A-Bomb Developed Six Years Earlier

IIRC, at first, no-one had aircraft capable of delivering the physical tonnage of a gun-type bomb, never mind as one great lump
jnwbpq5dnh3usk1rsphi.jpg

Douglas XB-19, Summer of 1941
two 37mm cannons, five .50s and six .30s
Bomb bay was rated for 18,000 pounds. Tops speed of 225 mph. 4200 mile range

Would really need a parachute to slow the bomb to give the bomber time to get out of the area
 
If the Germans had more time, their reactor was a Chernobyl in the making. They got lucky they never had enough material to try for full scale test.
 
You get one shot. Even the crappiest air force of the time will have zero trouble taking down a 7 million cubic foot gas bag with a maximum speed of 81 mph.

It'd be a sneak attack. "Ya, we are just a big harmless airship carrying expendable passengers and not-very important mail. And a way-too-intense captain. Mind if we overfly your city?"

They were permitted to do so in OTL, even though the craft could (and did!) explode in a fiery inferno.

Note: I'm told that replacing the hydrogen with gaseous deuterium would not boost the yield, though.
 
The Sedan land-mine is about all you could use one for at that stage of war.

IIRC, at first, no-one had aircraft capable of delivering the physical tonnage of a gun-type bomb, never mind as one great lump. It was the four-engined Lancaster --Spun from the twin-engined Manchester ??-- then stretched and up-up-engined that eventually proved capable of hoiking the Tallboy and other 'traditional' big bombs to their targets in Europe. What was the state of play of the B-17 at the start of WW2 ?? Never mind the silver B-s that eventually did for Japan...

Assume they're all stuck with gun-type bombs. One logical target would be the Tirpitz & co in the fiords. You'd need X-Class mini-subs a bit sooner, but those could ferry a nuke, and it would NOT need to be up against the ship's hull per the OTL attacks. Outside the immediate 'torpedo' netting would serve...

By the same token, had the Germans got the tech first, their logical target, beyond the Thames & London, would surely be Scapa Flow. There was a submarine attack, but a nuclear mine would cause devastation among the un-prepared ships. It might not sink many, but its shock-wave would surely cripple the anchored fleet by damaging boilers, piping, turbines, bearings etc etc. and injuring crew...
Gun-barrel bombs require uranium, hence isotopic separation, which is a massive industrial undertaking. In fact the plants, costing billions of dollars, were the most expensive and complicated facilities built until the 1980s.
 
IIRC, at first, no-one had aircraft capable of delivering the physical tonnage of a gun-type bomb, never mind as one great lump.
What about the Short Mayo Composite to deliver the bomb?
300px-MM_Short_Mayo_Composite_scan.jpg

Bomb in the bottom and the crew get away in the top part.
 
What about the Short Mayo Composite to deliver the bomb?
300px-MM_Short_Mayo_Composite_scan.jpg

Bomb in the bottom and the crew get away in the top part.
Frankly I'd give the Zep a better chance of surviving air defenses.
Also the SMC didn't have the capacity for a MK1 or MK3 type device, weighing about four tonnes, in the modified C-class.
 
If the Germans had more time, their reactor was a Chernobyl in the making. They got lucky they never had enough material to try for full scale test.
A major accident and radioactive material release would actually make a really intetesting POD.
 
Must be understood the US was running two bomb projects. Both a Uranium & Plutonium devices were sought. Rolling the development back two years, & with better organized research previous it is possible one type will be pursued. That cuts cost substantially. A better organized project, vs the fast track US program will have less waste as well.
 
Top