Best front for Germany to use nukes

[Gardner90x]

Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create and transport nuclear weapons but could only produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

What consequences would there be if this happened? By the way I'm only wondering about it from a strategic point of view,

[T. A. Gardner]

That depends on what actual means of delivery they had. If the bomb weighed say 4,000 lbs. / 2,000 Kg (the weight of the US ones without their thick armored jacket to make them flak and bullet proof) then you're talking a large conventional bomber. About the only one they have that can escape the blast (maybe) would be the He 177, maybe a Do 217. The Ju 290 / 390 is too slow.

That means by mid 1944, targeting any large city in Western Europe that's well behind Allied lines is near suicidal. The bomber would almost certainly be detected and intercepted by Allied aircraft, day or night.

That leaves targets in the Med or Russia. I suppose it would be possible to mount a raid to hit Leningrad or even Moscow at that time. The flight could be made such that the drop is done shortly after local sunrise. That way the bomber is flying at night and would not be facing much in the way of any air defenses.

I doubt other than the propaganda value, it would have near zero effect on the outcome of the war.

[Sheldrake]

London was the only target that might have the strategic impact. Terror attacks on London was the strategy adopted by Hitler in 1944. The rationale for the development of V1 V2 and V3 weapons was to inflict so much damage to British morale that we would sue for peace. Its a strategy of weakness, which has occurred to other enemies since then...

Has the idea occurred to Hitler the Germans would have attached a nuclear weapon attached to a V2 SSBM or a high flying jet bomber that could not be intercepted. It is a mercy that Hitler's prejudices precluded the Germans from fitting Sarin and mustard Gas to V2 SSBM.

[maltesefalcon]

Lets compare the proposed situation vs real life.
In 1945 USA had only three weapons, one of which was consumed in the test phase.
But by Aug 1945 Germany, Italy, Romania and Hungary were defeated and the European situation was stabilized enough to consider transfer of resources to the Pacific as needed.
Japans Navy was all but gone and they had trouble intercepting Allied bombers. As a result, many of their cities had been badly damaged by conventional bombing already
Their merchant fleet was decimated as well. So they still had plenty of troops and there was still the will to fight on they were rapidly running out of the means to do so.
The atomic bombs were more a coup de grace than a war winner on their own.

By mid 1944 Germany was on the ropes, surrounded by enemies. They endured massive losses on land, sea and air by the fall of that year. With only two weapons, they could perhaps nuke both London and Moscow? With no more weapons they could not retaliate further against a newly enraged Allied force. Then what? The loss of life and damage to both cities would not induce the Allies to give up. Far from it. They would renew their efforts to win no matter what the cost.

[Stiltzkin]

None, because the unit dispersion during WW2 was too great for Nukes to have effect on the battlefield, Nukes would have to be dropped over major cities. Mini- Nukes were not available.
It would force the Allies to retaliate and advance even quicker (thus increasing their casualties beyond historical levels) to produce more of them and throw them over Germany (more civillian deaths), making the war even dirtier than it historically was.

He 177, maybe a Do 217. The Ju 290 / 390

How about a Fw 200 .

[Old_Fossil]

Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create and transport nuclear weapons but could only produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

What consequences would there be if this happened? By the way I'm only wondering about it from a strategic point of view,

If makes a big difference if we are talking about January 1944 or December 1944. Any time after D-Day the strategic situation doesn't change. Germany is on its last legs and everyone but Hitler knows the German army is beaten. Nuking London will only increase the Western Allies desire to end the war quickly by invading Germany proper. Stalin might think its a hoot to have Britain glow in the dark and be tempted to slow his advance but his desire to capture Germany's nuclear resources for his own use will drive him forward.

Hitler being Hitler he will want to smash London first, then hold the second bomb until he sees the Allies reaction. That reaction will probably be Bomber Command using poison gas against Berlin. Enraged, Hitler will order the second bomb used against the US if he can find a plane with the one-way range to reach New York. Lacking that he'll hit England again. Out of bombs, Hitler still loses the war.

Using the bombs against British invasion ports (before D-Day) such as Plymouth or against the British Mulberry at Normandy would be the best tactical choices. But Hitler is Hitler. He wants vengeance and historically he thought Normandy was a faint anyway.

[Sheldrake]

Nuking London will only increase the Western Allies desire to end the war quickly by invading Germany proper. Stalin might think its a hoot to have Britain glow in the dark and be tempted to slow his advance but his desire to capture Germany's nuclear resources for his own use will drive him forward.

Hitler being Hitler he will want to smash London first, then hold the second bomb until he sees the Allies reaction. That reaction will probably be Bomber Command using poison gas against Berlin. Enraged, Hitler will order the second bomb used against the US if he can find a plane with the one-way range to reach New York. Lacking that he'll hit England again. Out of bombs, Hitler still loses the war.

Using the bombs against British invasion ports (before D-Day) such as Plymouth or against the British Mulberry at Normandy would be the best tactical choices. But Hitler is Hitler. He wants vengeance and historically he thought Normandy was a faint anyway.

I am touched by your faith in British grit and determination, but absenteeism was running at 20% during the V1 campaign. No one knows how British morale and determination would cope under nuclear bombardment. It had been a long war and it was starting to look as if it was possible to survive it. What if the nuke takes out Churchill and the belligerent part of the war cabinet? For the Germans, the chance of knocking Britain out of the war was worth trying.

[maltesefalcon]

Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create and transport nuclear weapons but could only produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

What consequences would there be if this happened? By the way I'm only wondering about it from a strategic point of view,

If makes a big difference if we are talking about January 1944 or December 1944. Any time after D-Day the strategic situation doesn't change. Germany is on its last legs and everyone but Hitler knows the German army is beaten. Nuking London will only increase the Western Allies desire to end the war quickly by invading Germany proper. Stalin might think its a hoot to have Britain glow in the dark and be tempted to slow his advance but his desire to capture Germany's nuclear resources for his own use will drive him forward.

Hitler being Hitler he will want to smash London first, then hold the second bomb until he sees the Allies reaction. That reaction will probably be Bomber Command using poison gas against Berlin. Enraged, Hitler will order the second bomb used against the US if he can find a plane with the one-way range to reach New York. Lacking that he'll hit England again. Out of bombs, Hitler still loses the war.

Using the bombs against British invasion ports (before D-Day) such as Plymouth or against the British Mulberry at Normandy would be the best tactical choices. But Hitler is Hitler. He wants vengeance and historically he thought Normandy was a faint anyway.

I think by the phrasing of the original question "Best Front..." one must assume the OP means east/west or both. Since the Western front did not exist until june 1944 we are safe in our assumption the timeline is after 6/6/44.

[thaddeus_c]

Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create and transport nuclear weapons but could only produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

If makes a big difference if we are talking about January 1944 or December 1944. Any time after D-Day the strategic situation doesn't change.

Using the bombs against British invasion ports (before D-Day) such as Plymouth or against the British Mulberry at Normandy would be the best tactical choices.

their best scenario is that nuclear weapons eclipse V-2 program and they rush V-1 into production six months earlier. they could launch the planned bombing of London in Jan. '44 (which also eclipses futile "Baby Blitz")

they could use one device and conventional bombing and "Mistels" against the Soviet hydroelectric dams, which was schemed until end of war.

somewhat out of left field? they had successful raid on Bari? they could use the other nuclear device on Anzio landings and stymie the whole Italian campaign, there might be question on ANY further landings?

[Old_Fossil]

somewhat out of left field? they had successful raid on Bari? they could use the other nuclear device on Anzio landings and stymie the whole Italian campaign, there might be question on ANY further landings?

The OP has not clarified the time when these hypothetical A-Bombs become available. MalteseFalcon believes we should consider only post-D-Day. In that case Anzio is out as a target.

I also believe Anzio would have made a good demonstration target for the Germans. It has both tactical value and as you pointed out it would have strategic value by greatly disturbing the Allies about the prospects for Normandy.

Still, Hitler is Hitler. He will prefer his "demonstration" be over London.

[maltesefalcon]

Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create and transport nuclear weapons but could only produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

If makes a big difference if we are talking about January 1944 or December 1944. Any time after D-Day the strategic situation doesn't change.

Using the bombs against British invasion ports (before D-Day) such as Plymouth or against the British Mulberry at Normandy would be the best tactical choices.

their best scenario is that nuclear weapons eclipse V-2 program and they rush V-1 into production six months earlier. they could launch the planned bombing of London in Jan. '44 (which also eclipses futile "Baby Blitz")

they could use one device and conventional bombing and "Mistels" against the Soviet hydroelectric dams, which was schemed until end of war.

somewhat out of left field? they had successful raid on Bari? they could use the other nuclear device on Anzio landings and stymie the whole Italian campaign, there might be question on ANY further landings?

Not sure if I am interpreting this correctly. Are you suggesting a nuclear armed V1? Even a stripped warhead would be far above a V1's payload limit. Also bear in mind a fair number were shot down short of the target.

[thaddeus_c]

Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create and transport nuclear weapons but could only produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

If makes a big difference if we are talking about January 1944 or December 1944. Any time after D-Day the strategic situation doesn't change.

Using the bombs against British invasion ports (before D-Day) such as Plymouth or against the British Mulberry at Normandy would be the best tactical choices.

their best scenario is that nuclear weapons eclipse V-2 program and they rush V-1 into production six months earlier. they could launch the planned bombing of London in Jan. '44 (which also eclipses futile "Baby Blitz")

Not sure if I am interpreting this correctly. Are you suggesting a nuclear armed V1? Even a stripped warhead would be far above a V1's payload limit. Also bear in mind a fair number were shot down short of the target.

no, not carried by V-1 ... sorry that was probably unclear. was over into realm of speculation ... an earlier V-1 program better to strike at London with rather than attempt to deliver nuclear device there.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Lets compare the proposed situation vs real life.
In 1945 USA had only three weapons, one of which was consumed in the test phase.
....

Minor nitpick. According to Rhoades 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' a third Plutonium core was enroute to Tinian island in August. Material for four more cores was either near ready in the shaping process or would have left the Haniford site and been prepared as cores during Sept - Nov. Some sources claim more cores would be ready in 1945, but I suspect those are using the early production goals when the Haniford facility was still under construction. Have to check, but I recall twelve of the outer implosion devices had been shipped to Tinian in August to provide Parsons team with considerable redundancy for those complex mechanisms.

[Carl Schwamberger]

That depends on what actual means of delivery they had. If the bomb weighed say 4,000 lbs. / 2,000 Kg (the weight of the US ones without their thick armored jacket to make them flak and bullet proof) then you're talking a large conventional bomber. About the only one they have that can escape the blast (maybe) would be the He 177, maybe a Do 217. The Ju 290 / 390 is too slow.

...

You can get around the speed/escape problem by using a remote controlled or auto piloted aircraft. The chase plane dropping back a safe distance when final approach comes. This turns the aircraft into a cruise missile. As with the US Aphroditie project a flight crew can leave the plane once it is set on the flight path to the target. Auto pilots can serve with remote control only for tweaking the flight path and altitude.

[T. A. Gardner]

You can get around the speed/escape problem by using a remote controlled or auto piloted aircraft. The chase plane dropping back a safe distance when final approach comes. This turns the aircraft into a cruise missile. As with the US Aphroditie project a flight crew can leave the plane once it is set on the flight path to the target. Auto pilots can serve with remote control only for tweaking the flight path and altitude.

The closest the Germans come to this is the Mistel system. While it could deliver a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't want to be the pilot trying to fly it in Western Allied (US / British) airspace in mid to late 1944.

Some were tried against the Normandy invasion fleet with limited success. Swapping out for a nuke might get a handful of ships, but as Test Baker shows sinking them is another question entirely. In any case, it wouldn't have stopped the invasion in the least.

Actual operations also showed that Mistel combinations were frequently intercepted at night by Allied nightfighters, the first such was on the first attempt to use one in combat on 24/6/44 when the combo was intercepted by a Mosquito NF and forced to separate, ending the mission.
Against a target like a city the pilot would need exceptional navigation skills just to arrive on target at night.

Also, the lower altitude that the combination flew at would give a very marginal time for the single seat fighter to escape the blast, not to mention possibly not having the fuel to return safely to friendly airspace.

Simply sending a plane like an Aphrodite on auto-pilot isn't going to ensure delivery. First, it is still prone to interception. In fact, like a slow V-1 it is highly prone to interception and being shot down. Second, the auto-pilot may not be sufficiently accurate to fly the plane to its target in a wide range of conditions, like cross winds, or if the instrumentation on the plane is even slightly inaccurate.