First atomic bomb was German !?!

Discussions on the equipment used by the Axis forces, apart from the things covered in the other sections. Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 06 Oct 2005 21:02

stellung wrote:Documents
A.P.W./U (Ninth Air Force) 96/1945, 373.2 of 19 August 1945, Investigation, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb, Pkts Nos 47 to 53, published by COMNAVEU, 1946.


Why would the Commander of [US] Naval Forces Europe publish a 9th Air Force document? In any case, how are we supposed to know the report (if it exists) says anything else than 'The German atomic bomb was not available for practical use'?

stellung wrote:US National Archives, Northeast Region, Waltham, Massachusetts, Navy secret dispatch #292045, U-234, Cargo Information, 30 May 1945, RG181, Box 531.


According to this article, the freight of U234 was uranium oxide. http://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/u234.htm I don't think you can produce a nuclear bomb from that. Therefore this only proves that the Germans had enough Uranium Oxide to feel inclined to send some to the Japanese.

US National Archives, Southeast Region, East Point, Georgia, telephone transcript titled Telephone Conversation between Major Smith, WLO and Major Traynor, 14 June 1945.

US National Archives, Southeast Region, East Point, Georgis, Beta Oxide transfer Report, RG194 - 69 A 406 Section 326, Box 17.


I can only find those archives at Morrow, and if RG stands for 'Records Group', well no records group 194 exists in their holdings, according to their website. The other one is not researchable online (and I doubt you would be able to find it if you went there) based on the record information given. And what is 'beta oxide' supposed to be? Since it is not in the glossary of the World Nuclear Association?

A diagram of a German atomic bomb also appears on physicsweb.


Which proves very little. Would it have worked? The article does not say: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/6/3

One should also note that it was co-auhored by Karlsch, the same who wrote 'Hitler's Bomb'. So here we just have someone who already has nailed his colours to the mast on the matter confirming that he is, indeed, right.

Finally, why if I enter some aspects of these 'sources' into google, am I being taken to other forums where pretty much the same message is being posted, but not a single even remotely serious article?

All the best

Andreas

M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005 05:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany

Post by M.Rausch » 07 Oct 2005 12:25

I am not sure if the posting of the poster Stellung is meant serious and not just a funny try to "get a hook in some mouths" :)

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 07 Oct 2005 20:07

M.Rausch wrote:I am not sure if the posting of the poster Stellung is meant serious and not just a funny try to "get a hook in some mouths" :)


I am afraid a quick google of the alleged CMNAVEUR document showed it being cited in a number of WW2 forums (but nowhere else), so regardless of whether this particular post on this forum is meant seriously, it is being used seriously elsewhere.

It also appears to me that if we leave posts like this one unchallenged, the value of the forum as a source of information will not be increased. To put it mildly.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
Andrzej Ditrich
Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 17:51
Location: Gdansk/Sopot/Gdynia

Post by Andrzej Ditrich » 09 Oct 2005 22:48

Stellung wrote:
The uranium processing facility was located in Poland at the IG Farben Buna Werke. No Buna rubber was ever produced there. This facility used coal to generate more electricity than was used for the entire city of Berlin.


Was it in Mirów (Friedland ) in Silesia/Poland? Interesting is the fact of using coal-it is very popular in Silesia region(many coal mines)
Have You got some sources-except D.Irving 'Virushaus' (he mentions that place as a uranium processing facility)
Mayby some connections to Wałbrzych (Waldenburg) or 'Riese' project?

Brgds
@ndrew

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 02 Nov 2005 22:14

@ndrew wrote:Was it in Mirów (Friedland ) in Silesia/Poland? Interesting is the fact of using coal-it is very popular in Silesia region(many coal mines)


In fact it is not particularly interesting that anything used coal to generate electricity at the time, be it in Silesia or elsewhere. Coal is still a standard fuel for electricity generation, and prior to the advent of nuclear and natural gas in the 1950s and 1990s, respectively, would have been the fuel for the vast majority of electricity generation in the world. in competition with hydro in locations suitable for that. Today coal is still responsible for 38% of world electricity generation. I recommend the book 'Coal - A Human History' by Barbara Freese to find out more about it, in a very accessible way.

If you purchase the book through this site, you ensure that Markus makes some money, and if you read it, your time is better spent than on a wild goose chase for the German nuclear bomb. In my opinion two very good reasons for the purchase of the book. You can also get the data from the OECD's World Factbook 2005.

The fact that Stellung thought it would be important to point out that coal was used for electricity generation is just further proof of the sillyness of his post, in my view. Further proof of this would be the fact that he has made exactly one post on AHF, namely the above-referenced post, and that he has not been back to explain matters, in fact it looks as if he joined just to spread this nonsense. If you want to believe it, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell that you can have for a very reasonable price. AHF member's discount.

All the best

Andreas

Hartmann10
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 19:56
Location: Spain

hello to all people

Post by Hartmann10 » 21 Nov 2005 20:01

Hello, to all. Well, I am a newbie. :oops:
I was seeing these posts and the german atomic bomb topic is a fascination to me since I discovered the first time the history about the U-234, and more with the book "Hitlers bombe" from Rainer Karlsch. I have been digging some and even in the Scientific Journal "Nature physics" they make a review over this book, giving the specification of two test of a weapon extremely powerful. In fact, the scientist is very conservative and points to a radiological weapon, but the description wich gives is very specific, a boosted fission bomb which was boosted with deuterated Water, located in the centre of a sphere odf fissionable material, and the fissile material surrounded by HE "hollow charges" (it sounds to me somelike Explosive planar-convergent Lenses, as the used in Fatman bomb), well this material was considered in late forties as a carrier to Deuterium in the "super" of Los Alamos, as the deuterated ammonia before to drop in favour of the deuterated lithium (dry material, far more useful than the liquified Deuterium-Tritum used in Ivy Mike test in 1952.
And even the U-234 problem, seems to be not clarified, as you can see in this webpage of US. Navy:
http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAfour.htm
The writer, Captain Brayton Harris, USN (Retired) seems to have been distracted and would have desclassified by mistake a National top secret, hehehe :D , because he states that carried ENRICHED U 235.
For me it is very clear that Germany PROBABLY (not confirmed yet) made some, call it a Fizzle or "sort of tactical nuclear weapon".
And in other state of things, to make a fizzle is NOT a failure, in fact the USA has had some of them (the first of them arrived in the 18th atomic test, when they were trying to find the minimum amount of plutonium which will detonate, in the operation Buster-Jangle). I hope it will be of interest to all people.
Regards to all

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Re: hello to all people

Post by Andreas » 23 Nov 2005 10:49

Hartmann10 wrote:And even the U-234 problem, seems to be not clarified, as you can see in this webpage of US. Navy:
http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAfour.htm
The writer, Captain Brayton Harris, USN (Retired) seems to have been distracted and would have desclassified by mistake a National top secret, hehehe :D , because he states that carried ENRICHED U 235.


Hartmann10

This site you link is not a US Navy website, it is a privately run website, and what is written in this article is unsourced. It therefore has zero merit as a source. Anyone can write anything they like about these things on the internet. If you have actual proof that it was enriched U-235 please feel free to post it.

Official USN submarine pages are:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/subs/subs.asp

http://www.sublant.navy.mil/

http://www.csp.navy.mil/

All the best

Andreas

Hartmann10
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 19:56
Location: Spain

Post by Hartmann10 » 23 Nov 2005 15:30

Well, ok, It is truth, It was not an official USN webpage :? , but of course these files are still partially or completely classified until now (the reverse question can be made, Why the USA has still classified all these documents concerning Ohrdruf, the U-234 submarine or the infamous Buna plant of Auschwitz-Morowitz if they could probe in fact that Germany had not ever made uranium enrichment, and only they pursued the way of plutonium? very dubious). Carter Hydrick made the same statement about the nature of U235 in the U boat, in his book he mentions it (He could have been acceded to these files because his brother was said to be an FBI agent, who provided some of them. I don´t know if his documents are valid, but you can find a copy of them in these webpages, and also a conference which he gave in LANL (and it is very truth, I mean, the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, hehehe):

http://www.whitehurstcompany.com/criticalmass.html (Here you have some of the papers which Carter Hydrick supposedly saw, one of them concerning the Uranium cargo)

http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/05-007.shtml

http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/04-088.shtml

So it can be considered, or almost partially credited as Germany in fact made enriched uranium. And by the way, the USA would not accept this, but in fact it had not enough U235 to finish the "Little Boy" in time, because they used a part of the U235 in the Hanford piles when they changed to water cooling. I asked to a university teacher friend of mine, and ha said the same as Carter Hydrick (I made the same way that him) : If you cool a pile with water, it is because you use slow or medium enriched uranium oxide.
In other state, the "little boy" is a curious "White elephant" in the nuclear bombs history by some reasons:
1) It was supposedly designed before the year 1945 (when the Manhattan project had not been still determined the U235 critical mass) but only there were another 5 unassembled bomb hulls, all finished post war. By contrast, it was launched several times copies of the prototype hull of the "Fatman" in 1944 by some B-29s in Japan.
The gun was supposedly made reboring a 3 inches AA gun barrel to fit the projectile (very miser or "hurried adaptation" solution giving the importance of the matter, my god an atomic bomb¡¡¡).
2) The U235 rings of the core where only enriched to the 50% while the "projectile" or "bullet" rings gunned to the core, where enriched to the 89%, something very curious giving the fact that it had to be a fool proof design. It could have caused pre detonation, they didn´t know if it would have been worked properly with this isotopic composition (It would be almost, but not completely assured, fool proof if it would have had a isotopic composition in all the Uranium of allmost the 80%, but this is not the real thing as we see). And they launched it without previous testing over Hiroshima, even before than "Fatman", which was tested in Alamogordo.
You can see it here:
"The pit contained 64.1 kg of highly enriched uranium. By the time Little Boy was assembled, 50 kg of uranium enriched to 89% had been produced by Oak Ridge, and an additional 14 kg of 50% enrichment uranium was on hand. All of it was used in the bomb, giving an average enrichment of 80%, or approximately 2.4 critical masses. This is less than the 5 or so critical masses achieved by Gadget/Fat Man, and it is the principal reason for Little Boy's lower efficiency. It is interesting to compare this to the published data on the South African gun-assembly bomb, which used 55 kg of enriched uranium (probably at >90% enrichment) and an inferior reflector, but a superior tamper (tungsten carbide gives a 15% lower critical mass, compared to tungsten metal, but is 25% less dense).
The U-235 mass of Little boy was divided into two pieces: the bullet and the target. The "bullet": a cylindrical stack of U-235 rings about 10 cm wide and 16 cm long, containing 40% of the mass (25.6 kg). It was constructed from six rings, the stack backed by a tungsten carbide disk and a steel back plate, all within a 1/16 inch thick steel can to make the complete projectile. The "target": a hollow cylinder 16 cm long and wide, weighing 38.4 kg, embedded in the tamper assembly. The target was fabricated as two separate rings that were inserted in the bomb separately. Note that even an unreflected sphere of U-235 weighing 64 kg would be supercritical. Almost certainly, the bullet was made entirely of 89% enrichment uranium since placing the most fissile material at the centre of the core is a basic principle of efficient bomb design".

Courtesy of Carey Sublette.

Giving this, and without previous testing, how in the hell did the Scientifics of the Manhattan project predicted the right yield and altitude detonation burst of the bomb? 8O , because when they detonated the "Gadget, they were surprised by the actual Yield (20-21 kilotonnes) versus the calculated as most probable (some 5-10 kilotonnes) before detonation. You can see it in:

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/manhattan ... esign.html

Some images about the "Little Boy" in his ¿¿¿first appearance??? (maybe German, hehehehe, I was only joking... but only a little, seeing the new scientific-historical studies about the matter :D).

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/we ... _chart.htm

In this drawing, It has not the tipical USA square tail which we have seen later, when it was launched, but the round tail, more German in appearance (it has some resemblance to the German SC1000 and SC2500 kg bombs). And this is an official webpage....

In fact, I have to say you Andreas, that some years ago I also was very, very sceptical about this matter, but there are a lot of things that seem to demonstrate the reverse if We take all in overall view of them. We should have the mind open to new things. The USA has distorted the history very well a lot of times (specially when they won the war).

Best regards (I am terribly sorry by this very big post Andreas, I hope It wouldn´t be boring :oops: )

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 23 Nov 2005 17:04

Hartmann10 wrote:Some images about the "Little Boy" in his ¿¿¿first appearance??? (maybe German, hehehehe, I was only joking... but only a little, seeing the new scientific-historical studies about the matter :D).

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/we ... _chart.htm

In this drawing, It has not the tipical USA square tail which we have seen later, when it was launched, but the round tail, more German in appearance (it has some resemblance to the German SC1000 and SC2500 kg bombs). And this is an official webpage....


Thank you for providing the additional information. I will not get into detail on this, since it is not a topic of expertise of mine, and I restrict myself to calling the obvious nonsense in this discussion thread, such as the post by Stellung above. Someone with more expertise can address your points if he or she so desires.

A point on this website though - it is not an official site either:

Strategic-Air-Command.com is privately owned by Marvin T. Broyhill. It is not affiliated with any official organization.


http://www.strategic-air-command.com/contact.htm

Official US Military sites are easily recognised by the .mil ending. General rule - if it has got any other ending, it ain't official.

All the best

Andreas

Hartmann10
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 19:56
Location: Spain

Post by Hartmann10 » 24 Nov 2005 12:24

Sorry, I didn’t know about the extension .mil :oops: . Ok, I will check the next times my posts concerning official websites.
I am not an expert too, don’t worry about this, I am only a hobbyist in History (I only have some more idea about scientific matters, but not much more than any other of us, because really I am studying Biochemistry and molecular biology, so in the pure nuclear physics matter, I only understand the concepts at medium levels, I mean, the attach made by Carey Sublette is very easy to understand, but if you ask me if I can say if something works, the most logical thing for me is going to ask to my teacher of the course “Nuclear physics and radiology” which we have as introductory course in biophysics, He is a graduated physicist ( I really asked him for the matter of Hanford reactors and the Water cooling because I had no much idea about it, so He might say me if the drawing design about the suspected German atomic bomb can work or not, but it would be long to answer you since He is in a conference this week I think. When he will come back, I will ask him.

Best regards Andreas :D

User avatar
Uninen
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2004 19:26
Location: Festung Europa, Finnland

Post by Uninen » 25 Nov 2005 05:59

Watched this documentary another day.. (and since the German-Japanese Uranium connection got mentioned..)

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74425

Not really in the topic, but in it they claim that "Japanese navys nuclear project" actually was so advanced that they did a nuclear test.. :? That supposedly resulted in a real atomic explosion..
Since the end of WWII, conventional wisdom claimed that Imperial Japan was years away from building an atomic weapon. JAPAN'S ATOMIC BOMB shatters that view.

Using once-secret Japanese wartime documents, this special offers evidence that Japan had world-class nuclear physicists, access to uranium ore, and cyclotrons to process it. They devised an innovative way to deliver the bombs using 400-foot long Sen Toku submarines, capable of carrying and launching airplanes. Most startling, just six days after Hiroshima, Japan tested its own atomic device on a small island 20 miles off the Korean coast! The sobering conclusion is that Japan may have been just weeks behind the U.S. in the race for the bomb.

Maybe this is just more of the current trend to make people feel good about massacre of Japanese so that they can say "it good we did it before they could" or just plain total bullshyte.. dunno.

Regards.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 29 Nov 2005 22:52

Hi Hartmann.

Some considerations from my behalf:

Hartmann10 wrote: the USA would not accept this, but in fact it had not enough U235 to finish the "Little Boy" in time, because they used a part of the U235 in the Hanford piles when they changed to water cooling.


WW2 production piles in Hanford used water cooling, and were designed for that from outset. The prototype X-10 used air-cooling, but that was in Oak Ridge and was an miniscule scale compared to production piles.

Also Hanford piles did run on natural U metal during WW2 (not Oxide BTW) - at their original 250 MWt power level. They started to use enriched Uranium to boost up power levels (and Pu production) only after WW2, when U enrichment capacity had gained available surplus. During wartime production that was not the case, like you well know.

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanprojec ... H-06b4.htm
http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/si ... ctor.shtml
http://www.hanford.gov/doe/history/file ... fBArea.pdf

Hartmann10 wrote:If you cool a pile with water, it is because you use slow or medium enriched uranium oxide.


To some degree you are right. Natural water cooled reactors are usually run on low-enriched uranium (pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, and Russian RBMK type).

BUT that does not mean that graphite moderated, natural water cooled reactors can not run with natural U.


Hartmann10 wrote:In other state, the "little boy" is a curious "White elephant" in the nuclear bombs history by some reasons:
1) It was supposedly designed before the year 1945 (when the Manhattan project had not been still determined the U235 critical mass) but only there were another 5 unassembled bomb hulls, all finished post war.


Right. It was an white elephant - an inefficient design, wasting fissionable material. But it did work. Untested. And could be almost quarantee to work even with the information that was available in turn of 1944/45. In that respect it had its role in Manhattan Project. The way it looked from outside does not have any significance.

The low number of bomb casings built was natural. Americans knew in early-1945 well that if implosion does not work, they have lots and lots of time to built more bomb casings before enough U would be available for second Little Boy (since Pu would be worthless and gun-type weapon needs lots of U). It never materialized. Implosion worked, making Pu an usable bomb material, and making sure that Little Boy design would never be needed again, not even for U weapon. The fact that Little Boy was used, was because they were in hurry and U (or composite) pits for implosion weapons were not ready. It maximized the available weapons for August-1945.

About critical mass: Gun-type weapon will "forgive" some uncertainty during design phase. Nothing could be easier than making corrections to mass of "target" if necessary. Just make target a bit larger in diameter and mill some material off from the tamper.

In implosion design such change would need whole bomb assembly to be redesigned/rebuilt from scratch.

Hartmann10 wrote:The gun was supposedly made reboring a 3 inches AA gun barrel to fit the projectile (very miser or "hurried adaptation" solution giving the importance of the matter, my god an atomic bomb¡¡¡).


The 3" AA-gun barrel is made from very high quality weapon steel, designed to withstand high pressures.

What could be better than that, if it fit the bill for needed measurements of "bullet". Should they had made it from titanium or something else to make it "worth the weapon"..... :roll: I don't think so.

Belive me, they surely grinded some material of from that barrel, to make proper fittings, and then rebored it to smooth-bore, and cut it to lenght they needed.

Should they have ordered an exotic new design and possibly postpone the use of weapon in case the specially ordered one-off barrel would not be available because possible failure in production ?? Well, THAT would be crazy. Thankfully Americans were far too practical and sober not to fall for such pits in critically important weapon. And what advantage specially designed "firing tube" would had served ?? Weight of barrel ?? - seriously - the bomb was laden with U and Tungsten anyway....

There is nothing wrong with starting material they used for barrel material. It was plentifull and no hick-ups for delivery was possible.

Hartmann10 wrote:2) The U235 rings of the core where only enriched to the 50% while the "projectile" or "bullet" rings gunned to the core, where enriched to the 89%, something very curious giving the fact that it had to be a fool proof design.


Considering the complexity of U enrichment cycle in early-mid 1945 i don't find that surprising. Multiple stages and plants for successive production of feedstock for next plant, and the very nature of last enrichment method, calutrons. Batch-like system requiring runs again and again. Not really "production-line". And same time time being an essance they did not had. In that regard having batches of U with lower enrichment than Oralloy by dead-line set for finalizing the design and starting assembling the bomb was more than natural, it was unavoidable.

Hartmann10 wrote:Giving this, and without previous testing, how in the hell did the Scientifics of the Manhattan project predicted the right yield and altitude detonation burst of the bomb? 8O ,


They did not.

Little Boy was detonated too low for maximum 5psi overpressure in ground. Somewhere between 1850-1900 feet altitude.

5psi is the optimum for attacking city target and detonation altitude is normally set to maximize the area of 5psi overpressure. It almost can pierce ear-drum of human, and destroy most unhardened city structures.

Little Boy actually maximized the 12psi overpressure area. The detonation altitude was set conservatively because the uncertainty of yield. That altitude is optimum for 5kt weapon and way too low for 11kt weapon.

American were conservative, wisely, as setting the altitude too high rapidly diminishes results. Little too low detonation altitude is not so critical error.

For example, if Little Boy would had delivered only 5kt and it would had been detonated say, 3000feet (far better for 11kt than the altitude they used), the effect in ground would had been greatly diminished.

Not quite "dud" and "American flash-in-the-sky weapon" in Japanese point-of-view, but not far from that.


Yours, Mark V

Himmelssäule
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 17:54
Location: Germany

Post by Himmelssäule » 23 Dec 2005 10:39

:)

Thanks to all for your answers !


A mary Christmas !!!



Greetings,

Himmelssäule

Himmelssäule
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 17:54
Location: Germany

Post by Himmelssäule » 13 Oct 2006 15:45

No new information ???

Wallmeister
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 15:49
Location: germany

Post by Wallmeister » 24 Oct 2006 12:03

To my opinion,Germany had 7 atomic bombs.Hitler refused to use them due to the same reasons he refused to use Gas.
The first bomb dropped in Hiroshima was a german bomb,the second might have been an american one.The two types were too different in terms of construction.This would have been nonsense due to military aspects of handling weapons.

Return to “Other Equipment”