And you have no evidence the British weren't trying as hard as they could post-war to get the bomb.
They didn't start until 1947, and were trying to do it in secret, in peacetime.
And you have no evidence the British weren't trying as hard as they could post-war to get the bomb.
They didn't start until 1947, and were trying to do it in secret, in peacetime.
You realize that the British developed nuclear weapons during the Cold War? Why does the British doing it in secret matter?
Because doing it in peacetime, in secret, post-war means that you have to:
- do it in accordance with peacetime rules and regulations, no sealing off areas for large plants etc
- hide the budget, so no throwing money at it
- place it behind peacetime priorities, like paying for the recent war and establishing the NHS, so absolutely no throwing money at it
By 1950, Germany and its air force is in a position to sink the British navy if it stays based in the UK, and they don't need to achieve 1950s level anti-ship missiles that early to do it, either.
Although, it is probably unnecessary, because one can be pretty much assured (an utter certainty) that the Germans would have gotten the bomb before the British, anyways, considering the spectacular progress they made OTL.
Their progress was spectac-ularly....The spectacular progress where they were absolutely nowhere near building a bomb before the end of the war?
Okay, here are a couple of limitations with the Dowding system that might affect things.
Firstly there was a limit to the number of squadrons that could be controlled by each sector due to technical issues with radio frequencies. That limit was four, so with 11 Groups seven sectors there would be a limit of 28 squadrons but in reality the number of squadrons never went above twenty three (from memory). Add to this another three from 10 Group and another three from 12 Group and you have 29 squadrons protecting the south east and London at the height of the battle. You can abandon a couple of sectors leaving you with the ability to more or less carry on the same level of protection. Any more than this and the defence is being degraded quite rapidly. Abandon three and you're down to 24 squadrons, abandon four and you're down to 20 squadrons and so on. Setting up new sector operations rooms can take weeks, there was a complex mass of 500 or so phone lines to install for starters.
The second constraint was the range of the HF radio sets which was only 40-60 miles... so from Duxford you can control fighters to as far as the southern portion of London out to the Thames Estuary so there is going to be far more reliance on patrol lines. As it is in OTL only one third of RAF fighter sorties were successfully vectored to make contact with the enemy, this figure will drop the more patrol lines are used.
Next time you want to convince somebody you've read a book try citing from the book itself rather than from some random book review.
Tooze spends almost no time whatever on Sealion. We're literally talking a paragraph or two. The index doesn't even have "Sealion" in it. Tooze's economic argument about the purpose of Barbarossa was that it was intended for war against the United States and Britain. The chapter I cited from earlier, as I said at the time, was called "Preparing for Two Wars at Once". The first being against Russia, the second against the United States. Tooze's verdict on the Barbarossa strategy, I seem to recall, was that it was doomed to failure and could never deliver as intended because Germany did not have the resources available to exploit the Western European economies the 1940 campaign had captured.
In terms of steel production, (ie, the issue you are attempting to distract from), assuming Barbarossa was off the table there was room for a landing craft production scheme, assuming a target date of something like May 1941. The big cost to Barbarossa was in the expansion of the army to 180 divisions and large scale re-equipping. Tooze does not offer an opinion on the amount of labor that might have been freed up with a demobilization of, say, a third or half the army, but it would have been in the millions.
And where have you got that little nugget of information from?The British radio network can support 4factorial squadrons per controller node. Hence argument is NSA.
The spectacular progress where they were absolutely nowhere near building a bomb before the end of the war?
Presumably the UK will do nothing to bother even trying to stop this happening?
So your physics tells you about the state of radio telephony available to Fighter Command in 1940, about the signal degradation, frequency interference and susceptibility to atmospheric conditions... possibly also about the constraints imposed by the requirement for pip squeak following incidents such as the battle of Barking Creek?Physics.
So your physics tells you about the state of radio telephony available to Fighter Command in 1940, about the signal degradation, frequency interference and susceptibility to atmospheric conditions... possibly also about the constraints imposed by the requirement for pip squeak following incidents such as the battle of Barking Creek?
CITATION NEEDED
Documents unearthed in an American archive suggest that Nazi Germany may have tested an operational nuclear bomb before the end of World War Two ...
By the very end of the war, the Germans had progressed from horizontal and spherical layer designs to three-dimensional lattices of uranium cubes immersed in heavy water. They had also developed a nuclear reactor design that almost, but not quite, achieved a controlled and sustained nuclear fission chain reaction. During the last months of the war, a small group of scientists working in secret under Diebner and with the strong support of the physicist Walther Gerlach, who was by that time head of the uranium project, built and tested a nuclear device.
At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Rather it is an example of scientists trying to make any sort of weapon they could in order to help stave off defeat. No one knows the exact form of the device tested. But apparently the German scientists had designed it to use chemical high explosives configured in a hollow shell in order to provoke both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion reactions. It is not clear whether this test generated nuclear reactions, but it does appear as if this is what the scientists had intended to occur.
Wow. Your own sources are very clear that no one even knows what the hell this "device" was supposed to do, how it was made, what it contained, or even what it looked like. That is worlds away from A FUNCTIONING nuclear bomb. At best, they built a dirty bomb. That is not a successful Nuclear programhttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/secret-files-reveal-nazis-tested-9905027
Secret files reveal Nazis 'tested nuclear bomb' before end of WW2 as Adolf Hitler plotted to decimate Britain by Allan Hall
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/nazis-and-the-bomb.html
Nazis and the Bomb by Mark Walker
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/95524
Manfred Petritsch 2018 geopolitical analysis + US 'ignited' Los Alamos bomb with Nazi nuclear know-how
[DIE GLOCKE INTENSIFIES]Wow. Your own sources are very clear that no one even knows what the hell this "device" was supposed to do, how it was made, what it contained, or even what it looked like. That is worlds away from A FUNCTIONING nuclear bomb. At best, they built a dirty bomb. That is not a successful Nuclear program
I saw some claims of that recently.Are people seriously arguing that the Nazis built and tested a nuclear device? Because that's absurd.
I saw some claims of that recently.
In the Daily Express.
Nuff said.