A Bomb 1944 was there a tactical use in Europe

[Derek Jackson]

I noted the point that there were not worthwhile Japanese Military targets in the summer of 1945.

Was there anything that might have been more useful than a city.

(My assumpotion is that Hitler would not have surrendered and that if he were killed 'in action' there would be a difficutly of ever getting German forces to surrender)

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

I noted the point that there were not worthwhile Japanese Military targets in the summer of 1945.

Was there anything that might have been more useful than a city.

(My assumpotion is that Hitler would not have surrendered and that if he were killed 'in action' there would be a difficutly of ever getting German forces to surrender)

Plenty. Depends on your definition of 'worthwhile'.

Considering the losses the Soviets took in Berlin and Seelow Heights, I would consider those to be the most effective place for an A-bomb.

However it's possibly unlikely the Western Allies would drop an A-bomb in the path of the Soviet army, in which case Normandy is probably target no. 1.
Alternatives for a tactical use could be Monte Cassino, Falaise pocket, Market Garden, Hürtgen Forest, Market Garden and the battle of the Bulge,

[aktarian]

Don't think so. If Wallies are in Europe (outside Italy) then using nukes makes less sense. If they are not then using it against city makes ore sense for psychological impact alone.

[The Red]

A strategic use on industry would have made more sense, German production came to a head in 1944 and curbing that would probably have shortened the war by at least several months. A target such as Ploesti would also make a lot of sense.

This all presumes the Allies actually have a means of delivery though...

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by The Red

A strategic use on industry would have made more sense, German production came to a head in 1944 and curbing that would probably have shortened the war by at least several months. A target such as Ploesti would also make a lot of sense.

This all presumes the Allies actually have a means of delivery though...

And there is an additional complication that using it in France means using it on supposedly friendly nation. That would, IMO, pretty much rule out use in France, Low countries and Italy after their capitulation. Ploesti maybe, but I'd say Ruhr or some other industrial centre would make more sense.

[von hitchofen]

Mittelwerk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelwerk

a airburst would asphyxiate everyone below ground, a ground-burst would wreck it completely

[MerryPrankster]

Ploesti makes a lot of sense.

[BlondieBC]

The wolf lair- the main command bunker. Losing many top Generals plus Hitler cause confusion and might help break will to fight. A-Bomb can dig out the deep bunkers.

[von hitchofen]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Ploesti makes a lot of sense.

Ploieşti was captured by Soviet troops in August 1944, and Romania switched sides the same month

dropping a nuke on new allies is a terrible idea

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

The wolf lair- the main command bunker. Losing many top Generals plus Hitler cause confusion and might help break will to fight. A-Bomb can dig out the deep bunkers.

Hitler departed from the Wolfsschanze for the last time on 20th November 1944...drop it on Berlin, and be done with it

[Simon]

Drop it on the Falaise pocket? Did the Allies know about the benefits of air burst detonation by this point? Not sure how effective it might be against concentrated troops but if you could get rid of them it would certainly make future operations easier. IIRC weren't the troops that successfully blocked Operation Market Garden some of those that had managed to escape?

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by von hitchofen

Hitler departed from the Wolfsschanze for the last time on 20th November 1944...drop it on Berlin, and be done with it

The problem with "drop it on Berlin" is that if you kill German leadership there is nobody to sign the surrender papers. Drop it Ruhr, Dresden, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Munich.....

[von hitchofen]

...or Königsberg, Würzburg, Kiel, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Chemnitz, Dessau, Karlsruhe, Breslau

anywhere that will be in Soviet sector in 1946 and is close to Berlin, at least make the bastards go blind

and drop it at night for maximum effect

[BigWillyG]

Would Berchtesgaden have made a worthwhile target?

[Trotsky]

Originally Posted by BigWillyG

Would Berchtesgaden have made a worthwhile target?

So blowing up a few empty houses save for Herman Goering and his art collection?

[hairysamarian]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

(My assumpotion is that Hitler would not have surrendered and that if he were killed 'in action' there would be a difficulty of ever getting German forces to surrender)

I have to say that second half is quite an assumption, given that by the end of the war IOTL German units were racing to surrender (against orders, in many cases). To the West, at least, as they were terrified of the Russians.

Still, plenty of targets existed. As noted, Berlin seems like the way to go.

[Michele]

Bombs with the yield order of the actual nukes aren't tactical weapons, so they have no natural tactical targets.

Note that some of the posts that claim that there were tactical targets, actually mention operational-level efforts, such as Market-Garden or the Hürtgen Forest.

Even in those cases, the bombs are wasted if used against concentrations of enemy forces unless those concentrations are huge - and the Germans are unlikely to do that by this time.

So the best choice for an attack that is not tactical, but below the strategic level, would be hitting the staging and immediate rear areas of the enemy, interdicting the flow of reinforcements and supplies, to a key bottleneck in one of these operational campaigns. Market-Garden is out of the picture here for obvious reasons. Italy and France also are, because using the nukes on a co-belligerent's or respectively an ally's territory is politically unwise. Probably it would be possible to try and hit the German supply lines behind the Hürtgenwald, say by targeting Düren.

But if you do so, then the obvious question arises. You are aiming at a railway junction feeding the German resistance to your offensive in the area and, at the same time, hitting a town. Why not target a bigger railway junction having the same features, but which is also an industrial node, and a city instead of a town? I.e., Cologne? At this point, you are back to targeting a city, a strategic target, and it's actually what makes sense with that kind of yield, timing of delivery, and accuracy.

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

I noted the point that there were not worthwhile Japanese Military targets in the summer of 1945.

Was there anything that might have been more useful than a city.

(My assumpotion is that Hitler would not have surrendered and that if he were killed 'in action' there would be a difficutly of ever getting German forces to surrender)

That assumption is wrong. German forces had already surrendered to the Allies in enormous numbers before 1945. (Over 100,000 at Stalingrad, over 100,000 in Tunisia, about 50,000 in the Falaise pocket, between 50,000 and 100,000 in SW France, plus hundreds of thousands of others in smaller actions.)

These were Germans who were surrounded and unable to fight any longer; the surrender of Germans who were still "in the field" was prevented by the insistence of Hitler on fighting to the bitter end, enforced by the SS and Gestapo. That enforcement was enhanced by the personal oath to Hitler of all German officers. With Hitler's death that oath would lapse.

And in fact when Hitler died, German troops began to surrender to British and American forces en masse. There were very few holdouts in the west. The details of Hitler's death were not broadcast by the Germans; he was said to have died in battle, IIRC. It made no difference.

[von hitchofen]

Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom

. That enforcement was enhanced by the personal oath to Hitler of all German officers. With Hitler's death that oath would lapse.

an important point, which many forget - as soon as the Führer dies the political allegiance of the Wehrmacht/Nazi state loses its centre - and it must disintegrate and coalesce around a new focus of power

under sufficient military threat, such as that posed by the Allies post D-day/Bagration - surrender is highly likely

Drop it on Berlin - and make peace with Nazi Generalfeldmarschals individually if necessary - the Wehrmacht as a coherent whole would cease

[Michel Van]

only place were a 1944 A-bomb would be tactical, is the town Frankfurt am Main

during the War Frankfurt am Main was a major war production site and main hub for Train/Car Transport
Troups, material, goods, weapons, ammunition came true Frankfurt am Main
like parts of V2 from Munich to Mittelwerk, or Tanks from Kassel to West or East front.

if you nuke the central station and whole city with it.
you could bring the third reich to collapse

[Looseheadprop]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

only place were a 1944 A-bomb would be tactical, is the town Frankfurt am Main

during the War Frankfurt am Main was a major war production site and main hub for Train/Car Transport
Troups, material, goods, weapons, ammunition came true Frankfurt am Main
like parts of V2 from Munich to Mittelwerk, or Tanks from Kassel to West or East front.

if you nuke the central station and whole city with it.
you could bring the third reich to collapse

Totally agree. But again, as has been explained previously, such a strike would be considered operational or strategic.

On the topic of Berlin, I would suspect that the American's wouldn't want to drop the bomb somewhere that would be in the Russian OZ. I think they would have been paranoid about what the Russian's could learn from the blast site.