The Lancaster (modified) carried Tall Boy bombs that were as heavy as Fat Man.
WI: The British Created the First Atomic Bomb
- Thread starter SirFez
- Start date
- Status
The Lancaster (modified) carried Tall Boy bombs that were as heavy as Fat Man.
And IIRC the Americans adapted the Tall Boy shackles for the A Bomb, so the Lancaster could have carried a nuclear bomb but it couldn't fly fast or high enough to avoid being caught in the blast.
Now if the situation had been desperate enough then perhaps there would have been enough volunteers for a suicide mission? I've read several accounts from Cold War bomber crews who said that they realised that if the attack order had ever come they would have been on a one way trip as there would have been nothing left to return to yet there were still prepared to carry out their mission.
I think it is within the technical capabilities of britain of both developing the bomb and appropriate transport for it. it would probably less costly than the manhattan project because i don't see them taking the multiple path approach (using mutiple ways of enrichment) the us did.
How long it would take would depend highly on how much support then would get, with only slightly more than otl i do see the soviets produce one before them. But with all out support it would be possible.
The soviets are the other problem, considering the fact that stalin probably knew more about tube alloys than most war cabinet members. If the british go further developing the bomb, the soviets will also get lots more info on how to build it, unless the brits get a lucky break and discover the nkvd spy ring. Which means they soviets will be able to build it soon after the brits
How long it would take would depend highly on how much support then would get, with only slightly more than otl i do see the soviets produce one before them. But with all out support it would be possible.
The soviets are the other problem, considering the fact that stalin probably knew more about tube alloys than most war cabinet members. If the british go further developing the bomb, the soviets will also get lots more info on how to build it, unless the brits get a lucky break and discover the nkvd spy ring. Which means they soviets will be able to build it soon after the brits
The RAF ordered Boeing Washingtons to expand on it's capabilities, OTL. I can't see any reason why they did that, keeping in mind the capabilities of a modified Lancaster.
As I understand it, Lincolns were considered vulnerable and the Washingtons were ordered as a stopgap until jet bombers entered service.
I don't know about you, but I would volunteer for a suicide mission if I knew it would end the war. Also, being a hero and going into the history books is nice.
I highlighted the key idea here.
If the United Kingdom does spend the resources to develop the atomic bomb on its own and a delivery system, then they would not have the resources to build other things. The result of such reallocation of resources could result in a far worse fate for the United Kingdom. While it is popular for folks to ignore these unintended consequences, these are real concern--resources are scarce and decisions have consequences, many of which are unanticipated.
BlondieBC
Banned
Agreed.
Baring other butterflies that help the UK, the UK will be in much, much worse shape. Lets take two scenarios:
1) Starts in 1934, after patent is approved. The most likely place to find the money is the existing R&D budget for the military, and the second most likely is diverting resources from university hard science budgets. So for this part, a good way to simulate would be to delay the development of technology across the board by 2-4 years. Imagine the Battle of Britain fought with the 1937 radar network. Or the battle of the Atlantic fought with two year older sonar/radar. Another great place to find bright young minds is the teams breaking the German codes.
Now at some point the program goes from pure R&D to applied R&D. It will now need a lot more funding than the R&D can provide. So we are now looking at delaying canceling ship, tanks, and airplane budgets combined with fewer active regiments and squadrons. This is harder to model, but one scenario might be two weapons in late 1943 in exchange for a 10% reduction is size of UK military using that introduces equipment 1-4 years behind OTL. And once France falls, which will be even easier in this ATL, the UK likely defunds the Tube Alloy.
2) Some have suggested a latter start. So lets say a start after Munich. It is hard to see where the resources would come from and how the bomb could be completed before 1947. But lets say the decision was made, and for simplicity of modeling, it consumes 10% the military budget of Canada, which should be about the right order of magnitude. So in 1938, Canada uses its vast hydroelectric resources and uranium mines and people to start working on the bomb. Even with this huge commitment, the bomb is still after the war. The Allies are short 130,000 men and about 10% of the overall budget. Initially it would not be that bad, only losing a division. But for example, Canada produced 800,000 trucks, so what it only produces half as many? Someone is losing a lot of mobility, quite possibly the Russians. Ships = 400. Bomber command personnel = 1/6 of UK forces and even higher % of training bases. Hard to model exactly, but clearly the UK is net harmed.
Its difficult to get an early start past the Dec 1939 experiment that showed viability of a fission device. Until then, no-one was keeping any of the science particulary secret, so any earlier discovery sets everyone off earlier (with rather unpredictable results!)
An earlier British bomb probaby requires concentrating on the Plute bomb only (the U-235 was the expensive one). That is easily within the UK/Commonwealth capability (much of the costs dont impact on existing programs). Ideally you need a PoD to start them off seriously as soon as its realized you only need kilos, not tonnes, of Plute for a vialble bomb.
Ready by 1945? Its by no means impossible, it requires some things to go right or better, but its certainly not ASB. A stronger comittment from Canada (maybe the UK agreeing to share the bomb with the Dominion early on) will help.
As to delivery, its a lot easier to make a small number of modified aircraft to carry the bomb than a whole class of them. Again, the resources were there - the British were looking later in the war at follow-ons to the Lancaster, this time they'd concentrate probably on modding a few and only doing one replacement class. Alternative Germany has lots of vulnerable ports. Even using a Lancaster, it isnt necessarily suicide. Its very dangerous, but with a good pilot you do have a chance. Paradropping the bomb would help a lot, of course...
An earlier British bomb probaby requires concentrating on the Plute bomb only (the U-235 was the expensive one). That is easily within the UK/Commonwealth capability (much of the costs dont impact on existing programs). Ideally you need a PoD to start them off seriously as soon as its realized you only need kilos, not tonnes, of Plute for a vialble bomb.
Ready by 1945? Its by no means impossible, it requires some things to go right or better, but its certainly not ASB. A stronger comittment from Canada (maybe the UK agreeing to share the bomb with the Dominion early on) will help.
As to delivery, its a lot easier to make a small number of modified aircraft to carry the bomb than a whole class of them. Again, the resources were there - the British were looking later in the war at follow-ons to the Lancaster, this time they'd concentrate probably on modding a few and only doing one replacement class. Alternative Germany has lots of vulnerable ports. Even using a Lancaster, it isnt necessarily suicide. Its very dangerous, but with a good pilot you do have a chance. Paradropping the bomb would help a lot, of course...
You are completely misunderstanding the way money was being allocated to defence spending by the UK in the runup to WW2.
In general, spending was limited by what could be built by 1938. The resources required for a bomb dont overlap those used to build weapons. They do overlap with those used to build weapons plants, but the Uk was being rather active in that respect.
The nuclear scientists werent being employed in codebreaking, so thats another red herring. (a glow-in-the-dark herring?
)BlondieBC
Banned
You are completely misunderstanding the way money was being allocated to defence spending by the UK in the runup to WW2.
In general, spending was limited by what could be built by 1938. The resources required for a bomb dont overlap those used to build weapons. They do overlap with those used to build weapons plants, but the Uk was being rather active in that respect.
The nuclear scientists werent being employed in codebreaking, so thats another red herring. (a glow-in-the-dark herring?
No, I was talking an early to mid 1930's start. Many of these bright and gifted math minds would have been diverted to the project. There are a limited number of people able to do the math for advance physics and a limited number of people able to do codebreaking. Many, if not most of the people in these two talent pools overlap. And even with a 1940 started, some of these will overlap, even though less than if started in 1935 due to education issues.
I simply don't buy you "all weapons built by 1938". Where did the weapons built in 1939 come from? Or the new weapons systems deployed in 1939, 40 or 41. Someone was working on the newer engines, newer tanks, newer air frames. How do you explain the 5 battleships of the KGV class, each started before 1938 and finished after 1939? Or the Illustrious class of CV?
Or the newer versions of the Spitfire?
If the UK does a major investment in the atomic bomb, these type of programs will be cancelled, delayed, or smaller production runs. And these cancellations will mean the UK does worse in WW2, not better.
BlondieBC
Banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
So you are talking a mid 1941 project start unless you have the UK beginning an Uranium project much earlier, which will get into the delays in my other posts. The UK is going max effort in 1941 against the Nazi's, so what other programs did you plan to take the resources from? I just don't see the UK getting a bomb before the war ends IOTL, and the project will harm the UK in WW2 because the USA is not going to replace the UK lost resources devoted to this program. We are talking 10,000's of skilled men be they machinist, physicist, engineer, or other skill trades. And the impact of moving say engineers from airplane design and production will be felt almost immediately in lower production of airplanes and lower quality. The physicists moved from radar and sonar projects will also have an impact.
Any serious start by mid-30's requires a DRASTIC set of PoD's in nuclear research across the world, and would have massive effects on the start of WW2. Which is why it makes much more sense (for the idea suggested at the start) to look at events after December 1938/Jan 1939. Otherwise the worms are so much getting decanned as blasting their way out with high explosive....
Precisely. Given the leaders of the UK realized at that point lacked the resources to make developing adequate aircraft in sufficient numbers forthe Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command a top priority and instead relied on the unselfish generosity of the United States, I imagine the same leaders would choose not to devote resources to developing a bomb and a delivery system in late 1940 or 1941. The leaders of the UK would be more than smart enough to realize the inherent risk in trying to build an entirely new and untried type of weapon, particularly of which whose existence was only based on theories so new complicated that but a few people in the world new and understood them. This, after all, is a nation that views itself as a naval power but is cancelling battleships due to lack of resources.
Setting the delivery system aside, I think the real question is: What do you consider British?
While it would have perfectly plausible for the UK to design their own bomb (and they did in 1947), the practical difficultly is in actually making the fissile material. Both main methods (plutonium production and direct enrichment) require large amounts of land, very expensive raw materials, and huge amounts of electrial power. The latter is why both US production sites (Handford and Oak Ridge) were built next to hydroelectric dams in isolated areas.
It would be very difficult for Britain itself to supply the needed power, land, and material even before the war, much less during it. Canada, however, could easily supply all three, and was in fact the focus of OTL pre-1942 British nuclear development. So, if the UK had decided in the late 1930s to go full-bore on developing an atomic bomb, nearly all the build-up would actually have been in Canada, with the completed bombs being flown to the UK for actual usage.
While it would have perfectly plausible for the UK to design their own bomb (and they did in 1947), the practical difficultly is in actually making the fissile material. Both main methods (plutonium production and direct enrichment) require large amounts of land, very expensive raw materials, and huge amounts of electrial power. The latter is why both US production sites (Handford and Oak Ridge) were built next to hydroelectric dams in isolated areas.
It would be very difficult for Britain itself to supply the needed power, land, and material even before the war, much less during it. Canada, however, could easily supply all three, and was in fact the focus of OTL pre-1942 British nuclear development. So, if the UK had decided in the late 1930s to go full-bore on developing an atomic bomb, nearly all the build-up would actually have been in Canada, with the completed bombs being flown to the UK for actual usage.
Start an A Bomb project in 1935-6. You need a different Parliament to pull that off. This is the age of appeasement when Baldwin was resisting any proposals to rearm. That the country is just emerging from the Great depression doesn't help either. Yes it could probably have been within the technical abilities of Britain but there just wouldn't have been the political will to invest the time and money into what would seam at the time to be a science fiction dream.
- Status