The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

Discussions on the equipment used by the Axis forces, apart from the things covered in the other sections. Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
ohrdruf
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 15 May 2004, 23:02
Location: south america

#46

Post by ohrdruf » 29 Aug 2004, 01:40

Hop

I have reviewed the "Me 262 Priority" material to which we both contributed. You stated that there was no miracle weapon full stop. Your correct answer should have been "As far as I am concerned, there was no miracle weapon but I am, of course, open to ideas." You were also responsible for making a statement that the Nazis would not have considered using nerve gas because a postwar US scientific report highlighted the problems. As you can see, this is far from satisfactory thinking.


The point about the Me 262 as a bomber is that one argument for Hitler's decision is as good as any other and you cannot pass judgment on MY argument, based on the available documentary evidence, until you have actually read it. The fact is, I offered the evidence and you dismissed it: you said bluntly that there was no miracle weapon.


A 1946 report made by Lt Gen Putt, Deputy Chief of US Air Intelligence, stated that the Germans would probably have won the war because of an advance in rocket warfare aimed particularly against England if the Invasion had been delayed by six months. This statement indicates that territory was the significant factor: six months after the Invasion is December 1944, the month of the Battle of the Ardennes in which the objective was not primarily, as you allege, to split the Allied forces, but to capture Antwerp for an unspecified reason.


When I put up this thread, I thought it likely that the advance in rocket warfare would be a warhead which made the V-2 irresistible. I considered whether it might be the miracle explosive (or "Uraniumbombe" referred to in Hitler's table talks recorded by stenographer Heims.). Having seen Flannen's Internet article and investigated Heisenberg's work, I drew the conclusion that the warhead might be the "Uraniumbombe" suggested by Flannen, that it was feasible and seemed to fit the facts. I received confirmation from two physicists that the warheads were viable in the manner suggested and so then I put up the idea for discussion.


Your report about the Hague V-2 station makes it evident that Antwerp was not required for the purpose I suggested. Since London was in V-2 range from The Hague in December 1944, the "Uraniumbombe" is to be understood as something else, and that something else cannot be anything other than the miracle weapon. Everything in the declassified documents points to this miracle weapon as existing in December 1944. It was not ready for deployment as an aircraft-carried bomb for technical reasons which can be explained, but the principal problems could have been overcome by using it as the explosive in a V-2. However, for reasons which are explained in another declassified US Air Intelligence document, the V-2 base would have needed to be sited in proximity to a river within 200 miles of London, and the obvious choice was the Scheldt, and Antwerp. You see, it is clear that the Allies knew about this weapon, and what it was, and how it was to be used, and the last thing they want now is for YOU to know how close they came to defeat. If you read my submission "Ohrdruf", which is based on declassified documents and is just the tip of the iceberg, you may see the point I am trying to make.

Ohrdruf

Huck
Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 19 Jul 2004, 13:52
Location: Detroit

#47

Post by Huck » 01 Sep 2004, 19:06

Hi ohrdruf,

You have uncovered interesting information. However I doubt that any of the parties (German and British) were considering a nuclear attack as a viable method of forcing the opponent out of the war. Both sides were capable of launching chemical attacks far more deadly that any nuclear attack possible during the war or the next 5 postwar years. Germany had 12000 tons of tabun ready for use and towards the end of war was capable of mass producing sarin. Even if each ton of tabun reaching a target city would have made around 500-1000 victims, 500 V-1 fitted with tabun warheads would have made the same number of victims like a nuclear bomb: for 500 V-1s air launched around 100 would have reached the target (with a possible 20 bombers lost in the process). This means that Germany remained capable of launching a totally devastating chemical attack until the end of war, each major urban agglomeration in UK could have been attacked with minimal effort (compared to the efforts necessary in a nuclear attack). Churchill was tempted to launch a chemical offensive against Germany when V-1 attacks started. Too bad that we don't know the person who advised him not to start a chemical war, because he saved Western Europe from annihilation.


User avatar
Oberst_Emann
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 09 Jul 2004, 08:12
Location: Seattle, Washington

#48

Post by Oberst_Emann » 01 Sep 2004, 19:57

Very interesting, I recall seeing pics of long crates marked Für den Gebrauch nur durch die Ordnung des Fuerher (for use only by order of the Fueher). Was gas of any kind used on the Eastern Front?

I remember reading a veteren account (Landser) of the first few days of Barbarossa, and him coming accross an entire division of dead Red Army troops, all apparently the victims of a gas attack. When he asked his commander what happened, he told them they were the victims of a "test". Is there any truth in this?

ohrdruf
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 15 May 2004, 23:02
Location: south america

#49

Post by ohrdruf » 02 Sep 2004, 15:30

Huck/Oberst E.Mann

I agree that the European powers would not have been interested in nuclear warfare against each other. The device suggested in this thread did produce a momentary nuclear blast and fallout, and might have been localized to London. But as of itself it was probably not a war-winner, at least not in early 1945. After the initial V-2 attacks on London in 1944, Churchill was dissuaded by the Joint Planning Staff from retaliating against German cities with chemical and biological weapons because it was likely to open the floodgates for a war which southern England might not survive. (Since this would have included me I also extend my thanks to the JPS. I have always been very doubtful that Churchill was a "good thing".)

There is definite documentary evidence of a German bomb under development in 1944/45 which was not nuclear but used some nuclear materials and was of "terrific destructive effect". Upon his capture Goering claimed that he had instigated a Luftwaffe mutiny to prevent the use of "bombs which could have destroyed all civilisation". There was a Luftwaffe mutiny in the Lahn area of the Western Front in March 1945 for which 300 pilots and base commanders paid with their lives. The reason behind the mutiny is unknown since the Luftwaffe War Diaries for the period in question are being concealed for the next 100 years by the Allied powers. For further interest may I recommend you look through my recent thread "Ohrdruf".

The authoritative work on German chemical weapons (Germany apparently did not develop biological weapons) is Gellermann: "Der Krieg der nicht stattfand". The Allied armies expected to be met by battlefield gases at Normandy and were surprised that the Germans did not use them on any front.

Considering the future the Germans were facing if they lost, the fact that no battlefield gas was used in Europe makes one wonder if there was not some secret protocol in existence, negotiated through the Protecting Power, between all the belligerents to the effect that none would use chemical or biological weapons in Europe. Radioactivity as a weapon is of course not "chemical or biological".

Gellermann states that the only definite intent on the part of the Germans to use nerve gas existed by Hitler-edict in February 1945 when he ordered U-boats to fire nerve gas shells at cities along the US Eastern seaboard as a retaliation for Dresden. He was talked out of this plan by Keitel and Jodl. It is possible that U-530 (Wermuth) was one of the boats involved. Wermuth sailed from Germany on 19 February 1945, three days after Dresden, and left Norway for the US coast on 3 March 1945.

Wermuth is very cagey in the declassified Argentine Navy papers as to what he was doing off North America, and either he is lying, or all his crew is lying, about the deck gun. (Wermuth says U-530 did not have a deck gun, the crew all say it was ditched at sea once the decision was taken to make for Argentina.) These recently declassified papers in Argentine archives indicate that Wermuth undertook the most extraordinary measures to clean U-530 after whatever operation he had been involved in.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#50

Post by Simon Gunson » 02 Feb 2009, 00:35

The prospect of a Nazi Plutonium bomb by 1945 was nil. One would either need a heavy water reactor or a Carbon moderated reactor running continuously for about three years to breed sufficient Plutonium and then two more years to cool the fuel sufficiently to chemically separate the Plutonium from spent fuel. Even had it begun operation in 1944 it would have been 1948 at the earliest had it worked properly. The North Koreans thought they got it right and blew six years hard work when their Plutonium bomb fizzled due to excessive Pu-240 relative to Pu-239.

Dr Fritz Houtermans was an advocate of breeding Plutonium, but given that he worked for the Soviets before and after the war I do have to wonder if he was planted by Stalin just to waste Nazi efforts ?

Yes the Nazis did have enough heavy water during WW2 and no, unfortunately the loss of Norwegian heavy water did not materially affect the outcome of the war. Germany also had the Beck Heavy Water plant near Hamburg and a new underground Heavy water Plant was also developed in 1944. Obviously from these efforts the Nazis were trying to build a heavy water reactor. There was an underground site at Melk, Austria called "Quartz 2" which is alleged to have had some nuclear purpose connected with Dr Kurt Diebner.

More relevant is that Dr Paul Harteck received massive funding for a huge contract in 1944 to manufacture gaseous uranium centrifuges on an industrial scale. There is no doubt in my mind that Nazi Germany was working on an atomic bomb and had the capability given enough time.

I believe that Allied bombing stole development time from the Nazi nuclear project and given a year or two of undisturbed underground centrifuge operation, there would have been a uranium A-bomb.

I am inclined to the belief that the large explosive device detonated at Rugen and later at Ohrdruf did exist, but that it may have been a fuel air explosive referred to in diplomatic exchanges with Japan. This device would have produced the nose bleeds recounted by local inhabitants of the Ohrdruf area. It would also account for lack of residual radioactivity.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#51

Post by phylo_roadking » 02 Feb 2009, 02:57

The authoritative work on German chemical weapons (Germany apparently did not develop biological weapons) is Gellermann: "Der Krieg der nicht stattfand". The Allied armies expected to be met by battlefield gases at Normandy and were surprised that the Germans did not use them on any front.

Considering the future the Germans were facing if they lost, the fact that no battlefield gas was used in Europe makes one wonder if there was not some secret protocol in existence, negotiated through the Protecting Power, between all the belligerents to the effect that none would use chemical or biological weapons in Europe. Radioactivity as a weapon is of course not "chemical or biological".
Not an agreed protocol, no; but Churchill DID make the existence and effects of the Anthrax experiment on Gruinard known to the Germans via Switzerland, and the fact that they had weaponised the disease.

The HUMAN effects of Anthrax are more often commented upon nowadays, especially since 9/11 - but that obscures the effect that it would have had on mainland European agricultural livestock 8O
A 1946 report made by Lt Gen Putt, Deputy Chief of US Air Intelligence, stated that the Germans would probably have won the war because of an advance in rocket warfare aimed particularly against England if the Invasion had been delayed by six months.
Obviously Putt had NO idea that the British, via the XX Committee's turned german agents, was sending FALSE information on the fall of shot and the effects of V1s and V2s back to Germany...

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#52

Post by Simon Gunson » 02 Feb 2009, 05:41

The Allies knew of Nazi Biological weapons expert Dr Eugene von Haagen's contact with Unit 731, and were aware in advance from ULTRA that the Germans intended using biological weapons against the Allied landings in 1944.

That is why troops landing at Normandy were immunised in advance against expected Typhus weapons.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#53

Post by Urmel » 02 Feb 2009, 19:38

Simon Gunson wrote:The Allies knew of Nazi Biological weapons expert Dr Eugene von Haagen's contact with Unit 731, and were aware in advance from ULTRA that the Germans intended using biological weapons against the Allied landings in 1944.

That is why troops landing at Normandy were immunised in advance against expected Typhus weapons.
More conspiracy nonsense without any attempt to provide the least bit of facts for verification. In reality it had nothing to do with Unit 731, but was a standard measure for any US soldiers going to Europe or the British isles adopted in 1942, as a quick Google finds without any trouble:
APPENDIX C

Administrative Requirements for Typhus Vaccination
- 6 January 1942
- All military personnel stationed in or traveling through Asia, Africa, continental Europe, or other areas where danger from epidemic typhus fever exists.
- WD Cir 4, 6 Jan 42.
[...]
- 11 July 1942 All military personnel stationed in or traveling through the British Isles.
- This in addition to areas cited in directives of 6 January and 5 April above.
- WD AG Ltr (6-22-42) MD-SPMCE-PS-M, 11 Jul 42, sub: Vaccination against typhus for personnel traveling through the British Isles. AG: 720.3.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... endixc.htm
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#54

Post by Mark V » 03 Feb 2009, 22:09

Hi Simon,
Simon Gunson wrote:One would either need a heavy water reactor or a Carbon moderated reactor running continuously for about three years to breed sufficient Plutonium and then two more years to cool the fuel sufficiently to chemically separate the Plutonium from spent fuel.
American Plutonium separation plants very well handled the "very hot" feedstock from Hanford reactors during wartime, just moths after feeding the fuel to reactors the fuel was offloaded, shortly cooled, and chemically separated for Pu, which was used in Trinity and Nagasaki bombs - the Germans with their total disregard of workforce health - would have had far less problems with Pu hazards than Americans had, IF they would had ever got their program to degree that they had needed to chemically separate ANYTHING, which they NEVER did.
Simon Gunson wrote:Yes the Nazis did have enough heavy water during WW2 and no, unfortunately the loss of Norwegian heavy water did not materially affect the outcome of the war.
Germans did not have enough Heavy Water - No-one before Canadians in 60s or something like that had enough of it.

Above averything else: Germans miscalculated pure graphite cross section and considered it as useless as neutron moderator. That made the difference between successfull American Pu bomb by 1945, and German effort falling way behind. If graphite calculations would had been done right, there might had been stronger belief of the program and demand of needed resources to pull it through. Like it was the German scientist were in dead end with limited heavy water supply and lack of any other suitable moderator material.

U bomb is different matter, and i personally don't believe it would had been possible during wartime in any case. Just not enough industrial resources even with good centrifuges... Pu bomb was the only possible way for Germans during WW2 and Heavy Water / Graphite dead end took also that possibility away...


Regards, Mark V
Last edited by Mark V on 03 Feb 2009, 22:43, edited 1 time in total.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#55

Post by Mark V » 03 Feb 2009, 22:42

Urmel wrote: More conspiracy nonsense without any attempt to provide the least bit of facts for verification. In reality it had nothing to do with Unit 731, but was a standard measure for any US soldiers going to Europe or the British isles adopted in 1942
Absolutely.

Allied had egg embryo based vaccine, MYL, and DDT available, thats why they lost only dozen or something like that military personnel to Typhus, the MASS KILLER of most of other major military conflicts in the history.

Germans lost to Typhus, in the east were the disease is endemic, tens of thousand of their frontline troops.. Soviets more....

Western Allied advanced to Europe that was thought to be very possibly seriously Typhus infested.

Allied used their modern means to good effect (also to help civilians), though Germans own wartime, harsh but more primitive methods had kept Typhus away from large population of german civilians. They had long experience, from WW1, like serious cleaning effort of soldiers coming to home leave.

Allied had cheaper and more effective methods: vaccine to military personnel - and MYL/DDT dust to EVERYWHERE. Above all BOTH methods were effective for long duration (vaccine did not prevent disease, but it did prevent death to it, and dust was effective for days or weeks). Just washing infested clothing is effective only till soldier with couple living lice in his body put those clothes back on.

Germans though did prevent mass infestation of Typhus in their home country, but with very high cost of using quarantine areas, delays in railway transport, soap, water, steam, cyanide, sulphur, and very small quantities of DDT and vaccine.

Germans treated railway cars with cyanide, needing specially trained personnel, and half a day time per car. Western Allied sprayed insides of cars with MYL/DDT dust and loaded them with cargo or troops seconds later and send them away. Dusting could be done by anyone that could handle an sprayer without any special training, as long as very greasy mechanics or tankers were not sprayed directly with dust (DDT is dangerous in oil solution through skin, with reasonably clean skin, you could bathe in it without any harm - i am not talking about eagles here, but it was massive acriculture use of DDT starting from late 40s that caused enviromental harms. DDT is still today used in battling Malaria in amounts that are insignificant to enviroment). Same protection duration issues also here. Cyanide did not give long term protection. MYL/DDT did, and was 1000 times less dangerous to use than cyanide.

That is huge difference in cost versus effect.


Mark V

stellung
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 04 Oct 2005, 04:52
Location: USA

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#56

Post by stellung » 04 Feb 2009, 00:11

It is interesting that Manfred von Ardenne is rarely mentioned. He built the electron microscope in Germay in the late 1930s. His uranium separation method is referred to as "the Ardenne Source." He won a high medal from the Soviets for his atomic bomb work there. People should not believe the fiction published by the Americans about the inability of shrinking an atomic bomb to fit missiles till the late 1950s. Already, they test fired their 'atomic cannon' much earlier. The cannon was then deployed in Germany.

In the book Atomversuche in Deutschland, author Guenter Nagel reproduces an Alsos Mission document dated 2 May 1945. It refers to a report titled Forschungsberichte and that they had found an introductory summary written by Gerlach. He also reproduces an Aktennotiz referring to cubes and plates and cylinders. The Auer company was supplying the necessary uranium in the proper form.

The largest chemical concern in the world at the time was IG Farben (which also held part interest in Norsk Hydro). As the Americans chose DuPont, Germany chose Farben for much work, including separation. In the book Critical Mass, the author makes a strong case for a separation facility operated in Poland under the cover name IG Farben Buna Werke. It appears this facility was under joint Army-Air Force-SS control.

There are contemporary newspaper reports from England warning of possible atomic attack. It appears that the British population, already suffering under V-1 and V-2 attack, did not need to hear even a rumor of such a possibility. However, any responsible government, having reliable intelligence, would have no choice but to do so.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#57

Post by Mark V » 06 Feb 2009, 00:11

Hi,
stellung wrote:People should not believe the fiction published by the Americans about the inability of shrinking an atomic bomb to fit missiles till the late 1950s.
What fiction ?? Americans field deployed their first nuclear armed unguided rocket 1953, and guided missile by 1955.

If you mean mid-40s and A4, yes, NO-ONE could deploy missile like that (about 1 ton payload) carrying an real nuclear warhead.
stellung wrote:The largest chemical concern in the world at the time was IG Farben (which also held part interest in Norsk Hydro).
IG Farben surely was an influental company (though not sure being the largest if Standard Oil is counted in, slightly different operating areas though), but in the end - Germans did not produce even 1 gram of HEU, or if some minuscule amount was indeed produced, like 1/100000 what was needed in workable weapon there is not proof of it.

Americans did produce tens of kilograms of HEU during WW2. K-25 plant, Calutrons and other production methods of enriched U were significant burden even for economy like US (there was not enough copper for Calutrons, so they used US Treasury silver stocks that were "loaned" for duration of war). Germans had not an chance in hell to make HEU even for single bomb during WW2. Plutonium is little different matter.

Americans had the industrial power to proceed simultaneously in U and Pu routes that no other atomic power has accomplished building the initial capability, and that was done when simultaneously when fighting 2 major wars in different hemispheres, same time supplying large part of needed warfighting equipment to all their allies. That is an huge accomplishment.

To say it bluntly - enriched U was an game that only big boys with money could play, and there was only 1 big boy in the town. I do recognize the pioneering development of centrifuges by Germans, though it would not had make any difference, because the job would had in any case been too much for German economy.


Regards, Mark V

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#58

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 00:41

People should not believe the fiction published by the Americans about the inability of shrinking an atomic bomb to fit missiles till the late 1950s
LATE 1950s??? The US deployed the Regulus guided cruise missile with the smaller 39"x76"W5 device operationally in 1955. The even smaller W27 device, of 31"x75" was operatonal in 1958.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#59

Post by LWD » 06 Feb 2009, 05:15

And the 16" naval round was operational in 56.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: The German Atomic Device - The Evidence

#60

Post by Mark V » 07 Feb 2009, 01:13

... and also Corporal missile and W-7 warhead was in field use by troops in 1955.

--

Every time behind these is the claim that A4 could had carry an nuclear bomb. Sure, in 50s, but not in 40s. Implosion was made (just) workable through huge effort in late 44 / early 1945. That system was HUGE in size and weight. Just look at the Fat Man bomb mock-ups in museum.

It took that very decade from 1945 to 1955 to perfect and minituarize weapon (lens system, explosives, pit, reflector, initiator, etc...) for missiles and thermonuclear primaries. By early 60s almost all had been invented and tested. Since then warhead design has advanced in baby steps.

1950s nuke could not be built in 1945. Just like 1945 fighter aircraft was not present in sky over western front in 1918.


Regards, Mark V

Post Reply

Return to “Other Equipment”