Did the atomic bomb doom Germany?

[john2]

With all the endless scenarios discussed on here how Germany might have won the war I notice that the atomic bomb rarely comes up. Even in Germany's "best case" scenario that Britain was overrun she would surely continue the war from Canada and once the US gets the atomic bomb she would surely let the British use it and then that would be it for Germany. So even if Germany won all the battles wasn't she still going to lose because of the bomb?

[phylo_roadking]

Some caveats on the above...

With all the endless scenarios discussed on here how Germany might have won the war I notice that the atomic bomb rarely comes up. Even in Germany's "best case" scenario that Britain was overrun she would surely continue the war from Canada

She might - wasn't there a plan for FDR to "encourage" the Canadians to hand over the Royal Navy to the U.S. once it was based in Canadian ports?

If there was to be a "Britain fights on" scenario, they'd probably be better decamping to India, or Australia/New Zealand than Canada!

and once the US gets the atomic bomb she would surely let the British use it and then that would be it for Germany.

Why on earth would they do that??? Even historically, despite ALL the promises on post-war sharing of technology, the Americans refused to give Britain the Bomb OR the technology after the war; we had to start from scratch and replicate MANHATTAN. Unfortunately it took a while as the British and Empire scientists who returned from Los Alamos etc. didn't have an end-to-end view of the project, there were major holes in their knowledge and working experience that they had to explore for themselves from scratch.

So even if Germany won all the battles wasn't she still going to lose because of the bomb?

Even if the Americans decide to use it - how do they deploy it successfully before the advent of the B-36?

Then there are other issues...such as - if the Pacific War happens and ends as per OTL...once the Germans become aware that it CAN actually be done - they'll do it too. For example, incarcerated in Farm Hall in England in 1945, once Heisenberg heard it had happened, he had all the technical details that had eluded him for years worked out in 4-6 hours!

[john2]

Why on earth would they do that??? Even historically, despite ALL the promises on post-war sharing of technology, the Americans refused to give Britain the Bomb OR the technology after the war; we had to start from scratch and replicate MANHATTAN. Unfortunately it took a while as the British and Empire scientists who returned from Los Alamos etc. didn't have an end-to-end view of the project, there were major holes in their knowledge and working experience that they had to explore for themselves from scratch.

But by then the US was in a position to use the bomb on their own. Without this becoming a "what if" scenario if the US is not in the war but Britain is still fighting on would the US allow a German dominated europe simply to keep the bomb a secret?

Then there are other issues...such as - if the Pacific War happens and ends as per OTL...once the Germans become aware that it CAN actually be done - they'll do it too.

Well we are straying into what if territory here but historically the bomb was meant for Germany. So they would simply drop it on Germany before Japan - or perhaps they could both at the same time.

[phylo_roadking]

But by then the US was in a position to use the bomb on their own. Without this becoming a "what if" scenario if the US is not in the war but Britain is still fighting on would the US allow a German dominated europe simply to keep the bomb a secret?

They were only in a position to use it on somewhere they could reach

No, the U.S. government wouldn't use it to defend Britain, they'd keep it is a deterrent against aggression against the U.S.

Well we are straying into what if territory here but historically the bomb was meant for Germany.

Technically, as per Einstein's lettter...the Americans began to develop it to get it first - rather than have it aimed as a project against one specific antagonist. THAT however changed on December 11th 1941...

So they would simply drop it on Germany before Japan - or perhaps they could both at the same time

Doubtful. Speed of production was after all very slow; Oak Ridge didn't produce enriched uranium as fast as anticipated...and the reactors at Hanford were late in contruction and coming on line.

[JeroenPollentier]

This is a thought that has been running through my head too a while ago. Once the US decided to produce the bomb, whereas Nazi Germany did not want to, the war was over for Germany. In any case it was going to be nuked and forced to surrender.

[phylo_roadking]

Once the US decided to produce the bomb, whereas Nazi Germany did not want to,

See Otto Hahn's work; he was still working towards that eventual end despite the Heisenberg project supposedly running into a brick wall.

...the war was over for Germany. In any case it was going to be nuked and forced to surrender.

Hardly. It has to be at war with the U.S. first...

And if the U.S. hasn't entered the ETO, it's going to be hard to deploy an atomic bomb against Germany without an intercontinental bomber as I mentioned previously...

[OpanaPointer]

And if the U.S. hasn't entered the ETO, it's going to be hard to deploy an atomic bomb against Germany without an intercontinental bomber as I mentioned previously...

Like the B-46?

[phylo_roadking]

I was thinking more of the B-36...

[wm]

This is a thought that has been running through my head too a while ago. Once the US decided to produce the bomb, whereas Nazi Germany did not want to, the war was over for Germany. In any case it was going to be nuked and forced to surrender.

Germany was a large country, the occupied territories even larger. It would be hard to destroy it with one bomb, or even with a hundred.
A D-day was required for that.

[OpanaPointer]

I was thinking more of the B-36...

DOH! Yep, the -36.


Very big pix so I'm posting a link.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Just to encourage topic drift; Anyone have some relible sources for Plutonium production for 1945-46? I understand the reactors at Haniford were shut down for improvements shortly after Japan surrendered, but by that time there was enough data from their operating time to extrapolate the difference between planned production and probable.

Rhodes in 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' identifies Plutonium on hand for two more bombs at the end of August 1945, with components for one either at Tinian or enroute. production for the remainder of 1945 Rhodes places suffcient for two more, and for 1946 he estimates 18 bombs. That seems to be scaled down from claimed goals of a maximum of 40 bombs worth of Plutonium for 1945-46 when the Haniford reactors were originally designed.

Anyone have any decent sources for this?

[phylo_roadking]

Just to encourage topic drift; Anyone have some relible sources for Plutonium production for 1945-46? I understand the reactors at Haniford were shut down for improvements shortly after Japan surrendered, but by that time there was enough data from their operating time to extrapolate the difference between planned production and probable.

Rhodes in 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' identifies Plutonium on hand for two more bombs at the end of August 1945, with components for one either at Tinian or enroute. production for the remainder of 1945 Rhodes places suffcient for two more, and for 1946 he estimates 18 bombs. That seems to be scaled down from claimed goals of a maximum of 40 bombs worth of Plutonium for 1945-46 when the Haniford reactors were originally designed.

Anyone have any decent sources for this?

Carl, SOMEWHERE on the Net there's a graph showing production rates, but it's years since I saw it. It may have been linked to in one of the many similar WIs on the forum!

At the time I read an article dealing with the production rates at Hanford; as of August 1945 only the two "pilot" I.E. small reactors, A and B, were online and working over their designed rate IIRC. The first fullscale "production" reactor, C, was still being tested and was only producing small amounts of plutonium, far under what was expected by then...and the other production reactor, D, was late in construction In the end Hanford was only to reach full, planned production rates by 1948-9!

"Shutting down the reactors at Hanford shortly after japan surrendered" would certainly support the idea of the said "reactors" - the pilot ones - having been run beyond their design limits for some time up until then

[Carl Schwamberger]

Just to encourage topic drift; Anyone have some relible sources for Plutonium production for 1945-46? I understand the reactors at Haniford were shut down for improvements shortly after Japan surrendered, but by that time there was enough data from their operating time to extrapolate the difference between planned production and probable.

Rhodes in 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' identifies Plutonium on hand for two more bombs at the end of August 1945, with components for one either at Tinian or enroute. production for the remainder of 1945 Rhodes places suffcient for two more, and for 1946 he estimates 18 bombs. That seems to be scaled down from claimed goals of a maximum of 40 bombs worth of Plutonium for 1945-46 when the Haniford reactors were originally designed.

Anyone have any decent sources for this?

In the end Hanford was only to reach full, planned production rates by 1948-9!

"Shutting down the reactors at Hanford shortly after japan surrendered" would certainly support the idea of the said "reactors" - the pilot ones - having been run beyond their design limits for some time up until then

All three reactors were shut off in 1945. They were run intermitantly over the next few years in tests, but regular production of Plutonium was not restarted until 1948. It might have not started then, but the US started serious war planning concerning the USSR that year. ie: Op Dropshot & all that.

Anyone have any sources to recommend for this subject?

[ChristopherPerrien]

With all the endless scenarios discussed on here how Germany might have won the war I notice that the atomic bomb rarely comes up. Even in Germany's "best case" scenario that Britain was overrun she would surely continue the war from Canada and once the US gets the atomic bomb she would surely let the British use it and then that would be it for Germany. So even if Germany won all the battles wasn't she still going to lose because of the bomb?

The British Empire was never going to be "over-run" by continental Germany. The Germany of the Nazi Era never had any designs to conquer the British Isles and Hitler never said anything to that effect . All of such stuff was simply WWI anti-Kaiser propaganda retreaded and used 30 years later and to this day.

Yes the bomb was developed and built , to target Nazi Germany, and that was done because Nazi Germany was recognized as a"genuine" threat to the forces of "capitalism" and their plan to totally control all nations.(They are still doing so) Only the USA had the resources to develop such a bomb at the time so that is both why the bomb was built here ,and where it was going to go.

As to delivery systems, even without a "global" air-bomber, it would be nothing to emplace a weapon by sea, and devastate any port city of a country. Besides the distance from even Iceland to Berlin is shorter than the distance from Guam to Tokyo, so the B-29 would have sufficed . And that design pre-dated WWII. Obviously it would also be easy to double that range by making it a "one-way" mission and the aircrew bailing out at the nearest available retrieval point.

[LWD]

This site suggest that the US might have been up to producing 6 bombs a month by October of 45 if I'm reading it right:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sci ... lBombs.htm
This site suggest between 4 and 13 additional bombs by 1 Nov but it may not take into account some of the improvements listed in the first site:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_atom ... ve_in_1945