AH Challenge: Earliest Possible Nuclear Weapon

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman

It's very possible that earlier nukes would have meant a lot more nukes used than the two IRL.
Then it really starts to be a disadvantage you lose your crews.

How many bomber cews were lost on the typical raids OTL?

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

How many bomber cews were lost on the typical raids OTL?

A lot depends on how you count; do you include bombers lost on the way back, do you include casualties on board of planes that did make it back, etc etc.

I know some of the strategic bombing raids had, if you take the most gruesome figures around, up to 30% losses.
But that doesn't mean 30% is dead and it most certainly doesn't mean there's an average of 30%. The average for the UK for 1940 onwards combined would be much, much lower.

Probably there are plenty of people around here who know more about the losses IRL by strat bombing.

[RPW@Cy]

Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman

You'd run the risk of the Zeppelin changing course to a gust of wind.
It won't matter much if it's less than a km from the target when the A-bomb goes off, but much more than that and IMHO you would have missed.

Well, the crew could always abort if the weather conditions look unstable I suppose, and nukes don't really need pinpoint accuracy anyway, but I take your point. So it looks like if you're going to use a Zeppelin (and I think it's agreed that nothing else before a B-29 could deliver the bomb by air even if you can jury-rig a bomb much earlier) you either reconcile yourself to kamikaze operations or start thinking of desperate options. How about a skeleton (two man?) crew on the Zeppelin and a parasite fighter slunk below the gondola which they jump into and use to try to get as far away as possible in the 5-10 minutes they'd have before the bomb goes off? Do they have any chance at all of getting far enough away to survive the blast wave when it reaches them (we can forget about radiation, as the effects were always ignored with early nukes)?

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally Posted by RPW@Cy

Well, the crew could always abort if the weather conditions look unstable I suppose, and nukes don't really need pinpoint accuracy anyway, but I take your point. So it looks like if you're going to use a Zeppelin (and I think it's agreed that nothing else before a B-29 could deliver the bomb by air even if you can jury-rig a bomb much earlier) you either reconcile yourself to kamikaze operations or start thinking of desperate options. How about a skeleton (two man?) crew on the Zeppelin and a parasite fighter slunk below the gondola which they jump into and use to try to get as far away as possible in the 5-10 minutes they'd have before the bomb goes off? Do they have any chance at all of getting far enough away to survive the blast wave when it reaches them (we can forget about radiation, as the effects were always ignored with early nukes)?

AFAIK parasite fighters on Zeppelins were usually very light, low-powered, often even open-canopied airplanes, with no possibility whatsoever of any shielding and uncapable of getting to a save altitude and distance.
You wouldn't be able to put a modern high-powered plane on a Zeppelin as the speed difference is probably too big.
AFAIK the Enola Gay got special aluminium props and got it's weaponry mostly removed to be able to fly higher for safety, so IMHO Zeppelin nuke delivery = kamikaze.

Maybe a ship would be the best solution after all.
I could see an A-bomb being used in the same way a fireship or a blockship was used from ages ago up to and including WWI and WWII.
Zeebrugge harbor would definitely be out of order with a blockship that goes mushroom cloud.
I'd have to be escorted by and be a part of a fleet which would have to leave in a hurry before the bomb goes off inside a harbor.
IMHO that could work with a nuke encased in concrete, with a short delay to get as many as possible into safety.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by RPW@Cy

Well, the crew could always abort if the weather conditions look unstable I suppose, and nukes don't really need pinpoint accuracy anyway, but I take your point. So it looks like if you're going to use a Zeppelin (and I think it's agreed that nothing else before a B-29 could deliver the bomb by air even if you can jury-rig a bomb much earlier) you either reconcile yourself to kamikaze operations or start thinking of desperate options.

The early nuclear bombs were around 10 000lbs class, easily deliverable with earlier bombers, such as Pe-8 and Short Stirling, with in-flight refuelling or shorter ranges. With civilian planes the earliest nuke carrier could be Dornier Do X of 1929.

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally Posted by Jukra

The early nuclear bombs were around 10 000lbs class, easily deliverable with earlier bombers, such as Pe-8 and Short Stirling, with in-flight refuelling or shorter ranges. With civilian planes the earliest nuke carrier could be Dornier Do X of 1929.

Sure.
Do X:
A civilian flying boat with a max speed of 200 km/h, uncapable of transatlantic crossing, with a service ceiling of less than a single kilometer(!) is succesfully going to deliver a 10 000 warhead.

That thing didn't even have a bomb-bay and it's going to break in pieces if you load a single 10 000 pounds object in it. This isn't going to work for the same reason why passenger aircraft nowadays make lousy bombers.

Pe-8 is a better suggestion.
Although it's first flight wasn't untill december 1936 and it had engine problems during it's entire career, it according to Wiki could carry a single 10 000 lbs bomb.
It is however a bit slower and a bit lower flying then the B-29 and it has much less range. IMHO this is still going to be a one-way kamikaze trip. It's IMHO not much more suitable than a B-17.

In-flight refueling didn't take of for military service untill 1948. You might just as well speed missile guidance systems along when you're at it.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman

That thing didn't even have a bomb-bay and it's going to break in pieces if you load a single 10 000 pounds object in it. This isn't going to work for the same reason why passenger aircraft nowadays make lousy bombers.

Umm, the question, as far as I can understand, was about the timeframe when delivery of nuclear weapon via air is possible, not whether particular airplane would be practically suitable for it, or what would be the range for question. Besides, more weight is saved if the airplane is the bomb itself. That requires just some volunteers. So, my answer would be late 1920's for the airplane delivery.

EDIT: With some further WikiGoogle-research the winner is.... Mitsubishi Ki-20 of 1932, based on Junkers G.38 of 1929.

http://www.return2style.de/swingaring/amig38.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Ki-20

Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman

In-flight refueling didn't take of for military service untill 1948. You might just as well speed missile guidance systems along when you're at it.

For reasons which were not technical. Alan Cobham's technology was already available during 1930's, and by 1945 IFR was fully employed training RAF pilots to use in-flight-refuelling for Tiger Force. And the first military demonstrations for in-flight-refuelling were made during early 1920's in Belgium and the USA.

[burmafrd]

Real inflight fueling (not using a hose from a barrel as was done in the 20's) is a whole magnitude beyond what was possible in the 20's and 30's.
To be able to do it well and be able to count on it takes time and work. the aircraft on both ends need a lot of work.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman

but if you want a weapon you can use regularly, it's not really usefull you lose your crew every time you use an A-bomb.
It's very possible that earlier nukes would have meant a lot more nukes used than the two IRL.
Then it really starts to be a disadvantage you lose your crews.

You don't need a suicide crew, just radio control. After all, you aren't having to land the missile or even go for pin point accuracy.

I would agree though that it is not that simple in that we are looking at flying a bomber hundreds of miles from a cockpit in another aircraft. At very least we are looking at doing it in good weather. Also we are looking at air supremacy; fighting off even a few interceptors is risky because it would take just one of them to go for the plane that only flies on a level course to stop the mission.

On the other hand, the technology for this is available in the late thirties/early forties.

[burmafrd]

All in all there really was no way it happens much earlier. No matter how you do it, the expenditure in money and resources is HUGE.

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally Posted by Michael B

You don't need a suicide crew, just radio control. After all, you aren't having to land the missile or even go for pin point accuracy.

I would agree though that it is not that simple in that we are looking at flying a bomber hundreds of miles from a cockpit in another aircraft. At very least we are looking at doing it in good weather. Also we are looking at air supremacy; fighting off even a few interceptors is risky because it would take just one of them to go for the plane that only flies on a level course to stop the mission.

On the other hand, the technology for this is available in the late thirties/early forties.

And the technology to trace or to interfere with radiocontrol is also around. The Allies had ways to jam the Fritz X for example.
AFAIK you might as well radio the time and day of your strike to your enemy.

Originally Posted by burmafrd

All in all there really was no way it happens much earlier. No matter how you do it, the expenditure in money and resources is HUGE.

Agree.

IMHO it's probably the easiest, cheapest and fastest to do what the Allies did IRL with delivery by a heavy bomber. Both the development of said bomber and the A-bomb are probably not going to be able to get done much faster.