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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
"... 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
 
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!
 

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What effect would a cross channel tunnel have on WW2?
Replies
17
Views
869
Airframes
A
Interwar examples where a heavy presence might have made a difference?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Imagine if the Germans had Panthers of this quality of components and construction
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Spits2
S
A
1938/1939, USA, England, France - Would Have? Could Have? Should Have?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
5K
Thumpalumpacus
Recreated bouncing bomb.
Replies
6
Views
822
Crimea_River
Menu
Log in
Register