Best strategy for a nuclear campaign against Germany

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Jenisch, May 2, 2013.

  1. Jenisch

    Jenisch Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #1 Jenisch, May 2, 2013
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
    Which would be the best way to inflict more destruction in Germany by a hypotetical nuclear bombardment? I was thinking that in order to maximize civilian casualities, two or more bombs should be dropped at the same target with an interval of time. For example, Berlin had almost 3 million inhabitants by mid-1945. The city would be nuked one time, then after some hours it would be nuked again, and perhaps again. By doing that, it would be possible to seriously affect the majority of the population? (short term radiation effects included).

    Notes to the thread:

    1) Let's keep the discussion within the effects of the bombs in the German cities. Let's not discuss trivialities such as what the LW could to intercept the B-29s, how the Germans could retaliate, etc.

    2) It would be assumed that there would be 30 bombs equal to the Fat Man dropped in Nagasaki, and all would have to be used to create the largest destruction as possible.

    3) At the start of the nuclear bombings, Germany is assumed to be at the same level of destruction by conventional bombing as it was by May 1945.
     
  2. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    The best strategy would be not to use it.
     
  3. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    I would say drop several films of teh nuclear tests and address them to the German hierarchy (except, maybe, Hitler).
     
  4. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    #4 tyrodtom, May 2, 2013
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
    Assuming they'd have 30 bombs availible is quite a stretch, in the real world they didn't have that many assembeled till around 1947.
    And I see no benefit in using 3 on one target, or 2, that's just overkill, wasteful of resources.

    I don't think anyone would believe anything just documented with film, too easy to pass off as fake. Sadly the only way to demonstrate a weapon with such a quantum leap in power was to use it as designed, otherwise no one would believe it existed.

    By May of 45, there was nothing much left to use it on.
     
  5. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,528
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Germany would almost certainly retaliate with nerve agents. They had them, tons of them, and we did not.

    If that's an escalation that you think is worth risking you are a braver man than me.

    Cheers

    Steve
     
  6. VBF-13

    VBF-13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,029
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah, I'd think so. Berlin I'd think was the highest civilian population center. Of course the War was over by then. But you want to kill civilian population Berlin I'd think is the biggest bang for your nuclear bombs.
     
  7. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    Berlin fell to the Russians on May 2nd.
    I don't think it would be too good a idea to set a bomb off with them in the city.
    May 45 is just too late for nukes to do anything useful in WW2 Europe.
     
  8. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree.

    V-1 carried 850kg HE warhead. If Germany gets nuked then V-1s will carry 850kg of Tabun.

    British government would be smart to oppose use of nuclear weapons in Europe. They are the ones who will suffer German retaliation, not USA.
     
  9. gumbyk

    gumbyk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,627
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Aviation QMS/SMS consultant
    Location:
    Blenheim
    What would the justification be for using nukes in Berlin in 1945?

    Not a shortening of the war to 'save lives'
    Not targeting military targets.
     
  10. VBF-13

    VBF-13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,029
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah, that's kind of what I was hinting at. Didn't seem I got the hint across, though.
     
  11. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Hadn't V-1 launches been shut down by then? Or at least pushed back, out of range of the UK?
     
  12. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    Indeed wuzak.

    But I think the V2 is the weapon for retaliation and much more dangerous, because anything could intercept a V2/A4 and it carried a 1000kg warhead.
     
  13. VBF-13

    VBF-13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,029
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    May I ask why we're even talking about needlessly killing civilians? If I'm out of line asking that, please understand, I sincerely don't get this.
     
  14. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    #14 DonL, May 2, 2013
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
    That's a good question.
    But you must ask the thread starter.

    This issue (atomic bombs drop to germany) come up pretty regular, also on this forum.

    We have discussed this issue more then one time and my very strict personal opinion is, that at 1945 the Allied had not droped a Nuke to Germany, because it was to risky, Germany wasn't defenseless through their tabun warheads in conjunction with the A4 and targets like GB and France in range.

    Also to me it is pretty hard to understand why a very escalated war should be more escalated, but both sides did terror attacks on the civilian people of the other sides. Dresden for example wasn't necessary, it was pure terror for the civilians at the end of the war.

    So nobody knows if the drop of a atomic bomb to a german city had lead to immediately surrender or a escalation and retaliation with A4's with tabun heads.
    Many depends how closed is the german commanding structure at the time of the drop and how far Hitler and the commanding regime will go.

    But I think the allied intelligence was highly aware of the possibiltys of the german retaliation with A4's with tabun heads, so nobody want to risk such a escalation.
     
  15. bob44

    bob44 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Why would you want to target German civilians?
    How about targeting military and industrial targets?
     
  16. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    Was any British population centers within the A4's range from German controlled territory as it was in May 45 ?
    This is operational A4's, not almost developed A4s.
    The same question for V1s ?
     
  17. VBF-13

    VBF-13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,029
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thanks, Don. I guess the timing of these drops is what throws me. I mean we did have an unconditional surrender around then.
     
  18. altsym

    altsym Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Its not like Germany is an Island in the middle of the sea of Japan, the US isn't stupid enough to use a Nuclear weapon on mainland Europa,
    especially with the Russians to the east, prevailing winds, etc., not by a long shot.

    IF Germany truly had deadly chemical agents capable to be used with V1/2's, its truly impressive they withheld there use, especially near the end.

    I know this is a hypothetical thread, but I just cannot envision the use of Nukes in Europa.. real or not.
     
  19. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    #19 DonL, May 2, 2013
    Last edited: May 2, 2013

    Can you please give me a reason, why anybody should drop a atomic bomb to germany with the original occupation at May 1945?
    Where do you want to drop it, without any danger to Allied troops (inclusive russian troops)?

    The A4 had a range of 300km and 3000 were fired at 1944/45 (1400 to London).

    Edit:

    The bases for firering London were Den Haag
     
  20. gumbyk

    gumbyk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,627
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Aviation QMS/SMS consultant
    Location:
    Blenheim
    The US tested nukes at White Sands, so why would they have any problem dropping one on mainland Europe?
     
Loading...

Share This Page