with a comparable number of wounded.

And here's Tokyo, 1945...and I quote: "Let's play spot the factory,spot the residential area in this image."


----------



## kettbo (Oct 21, 2011)

since the early bombs were weak yield, TAC NUKE strike on Soviet forces massing for the push on Berlin Mar/Early April 45 would have sent a message....
being late in the war, and local, the most easily accomplished
Mistels on the Oder Bridgehead with atomic warheads


----------



## vanir (Oct 21, 2011)

Taking out a very large concentration of enemy forces wouldn't have changed a thing. How many nukes did you say Hitler has in this scenario?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2011)

Assuming that Hitler had a number of nukes at his disposal, his best option would most likely be to strike targets where there were military and industrial concentrations. Hitting troop concentrations would do little to stem the tide, but in hitting at the source would stop the flow of material and supplies to the Red army at the same time causing fear panic among the civilians.

For example, striking the military/industrial complexes of Moscow would not only destroy factories and supply depots, but it would also panic the population, who would evacuate the city. Now the much needed manpower for the factories (that survived) are gone...infrastructure is in chaos and faith in the war effort has been undermined...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "one mi-i-i-llion dollars, mu-hu-hu-ha-ha-ha..!"
> 
> Gotta go with wiping out Moscow, after all, his goal was oil fields and lebensraum to the east. The London theory is a good one though.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 22, 2011)

when is this happening? Mar 45? Lots depends when.
When I suggested Oder Bridgehead 3/45, supposing you could blast Moscow, get the bomb there....enemy is already at the gates present with enough stuff to get the job done AND plenty of new units working up with equipment already produced. If you destroy the bridgehead, you destroy the engineers, bridgeing eqpt, all the end item components needed, all the trained vehicle crews and ground troops...scads of them. Would take a long time indeed. Add to this that there would no longer be concentration of forces so no repeat. 
Not likely you would get to Moscow 3/45
Soviet factories were moved east into the Urals for the most part, same with the labor

Say late 43 or early 44, possible sub-carried weapon to NY harbor
June/Jul 44, Mulberry off Normandy? other node in support of Normandy

Not well versed on German night attacks on London Mid-late 44


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

Grau Geist, how would he deliver them? Please don't tell me you're going with Amerikabomber?


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

Okay I'm a fiction author, I can do this. Hitler's got nukes. Cool, now what. Hmmm....

hmm...

hmm...

V2?



delivery is the problem here.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2011)

vanir, going with the Germans had available at the time, I'd say a V2 would be the best option. It has the ability to get past Soviet air defenses where a Mistel or heavy bomber wouldn't.

As far as using it on the U.S., I honestly think the Germans were aware that the U.S. was working on a nuclear weapon but getting a pre-emptive nuclear strike to the U.S. mainland just wasn't possible with what they had. The Me264 prototypes were all gone by 1944, and planes like the Fw200 or Ju290 would be pushing thier limit.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 22, 2011)

It took the US until 1952 to produce a warhead to near the size that would have any chance of being lifted by a V-2. That's the Mk 5 with the W-5 warhead.


----------



## stona (Oct 22, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> Hiroshima:
> Command and Control center for the Southern Defense of the homeland, 2nd General Army, Field Marshal Shunroku Hata commanding.
> Also, 5th Div Headquarters as well as communication and assembly area for ground forces. Additionally, munitions equipment storage and dispersal for the region.
> Light industry and cottage industry for war goods.
> Casualties: 70-80 thousand killed, nearly as much wounded.



Well that was worth it from a purely military point of view. You can justify just about any target that way,I'm sure Bath and Canterbury had some telephones and 'cottage industry for war goods'. Thanks for illustrating my point. The objective was to force Japan's unconditional surrender.

" The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released."

I suggest that any German targeting comittee would have considered those two factors to be of the utmost importance too. They were very keen on the psychological effects of their vengeance weapons.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> It took the US until 1952 to produce a warhead to near the size that would have any chance of being lifted by a V-2. That's the Mk 5 with the W-5 warhead.


There has been alot of information regarding the German "Virus House" gathered over the years. Assuming they did in fact develop this weapon then we could use that as a basis for the V2 payload.

The "VH" was approximately 2.2 feet in diameter and weighed 2,205 pounds. That would put it just 5 pounds over the typical V2's payload (2,200 pounds).

Most of the weight in the VH was it's iron ballast for a free-fall (from a bomber, for example), to insure it fell on the plunger that crushed the Polonium/Beryllium urchin along with the shear pins that allowed the uranium plates to collapse. Being deployed as a payload for a V2 may eliminate the need for that iron ballast, since the V2 was designed to guide itself to it's target nose first.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 22, 2011)

Considering that if Japan would have to be invaded, it was planned to invade from the south at Kyushu island first. Taking out the command and control center for the defense of the southern part of the country seems like a valid target.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 23, 2011)

Thought I read somewhere is that those cities in Japan had not been bombed yet, all damage would be from the nukes, damage effects easier to study


----------



## stona (Oct 23, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> There has been alot of information regarding the German "Virus House" gathered over the years. Assuming they did in fact develop this weapon then we could use that as a basis for the V2 payload.



It's worth seeking out a version of the Farm Hall transcripts,they,or excerpts,have been published under various titles. It is evident that the German nuclear project at the end of the war was in a fairly early theoretical stage. Heisenberg and his team were working from some erroneous premises too. Left to their own devices I doubt that they would have developed any kind of viable weapon before the 1950s. It took the Soviets that long and they had the benefit of a lot of intelligence from the Manhattan project. Some of the German team were less than fully comitted and some eminent German physicists avoided working on the project as best they could. Not a problem for the allies where most physicists overcame their scruples and worked on the project. Just compare their resources to the resources comitted to 'Project Manhattan'.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 23, 2011)

kettbo said:


> Thought I read somewhere is that those cities in Japan had not been bombed yet, all damage would be from the nukes, damage effects easier to study


 During the mid 60's I was stationed at Yamada Camp, which during WW2 has been part of Kokura arsenal, which had been the primary target for the bomb actually dropped on Nagasaki. Even 20 years later you could still see some evidence of WW2 bombing, the area had seen some raids, but not the extensive area bombing of some of Japans other idustrial cities.


----------



## vanir (Oct 24, 2011)

GrauGeist, given firstly you probably know a lot more about it than me, but still I look at current third generation, modern tactical thermonuclear weapons delivery systems and the smallest, newest, the coolest thing to ever slide off a shovel that can be built using CPUs and mercury primers requires a minimum 1000kg payload capacity. Right on a V2.

Now in the 1940s multiply that payload weight by about 6.


Know why they built the B-36? It was the smallest plane required to carry the smallest h-bomb that could be made at the time. Considering its service life was only intended to be a few years these kinds of things are the most expensive short term projects in history. Wasn't the B-36 the largest heavier than air aircraft that ever made service in the world?


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 24, 2011)

The B-36 might have been a heavy aircraft when it first flew, but it's not even close to the heaviest aircraft, even a B-52 weighs more, a C5A can lift more weight than the B-36's empty weight. The Antonov 225 payload is more than 3 times the B-36's max overload weight.

But if you're talking about just size alone, the Ant-225 is the only one larger.

The B-36 first flew in 1946, that's 6 years before the first H-bomb. It design was started in 1941, to be able to bomb Europe from the USA, in case Britain fell and we'd have no closer airbases.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2011)

vanir, what the Germans had, in the way of the Virus House, would be what is considered by today's standards, a "Dirty Bomb"...

The Uranium was suspended in Kerosene and when the shear pins dropped the Uranium plates together, it coincided with the Polonium/Berrylium "Urchin" being crushed, blasting the Uranium with Neutrons and creating a minor reaction. And by saying "minor", I am referring to an event that would create considerable damage and cover an area the size of Manhattan island with radioactive fallout.

Definately not on the scale of the two types of nukes the U.S. deployed during WWII, but would be enough to get the Allies attention and start a propeganda/scare mission.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 24, 2011)

I have doubts that a dirty bomb would be all that effective at that time. Very few goverment official had any knowledge of fallout, and it's effect, and the public knew nothing. Dirty bombs need fear of radiation to be of any use, people of the time didn't know enough to be afraid.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2011)

why does the delivery system need to be air lauched.....werent the Germans working on a cruise missile system launched from a u-boat (surfaced) at the end of the war.....not sure, but if so, isnt that the best way of getting a nuclear bomb delivered to the American mainland


Edit:

apparently the threat was taken very seriously, as the following links suggest


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Teardrop


http://www.uboataces.com/articles-rocket-uboat.shtml


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 24, 2011)

"... why does the delivery system need to be air lauched.....?"

It wasn't specified as such, parsifal. I think the Germans lacked an airborn delivery platform - and suggest that a "mine" might be their most effective deployment.

MM


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2011)

The Virus House wasn't intended to be a dirty bomb, but it's yeild at the time would compare to a dirty bomb of this day and age. It was classified as a "Radiological Weapon".

From what I've come to understand, is that the Virus House was one approach to making a nuclear weapon based on the engineer's and physicist's idea of what one should be.

And great info, parsifal!


----------



## vanir (Oct 25, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> The B-36 might have been a heavy aircraft when it first flew, but it's not even close to the heaviest aircraft, even a B-52 weighs more, a C5A can lift more weight than the B-36's empty weight. The Antonov 225 payload is more than 3 times the B-36's max overload weight.
> 
> But if you're talking about just size alone, the Ant-225 is the only one larger.
> 
> The B-36 first flew in 1946, that's 6 years before the first H-bomb. It design was started in 1941, to be able to bomb Europe from the USA, in case Britain fell and we'd have no closer airbases.



cheers for the background info mate, obviously I never looked up the B-36 but just saw it mentioned on a documentary so got the wrong impression.
They were tracing the history of the supercarrier, and talking about the competition between the original supercarrier "USS America" design and the Strategic Air Command B-36 fleet which was the only aircraft capable of carrying the new H-bomb to Russian targets. The USN was competing for the nuclear deterrent. They went with the B-36 and the supercarrier was cancelled for a period, until later resurrected.

So it had sounded like the B-36 started equipping SAC in numbers after this point, that is after a H-bomb and after this competition with the USN for the primary nuclear deterrent preceding the ballistic missiles.

Perhaps it was only in small numbers, or even a preproduction series until then?

I'm a bit confused at this point.

===================================

GrauGeist I don't know if a dirty bomb would have anything like the effect back then compared to after the reality of a nuclear arms race had been distributed by media to the public consciousness in modern times. I think in the forties if you described radiation poisoning they'd just hear chemical warfare. It was a terror, but a known one. The Allied artillery would respond with chemical warfare.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 26, 2011)

There was plenty of A-bombs the B-36 could carry, but even it had to be modified to carry the H-bombs of the time, one, I can't remember the Mk#, was in the 40,000 lbs range, and 25 ft long.

The B-36 was SAC's premier bomber in the early and mid 50's until enough B-52's were operational to take over in the late 50's, they stopped producing it in 1954, retired it in 59


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 26, 2011)

In today's news:

Last B53 nuclear bomb to be dismantled today | State | News from Fort Worth, Dallas, Arl...

MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 26, 2011)

Ms Tinsley was evidently too busy to research her subject. The US deployed several nuclear weapons with a great deal more yield than the B-53's ( the article's bomb) 9 megatons.

The Mk 17 41 were both 25 megaton yield weapons, the Mk 24 was 10-15 megatons, etc.

Just to give a example of how nuclear weapons were made more compact as time went on, the Mk 17 and Mk 41, both 25 megaton weapons, the Mk 17 was 42,000 lbs. and 25 ft, the Mk 41 was 10,000 lbs. and 12 ft long.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 26, 2011)




----------

