Atomic bomb deployed against Germans

[Catsmate]

I would use the Lancaster bomber. It actually was better suited to dropping an atomic bomb than the B-29 was. With that, the Allies could have hit anyplace.

If I were in charge, I would start with Berlin. Yes, it kills the leadership. It would kill all command and control. Individual generals in the field would be lost without orders. Would Germany have been able to coordinate a war without Berlin? Would the soldiers in the field fight on when they find out that the capitol of the Reich was gone? Many wouldn't. Hamburg was another logical alternative. That would kill imports. Of course, that had been pounded over and over. Or you could pick a city on the Ziegfried Line and blow it and the nearby section of the line up. Cologne or Dusseldorf maybe? Both are in pretty level areas so that would aid the blast.

Stuttgart is bordering mountainous, lots of variation in height. Not as good for the shockwave spreading. I don't think Munich would be ideal either. It's up high enough that the AA guns are more likely to get lucky at like 600 meters. It's 500 meters closer to the target than Cologne. Terrain wise, Berlin would be best at 40 meters and pretty darn flat. Of course, it would be the best protected place AA wise.

It was too slow for truly safe deployment and couldn't accommodate the MK3 bomb IIRR.
Destroying Berlin is a bad idea, for the reasons given previously.

 

[DougM]

The B29 while being the next Generation of bomber was not designed in case England fell. It had long range for the day. But not that long.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The lancaster can't, there's a reason why the B-29 is developed and why the project cost more than the manhattan project

Actually the standard B29 could not either. The "Silver Plate" model was modified for the task. The original specifications for the B29 were made available to the bidders in December 1939. Boeing roughed out its Model 345 prototype in May 1940. (This seems fast, but Boeing had been working on this design in house from 1938.). First production contract for the B29 was in 1941 for 264 airframes. Its difficult to think the B29 was developed for a weapon that was not even conceived in 1941. Modification of the B29 design started in 1943 & revolved around rebuilding the two separate bomb bays into a single compartment and reinforcing the fuselage structure. Along with some reworking of the electrical wiring. Rebuilding other large bombers for this task is not out of the question.

The cost of the B29 had to do with a relatively inefficient manufacturing process, due to its initial low priority, and the effort to make a poorly built or designed engine serve. Then there was the cost of building the total number, and including the cost of features never used by the Silverplate program. ie: the expensive remote controlled gun turrets were not used on the Silverplate examples deployed vs Japan.

 

[Crowbar Six]

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.

It's a relatively small bomb. Unless the bunkers are below the detonation they would likely survive. Plus the "demonstration" nuke would happen a long way from the Home Islands and the Japanese would only have garbled and limited information on the effects, if they are going to use a demonstration nuke in the Pacific then an actual attack on the mainland is pretty much the way to do it.

If they are hitting a German target then Dresden would be the best option, it was a logistics hub and had been left pretty much unmolested.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The B29 while being the next Generation of bomber was not designed in case England fell. It had long range for the day. But not that long.

Quite right, that is what the B36 was for.

 

[The Laughing Hyenas]

The B29 while being the next Generation of bomber was not designed in case England fell. It had long range for the day. But not that long.

It could have made it from Canada to Nazi occupied Northern Ireland. That's 2,000 miles flying distance. Theoretically, all of the British Isles and even some of France was within range. Once Ireland was liberated, the B-17 and B-24 could have hammered Manchester, Cardiff, Birmingham, London, etc.

 

[RanulfC]

It could have made it from Canada to Nazi occupied Northern Ireland. That's 2,000 miles flying distance. Theoretically, all of the British Isles and even some of France was within range. Once Ireland was liberated, the B-17 and B-24 could have hammered Manchester, Cardiff, Birmingham, London, etc.

Combat range was about 1,600 miles. 2,000 would be with almost no bombs or a one way trip and certainly not an atomic bomb. Again the people pointing out the B-36 (and the other prototypes under that requirement) was the 'bomber if England fell' are correct.

Randy

 

[aaronupright]

Actually the standard B29 could not either. The "Silver Plate" model was modified for the task. The original specifications for the B29 were made available to the bidders in December 1939. Boeing roughed out its Model 345 prototype in May 1940. (This seems fast, but Boeing had been working on this design in house from 1938.). First production contract for the B29 was in 1941 for 264 airframes. Its difficult to think the B29 was developed for a weapon that was not even conceived in 1941. Modification of the B29 design started in 1943 & revolved around rebuilding the two separate bomb bays into a single compartment and reinforcing the fuselage structure. Along with some reworking of the electrical wiring. Rebuilding other large bombers for this task is not out of the question.

The design limits for the atomic bombs casings were specified with reference to the Lancaster.

The cost of the B29 had to do with a relatively inefficient manufacturing process, due to its initial low priority, and the effort to make a poorly built or designed engine serve. Then there was the cost of building the total number, and including the cost of features never used by the Silverplate program. ie: the expensive remote controlled gun turrets were not used on the Silverplate examples deployed vs Japan.

The Sherman tank manufacturing and the Essex class program also cost more than the Manhattan project. actually, pretty much every major weapons development effort did. The Manhattan project costs were only notable due to the tiny number of weapons made by wars end (3 explosive devices and maybe a dozen or so more which coulf have been produced) compared with the dozens of capital ships, thousands of bombers and tens of thousands of tanks made for similar overall costs.