Atomic bomb deployed against Germans

[acgoldis]

Suppose the war in Europe drags on longer or the atomic bomb is ready 6 months earlier than IOTL. This gives whoever is President at the time the opportunity to deploy the weapon against the Germans, the Japanese, or both.

What would an attack against the Germans have been like? What would the target have been, and how would the target site be perceived in the resulting Cold War? After all, it would likely be a no-mans-land location right near the eventual border between the Western Allies and the Russians.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an immediate ban on nuclear weapons given the use of chemical weapons 30 years earlier and the fact that the destroyed area is right in the middle of Europe instead of somewhere off in Japan. After all, both sides can just go over there and see what happened.

 

[jlckansas]

Nuremberg or Munich makes a good target or hitting Leipzig since it was relatively intact at if you go 6 months early.

 

[wcv215]

After all, it would likely be a no-mans-land location right near the eventual border between the Western Allies and the Russians.

Because Hiroshima, population 1.2 million, is infamously uninhabitable no man’s land I guess.

the fact that the destroyed area is right in the middle of Europe

Versus conventional bombs, which did a number on multiple cities.

Most likely IMO the first target would be Dresden, for the reasons it was targeted for conventional attacks OTL. Atomic bombs would not be banned. Most likely the view is the same as OTL with Imperial Japan.

 

[acgoldis]

Truly insane idea if the bomb is developed 6 months earlier.

Was the United States still jumping from island to island in Japan at the time, blowing away bases on each island and suffering horrendous casualties as a result? I just looked up Iwo Jima and that was February/March 1945.

Instead of sending 20,000 Marines to die on Iwo Jima, blow away the Japanese with a nuke. I doubt the tunnels could survive THAT.

This accomplishes several things.

1. Demonstrates the power of the nuke to the Japanese and Germans.
2. Makes them think twice about trying to fortify islands.
3. Since the target is an island, minimal civilians are killed...but it's a warning saying "you can be next!"

Granted, it won't do much good if you NEED the island later on, but still...

Maybe hit the island first and then target Hiroshima and/or Dresden with the next two bombs if one or both Axis powers refuse to surrender after this warning.

 

[Post]

Granted, it won't do much good if you NEED the island later on, but still...

I think it's a great idea, but they did need the island later on, at least they thought they did. They wanted it to station fighters for escorting the bombers to Japan and as a emergency-airfield for damaged bombers. But they ectually hardly used it.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Most likely IMO the first target would be Dresden, for the reasons it was targeted for conventional attacks OTL. Atomic bombs would not be banned. Most likely the view is the same as OTL with Imperial Japan

Honestly the bomb could be seen better ttl. Otl a lot of people say it was only deployed out of racism against japan. Can't really say that when it's white americans blowing Germany to kingdom come.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Other Ways to Use the Little Boy Device

Last time this came up I sent a minute looking for details on the German 7th Army supply depots, in Normandy. There was a largish cluster of them around the Falaise area. While I don't see much physical destruction of the material Im thinking the injury to personnel in a several kilometers radius and damage to communications would cripple the 7th Army supplies for several days, if not for a couple weeks. A little early for this specific PoD, but suitable for others.


A few incidents like flattening von Schweppenbergs HQ in Normandy 10 June 1944 with 300+ RAF bombers made the Germans more circumspect about their HQ security. But, there might still be opportunities. Abruptly destroying any major HQ has a momentary paralyzing effect. If the attacker is prepared to take advantage such a action can be devastating.

 

[Garrison]

Other Ways to Use the Little Boy Device

Last time this came up I sent a minute looking for details on the German 7th Army supply depots, in Normandy. There was a largish cluster of them around the Falaise area. While I don't see much physical destruction of the material Im thinking the injury to personnel in a several kilometers radius and damage to communications would cripple the 7th Army supplies for several days, if not for a couple weeks. A little early for this specific PoD, but suitable for others.


A few incidents like flattening von Schweppenbergs HQ in Normandy 10 June 1944 with 300+ RAF bombers made the Germans more circumspect about their HQ security. But, there might still be opportunities. Abruptly destroying any major HQ has a momentary paralyzing effect. If the attacker is prepared to take advantage such a action can be devastating.

But honestly nothing you couldn't probably do better with a Tallboy bomb.

 

[marktaha]

Book The.Moscow Option mentioned war ending with A Bombs on Stuttgart and Nuremberg.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

But honestly nothing you couldn't probably do better with a Tallboy bomb.

The RAF dumped 450 tons on Schweppenbergs Pz Group West HQ late afternoon 10 June. Would a couple tall boys inflict that much damage? I don't have a good estimate for tonnage dropped on the 7th Army supply sites in June-July but it was in excess of 5,000 sorties of all classes of bombers. The storage sites were dispersed as best as could be done under the circumstances. Thats why I'd dismiss severe physical damage and only consider personnel and communications losses.

 

[DougM]

A few problem with Using the Bomb in Germany.
Assuming A Feb delivery date for a finished bomb. And assuming the war is 6 months behind were it was in the real timeline, This puts the Alies in a position just a bit earlier then the real timeline Market Garden. So the Allies have pushed Germany back to the Edges of its own Territory.
So dropping the bomb will have to take place basically in Germany to avoid getting it TOO close to your own troops, There is the first problem albeit relatively minor.
Problem 2 Germany still has a bit of an Active Air Defence including Jets.,, .I think the Drops were from about 30-32 K feet. Anyone know how high a ME262 can get or the 163?
Problem 3 you do not have B 29s in europe so you need yo bring them over as well as the support crews and parts and such which is not a little endeavor. (and NO the US is not letting GB drop the Nuke even if they had an Aircraft that could dobit)
Problem 4. if you. only bring over a few Silver Plates for the Nukes you are kind of giving away that you are doing something different. And you may as well blow a buggel if you have to do a second one. So you are definnintaly scream…. “Shoot THIS one, this one right here!”
Problem 5. If you bring over sine regular B-29s to use conventionally you are eating into the very limited supply that is despratly needed against Japan where range is a huge issue.
Problem 6. Even in a Slowed Europe theater the invasion of Germany is going yo be simpler then landing on Mainland Japan. and then having yo do it again for the next homecisland…. So you are going yo miss those Nukes.
Problem 7. There is a bit of a surpise factor involved in just destroying on sit out of the clear blue sky with no precident for it. I image that would be quite shocking. If you vaporised Hamburge a couplecmonths back then Japan is not going to be very surpised
Problem 8. By using the bomb and the B-29 combo in Germany you have warned Japan that they want to find a way to down one of this. This may not be enough to do Japan any good but…. It still shows your hand.
Problem 9. if the US could start hitting Japan with Nukes 6 as soon as a close enough air strip is available you could potentially safe more lives then using them in Germany. Or even hit the Islands. The casulties on those landers were horrendeous.
Problem 10. (my personal biggest problem). One of the most obvious Ztargets would be Hamburg. But If you hit Hamburg.. odds are i am not
here!

So while it can be done and none if the problems are so drastic as to be inposible to over come (except 10 ) they do add up to the. point that you are probably better stock piling them until you can flatten the Japan.

 

[RanulfC]

Suppose the war in Europe drags on longer or the atomic bomb is ready 6 months earlier than IOTL. This gives whoever is President at the time the opportunity to deploy the weapon against the Germans, the Japanese, or both.

Things were going quite well in Germany so the use of the bombs there had already been reconsidered and set aside. Part of the reason for this was that the stronger construction of European buildings might lead to less damage and a lowering of the "threat" of an atomic bombing. (Keep in mind that at the time and without any test the 'bomb' was seen as just a bigger explosive with no real understanding of the longer term effects)

I'll also point out you needed to then deploy the B-29 to Europe which was only done on a 'test' basis and it was found that handling the new bomber would have been a major problem in theatre. (The "good" news is flying alone or in separate 'pairs' as the Silverplate bombers did would likely not generate a response as they'd be seen as reconnaissance or observation aircraft rather than bombers... Till they dropped the first A-Bomb that is

What would an attack against the Germans have been like? What would the target have been, and how would the target site be perceived in the resulting Cold War? After all, it would likely be a no-mans-land location right near the eventual border between the Western Allies and the Russians.

"No man's land?" The bomb literally wasn't that bad and in fact it would have looked a LOT like a burned out city from conventional and fire-bombing except it was done with only "one" (1) bomb. Most of the concrete and sturdy brick and steel buildings would still be standing, (like they are in pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from OTL) and most of the damage would be repaired post-war. The Soviets would have been a lot less impressed as they could directly see the damage, (or lack thereof) and get direct data on the effects and outcomes rather than having to rely on mostly US provided data as they were OTL initially.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an immediate ban on nuclear weapons given the use of chemical weapons 30 years earlier and the fact that the destroyed area is right in the middle of Europe instead of somewhere off in Japan. After all, both sides can just go over there and see what happened.

I would highly doubt you got the same backlash as chemical weapons and besides, DESPITE inter-war prohibitions and regulations everyone in WWII was prepared for and ready to wage chemical warfare should it come to it. You're vastly over-stating the effects of the early atomic weapons, one just needs to look at Hiroshima before the bomb, after the bomb and a few years later to see that the overall effects were pretty negligible over the long term. Most of the 'evidence' of the bombing had to be specifically and specially preserved to last to today.

Again the overall effect will look to be LESS given the construction in Europe so the overall 'threat' of the bomb would likely be seen as LESS rather than more.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Nuremberg or Munich makes a good target or hitting Leipzig since it was relatively intact at if you go 6 months early.

IIRC Nuremburg and Munich were on the list due to their importance to the Nazis, Berlin (like Tokyo) were off the list as capitals and the need for a government to be available to surrender. Leipzig was too far east (and a good thing for my wife given that's where her mother was from) and to close to Soviet forces. I don't recall Hamburg being on the list either. Keep in mind the 'list' was very tentative as there was no expectation of the bomb being available for the European war and the issues with European versus Japanese construction.

Randy

 

[BlueTrousers]

IIRC Nuremburg and Munich were on the list due to their importance to the Nazis, Berlin (like Tokyo) were off the list as capitals and the need for a government to be available to surrender. Leipzig was too far east (and a good thing for my wife given that's where her mother was from) and to close to Soviet forces. I don't recall Hamburg being on the list either. Keep in mind the 'list' was very tentative as there was no expectation of the bomb being available for the European war and the issues with European versus Japanese construction.

I'm not sure that there was a list, but I'm happy to be corrected on this - using the A-bomb on Germany fell out of consideration fairly early on, before target selection got going, as it became apparent that it wouldn't be needed. There was never really a decision not to use it, people just stopped talking about the possibility.

That said, I've read somewhere that the proposed attack profile was to operate out of an airfield further west in the UK (possibly Aldergrove), and build up to high speed and high altitude over the North Sea before a bomb run on a German target. The B-29's range wouldn't be necessary, so it could operate at lighter weights for higher performance to minimise the impact of German air defences.

Again the overall effect will look to be LESS given the construction in Europe so the overall 'threat' of the bomb would likely be seen as LESS rather than more.

Remember, too, that if the A-bomb is ready six months earlier, they probably start being produced at scale. Which is to say, one more in February - this weapon was almost ready for shipment when Japan surrendered in OTL - then three or four bombs a month (i.e. seven every two months) from March onwards. This isn't a consideration of the war in Germany is delayed for six months - which is easy in the West, but probably requires a 1941 PoD for the Eastern front.

There's some reason to think that if the weapons were used against both Japan and Germany, the first usage would be close to simultaneous against both countries to maximise surprise. The timing of events would mean that the USSR won't be invading Manchuria when the bombs drop, so how that plays out in Japan depends on your view on the reason for Japanese surrender. I don't think that the A-bomb alone would do it. And I certainly don't think it would cause German surrender, either.

With the example of two countries being subjected to atomic bombing, and the war continuing in both cases? The narrative of nuclear weapons will be very different. It's almost a given that they'll start being used against theatre targets - this was planned for OLYMPIC anyway - and that opens the door to use in subsequent conflicts. This has the possibility to be a very grim world.

 

[RanulfC]

I'm not sure that there was a list, but I'm happy to be corrected on this - using the A-bomb on Germany fell out of consideration fairly early on, before target selection got going, as it became apparent that it wouldn't be needed. There was never really a decision not to use it, people just stopped talking about the possibility.

One of the Atomic History sites has the declassified "discussions" from early on when it was not clear yet. IIRC the list was highly tentative and pretty short and more attention was paid to comparative tests of projected bomb effects on "European" and "Asian" construction.

That said, I've read somewhere that the proposed attack profile was to operate out of an airfield further west in the UK (possibly Aldergrove), and build up to high speed and high altitude over the North Sea before a bomb run on a German target. The B-29's range wouldn't be necessary, so it could operate at lighter weights for higher performance to minimize the impact of German air defenses.

Remember, too, that if the A-bomb is ready six months earlier, they probably start being produced at scale. Which is to say, one more in February - this weapon was almost ready for shipment when Japan surrendered in OTL - then three or four bombs a month (i.e. seven every two months) from March onwards. This isn't a consideration of the war in Germany is delayed for six months - which is easy in the West, but probably requires a 1941 PoD for the Eastern front.

There's some reason to think that if the weapons were used against both Japan and Germany, the first usage would be close to simultaneous against both countries to maximize surprise. The timing of events would mean that the USSR won't be invading Manchuria when the bombs drop, so how that plays out in Japan depends on your view on the reason for Japanese surrender. I don't think that the A-bomb alone would do it. And I certainly don't think it would cause German surrender, either.

With the example of two countries being subjected to atomic bombing, and the war continuing in both cases? The narrative of nuclear weapons will be very different. It's almost a given that they'll start being used against theatre targets - this was planned for OLYMPIC anyway - and that opens the door to use in subsequent conflicts. This has the possibility to be a very grim world.

To keep in context we need to understand that while some thought the A-bombs alone would end resistance (such as Truman) others with more knowledge of both the situation and weapons were less convinced since (in general) A-bombs were "just" more powerful bombs and heavy and fire bombing itself wasn't inducing surrender.
To be honest if they had been used extensively in a tactical role they will likely be less seen as a firmly strategic weapon. Meaning they will (as you say) probably be used more rather than less.

Randy

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

That said, I've read somewhere that the proposed attack profile was to operate out of an airfield further west in the UK (possibly Aldergrove), and build up to high speed and high altitude over the North Sea before a bomb run on a German target. The B-29's range wouldn't be necessary, so it could operate at lighter weights for higher performance to minimise the impact of German air defences.

This is not far from the flight profile for weather and photo recon missions. The Japanese did not bother to attack the Enola Gay & Bocks Car because they barely noticed those among the stream of individual planes touring the Japanese skys. The Germans harassed Allied single plane flights when practical, but most flew unmolested. There is a idea in circulation that a bomber on this A Bomb mission would be horribly vulnerable. Actually it & the accompanying photo chase plane would be lost in the traffic in German skys. Plus there is no reason a fighter escort cant be provided. Eventually the Germans will figure out that small 2-3 plane groups can be dangerous, but which ones? Between the difficulties of identification, deception, high altitude interception, and escorts, few of these Atomic missions will be moleted.

 

[wcv215]

Eventually the Germans will figure out that small 2-3 plane groups can be dangerous, but which ones? Between the difficulties of identification, deception, high altitude interception, and escorts, few of these Atomic missions will be moleted.

And if they do try to throw fighters at every such group it will deplete fuel reserves and make maintenance issues worse faster.

 

[Gillan1220]

Truly insane idea if the bomb is developed 6 months earlier.

Was the United States still jumping from island to island in Japan at the time, blowing away bases on each island and suffering horrendous casualties as a result? I just looked up Iwo Jima and that was February/March 1945.

Instead of sending 20,000 Marines to die on Iwo Jima, blow away the Japanese with a nuke. I doubt the tunnels could survive THAT.

This accomplishes several things.

1. Demonstrates the power of the nuke to the Japanese and Germans.
2. Makes them think twice about trying to fortify islands.
3. Since the target is an island, minimal civilians are killed...but it's a warning saying "you can be next!"

Granted, it won't do much good if you NEED the island later on, but still...

Maybe hit the island first and then target Hiroshima and/or Dresden with the next two bombs if one or both Axis powers refuse to surrender after this warning.

Would it not be a waste to use the atomic bomb in Iwo Jima? Apart from it being an airfield, the strategic value was not that numerous. Battleship bombardment or bombing it with B-24s would have been more useful than using the most powerful weapon at that time.

My guess is that the USAAF drops it on Munich, Dresden, or Hamburg.

To keep in context we need to understand that while some thought the A-bombs alone would end resistance (such as Truman) others with more knowledge of both the situation and weapons were less convinced since (in general) A-bombs were "just" more powerful bombs and heavy and fire bombing itself wasn't inducing surrender.
To be honest if they had been used extensively in a tactical role they will likely be less seen as a firmly strategic weapon. Meaning they will (as you say) probably be used more rather than less.

Randy

Radiation wasn't also well understood at this period. Keep in mind the U.S. also planned to use atomic bombs in Japan during Operation Downfall, meaning American troops and marines would be exposed to deadly fall out while fighting the IJA.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

One of the under considered items in these attacks is the effect on German telephonic and radio communications. In my 1980s nuclear battlefield training the EMP damage was a consideration. The exact vulnerability of German telegraph & telephone is not clear, but the non classified information of the landlines networks around Hiroshima & Nagasaki indicates the effect was not trivial and neutralized regional communication for 48 to 96 hours. Earlier I referred to a air burst disrupting the German 7th Armys logistics in Normandy. if such detonation blacks out the 7th Army communications for 12 hours it is a major disruption to the plans for deploying the Pz Reserve in a counter strike. One also has to think about the effect on morale. Detonated just before dawn in the vicinity of the supply dumps around Falaise the flash and illuminated 'cloud tower will be visible across a third of Normandy. If there is a second available then detonating that over either the 7th Army HQ or the Army Group G HQ increases the command/comm blackout effect & subsequent effects on morale.

 

[wcv215]

One of the under considered items in these attacks is the effect on German telephonic and radio communications. In my 1980s nuclear battlefield training the EMP damage was a consideration. The exact vulnerability of German telegraph & telephone is not clear, but the non classified information of the landlines networks around Hiroshima & Nagasaki indicates the effect was not trivial and neutralized regional communication for 48 to 96 hours. Earlier I referred to a air burst disrupting the German 7th Armys logistics in Normandy. if such detonation blacks out the 7th Army communications for 12 hours it is a major disruption to the plans for deploying the Pz Reserve in a counter strike. One also has to think about the effect on morale. Detonated just before dawn in the vicinity of the supply dumps around Falaise the flash and illuminated 'cloud tower will be visible across a third of Normandy. If there is a second available then detonating that over either the 7th Army HQ or the Army Group G HQ increases the command/comm blackout effect & subsequent effects on morale.

Vaccuum tubes are a lot more resistant to effects of EMPs than later circuits. About ten million times harder than integrated circuitry than that used even in the 1970s.