German Aircraft that could deliver The Bomb

[pinehilljoe]

There have been threads on the Lancaster's ability to drop the Bomb. The Black Lancaster's were trained as a back up for the Bomb delivery. If Germany had developed a Bomb, what aircraft could have delivered a 5000 kg device?

 

[SaparotRob]

A captured B-29.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There have been threads on the Lancaster's ability to drop the Bomb. The Black Lancaster's were trained as a back up for the Bomb delivery. If Germany had developed a Bomb, what aircraft could have delivered a 5000 kg device?

Of course the black Lancasters were a fictional story;

How big will this "fictional bomb" be?

 

[GrauGeist]

If your bomb weighed 1000kg, then I would suggest the A10 rocket.
Otherwise, they had several strategic bomber projects like the Ta400, Ju390 and only one actual candidate, the Me264.

The reality is, the Germans were poorly equipped to effectively deploy an atomic weapon.

 

[pinehilljoe]

If your bomb weighed 1000kg, then I would suggest the A10 rocket.
Otherwise, they had several strategic bomber projects like the Ta400, Ju390 and only one actual candidate, the Me264.

The reality is, the Germans were poorly equipped to effectively deploy an atomic weapon.

a 1000kg gadget would not be ready until the late 50's. Assume Little Boy class, 5000kg. Perhaps a U-boat delivery off shore was the only option

 

[Vincenzo]

A adapted He 177 would work

 

[Shortround6]

Might depend on the design of the bomb and whether or not a crewman needed to access the bomb in flight.

 

[BlackSheep]

I am going to have to dig out my articles but I remember reading about a sighting of a German bomber off the coast of New England, I believe. The story talked about the bomber going down, witnesses being asked to keep quiet, and years later divers recovering a German airplane engine. The most interesting, and pertinent to this thread, tidbit talked about the Nazis' choice of bomb design. Apparently, there were two ways to go about building an atomic weapon, the way we did which weighed several thousand tons and an alternate way which came in at under a hundred pounds. That being the case, the bomber would only need to be capable of long flights.

Anyone who may have seen the article, I seem to remember it discussed a Soviet regiment that was decimated by a Nazi wonder weapon, which left the battlefield charred and the Soviets blaming it on a chemical attack. The same article also stated that Churchill threatened to use anthrax on German livestock, if they continued to pursue that course of warfare.

Sorry, so off topic, but the thought of a lightweight atomic weapon in the hands of an air force lacking the types and numbers of 4-engine bombers as the allies really intrigued me.

 

[pbehn]

I am going to have to dig out my articles but I remember reading about a sighting of a German bomber off the coast of New England, I believe. The story talked about the bomber going down, witnesses being asked to keep quiet, and years later divers recovering a German airplane engine. The most interesting, and pertinent to this thread, tidbit talked about the Nazis' choice of bomb design. Apparently, there were two ways to go about building an atomic weapon, the way we did which weighed several thousand tons and an alternate way which came in at under a hundred pounds. That being the case, the bomber would only need to be capable of long flights.

Anyone who may have seen the article, I seem to remember it discussed a Soviet regiment that was decimated by a Nazi wonder weapon, which left the battlefield charred and the Soviets blaming it on a chemical attack. The same article also stated that Churchill threatened to use anthrax on German livestock, if they continued to pursue that course of warfare.

Sorry, so off topic, but the thought of a lightweight atomic weapon in the hands of an air force lacking the types and numbers of 4-engine bombers as the allies really intrigued me.

This is an international form, there is no "we". There were two different bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki from wiki Two types of bombs were eventually developed, both named by Robert Serber. Little Boy was a gun-type fission weapon that used uranium-235, a rare isotope of uranium separated at the Clinton Engineer Works at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.[60] The other, known as a Fat Man device, was a more powerful and efficient, but more complicated, implosion-type nuclear weapon that used plutonium created in nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington.[61]

Are you seriously suggesting that the USA developed the B-29 when they could have used a bomb that WW1 biplanes could drop?

 

[BlackSheep]

This is an international form, there is no "we". There were two different bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki from wiki Two types of bombs were eventually developed, both named by Robert Serber. Little Boy was a gun-type fission weapon that used uranium-235, a rare isotope of uranium separated at the Clinton Engineer Works at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.[60] The other, known as a Fat Man device, was a more powerful and efficient, but more complicated, implosion-type nuclear weapon that used plutonium created in nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington.[61]

Are you seriously suggesting that the USA developed the B-29 when they could have used a bomb that WW1 biplanes could drop?

I am not suggesting anything but merely tried to convey what I thought might be interesting to some. Once again, I will post a link to the material once I find it but I do remember there were two theories in the manufacture of atomic weapons, a large bomb and a small bomb. The United States and the researchers it employed chose, for reasons known to them, the former.

If I offended anyone, in my use of "we", I apologize. I rarely post to forums without attempting to understand the politics involved, I dropped the ball this time.

 

[pbehn]

I am not suggesting anything but merely tried to convey what I thought might be interesting to some. Once again, I will post a link to the material once I find it but I do remember there were two theories in the manufacture of atomic weapons, a large bomb and a small bomb. The United States and the researchers it employed chose, for reasons known to them, the former.

If I offended anyone, in my use of "we", I apologize. I rarely post to forums without attempting to understand the politics involved, I dropped the ball this time.

There were and are small tactical nuclear weapons but there weren't in 1943-45. If the USA could have done it, they would have produced a smaller bomb, if they could have produced a nuclear bomb weighing under 50Kg with the same destructive capacity. Do you realise what that is? A nuclear device that can be dropped by a Fairey Battle?

 

[Shortround6]

A nuclear device that can be dropped by a Fairey Battle?

Or four by a Hawker Hart

two for a P-26 Peashooter?

 

[pbehn]

Or four by a Hawker Hart

two for a P-26 Peashooter?

If only they had a few Balkankreuz transfers and proper tech eh? Maybe that could be a group build in the modelling section "Unlikely nuclear bombers 1914 - 45"

 

[BlackSheep]

There were and are small tactical nuclear weapons but there weren't in 1943-45. If the USA could have done it, they would have produced a smaller bomb, if they could have produced a nuclear bomb weighing under 50Kg with the same destructive capacity. Do you realise what that is? A nuclear device that can be dropped by a Fairey Battle?

I fully realize the implications of a 50kg weapon, which is why I found it interesting enough to mention it when the size of an airplane needed to carry an atomic bomb was mentioned. Conventional thinking would lead one in the direction of a heavy bomber. I thought some would find it interesting if, due to reduced weapon size, the main attributes for a Nazi atomic bomber would be range, speed, and perhaps stealth, since Hitler liked the idea of bombing NYC.
I should have waited to post until I had my links handy, but none the less, there have been made claims that the Nazis successfully detonated nuclear devices before the end of WW2 and it has been said that these weapons were of a type that weighed under 100lbs.

While not the article I was originally referring to, these links provide some information:

Naziabomb

BTW: The article states the weapons weight was 5-10kgs.

 

[Tkdog]

BlackSheep-

The Nazis were nowhere in the ballpark of having a nuclear weapon. There was no "secret atomic weapon" used against the Soviets. A good book that investigates the rather slight attempt made by Germany to develop atomic weapons is Heisenberg's War by Powers.

In addition to an assessment of the Nazi efforts it discussed the Allied intelligence work done to ensure that any attempts would be destroyed. A realistic attempt to develop the infrastructure to make a bomb would have received constant and priority bombardment day and night. The efforts went to far as to put Moe Berg a former major league catcher of all things in the audience of one of Heisenberg's lectures in Switzerland during the war. Berg had a gun in his pocket and if Heisenberg said anything that indicated he knew how to work on a bomb he was going to shoot him.

It is an interesting read and really highlights how futile the Nazi war aims were.

 

[pbehn]

I fully realize the implications of a 50kg weapon, which is why I found it interesting enough to mention it when the size of an airplane needed to carry an atomic bomb was mentioned. Conventional thinking would lead one in the direction of a heavy bomber. I thought some would find it interesting if, due to reduced weapon size, the main attributes for a Nazi atomic bomber would be range, speed, and perhaps stealth, since Hitler liked the idea of bombing NYC.
I should have waited to post until I had my links handy, but none the less, there have been made claims that the Nazis successfully detonated nuclear devices before the end of WW2 and it has been said that these weapons were of a type that weighed under 100lbs.

While not the article I was originally referring to, these links provide some information:

Naziabomb

BTW: The article states the weapons weight was 5-10kgs.

Of the many things I have done in my life one was industrial radiography. A "projector" which stores an Iridium isotope (or any other isotope} weighs more than 5-10 kilos, it is complete fantasy by people who know nothing and do nothing but make stuff up. Where do you get this stuff from? Its just daft?

 

[BlackSheep]

BlackSheep-

The Nazis were nowhere in the ballpark of having a nuclear weapon. There was no "secret atomic weapon" used against the Soviets. A good book that investigates the rather slight attempt made by Germany to develop atomic weapons is Heisenberg's War by Powers.

To each his own, I merely posted what I see as an interesting "what if" subject, that imho has too many loose ends to brush away so casually. There will always be subjects like this, beyond the realm of verification and subject to criticism and opinion of believers and naysayers alike.
I had hoped that this would lead to interesting discourse, seeing as that is unlikely to occur, I end my written participation in the thread with the suggestion that there is plenty of material available for any interested party to research and enjoy on their own.

 

[Tkdog]

It's beyond daft. It's revisionist history that attempts to glorify the Nazi effort. It's gross and has no place, well, anywhere.

edit: reworded as the first version was censored by the software.

 

[Tkdog]

It is completely within the realm of verification. This whole "it's my opinion so it is also true" nonsense is asinine. Historical analysis is subject to academic assessment and peer review. Someone posting speculation (or pro-Nazi propaganda) does not constitute a rebuttal to researched and published work.

 

[pbehn]

To each his own, I merely posted what I see as an interesting "what if" subject, that imho has too many loose ends to brush away so casually. There will always be subjects like this, beyond the realm of verification and subject to criticism and opinion of believers and naysayers alike.
I had hoped that this would lead to interesting discourse, seeing as that is unlikely to occur, I end my written participation in the thread with the suggestion that there is plenty of material available for any interested party to research and enjoy on their own.

What sort of discourse? The master race could have made 50Kg nukes if the daft allies hadn't beaten them with a 10 ton version? Where was the discourse on your part "I think I read or I thought I heard or there was a story about"?