Best front for Germany to use nukes

Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create nuclear weapons but could produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

What consequences would there be if this happened?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Best place

54° 4′ 45.64″ N, 21° 29′ 36.76″ E

Best Time?

11:30 hrs local. 7/20/44
 

nbcman

Donor
Let's say in 1944 by complete miracle and magic the Germans had the resources to create nuclear weapons but could produce 2 and they had the blast field of Little Boy and Fat Man where would the best place to use these? One on the Eastern Front? Or two? Or on the UK?

What consequences would there be if this happened?

If you want to help the Nazi's, assuming they have a magic carpet to deliver the weapons and perfect knowledge of day to day movements, one targeting Stalin at any time during 1944 and one at the briefing of senior staff at St Paul's School in London on 15 May prior to Operation Overlord.

However, CalBear's suggestion is best - and send the second device to Carinhall assuming Fatso is home.
 
Do the Germans even have an aircraft or rocket capable of delivering an atomic bomb comparable to Fat Man and Little Boy? Given Allied air superiority (even supremacy in some areas) delivering the bomb would be difficult. I imagine Hitler would want to take out London, but tactically they need to do something to stop the Red Army. Two bombs will not be sufficient to win the war. Although it would be sufficient to disrupt the Western Allies invasion of Europe.
 
I'm assuming that everything else is the same. Best option would be to, like the USSR, USA, and everyone else the Lizard series, to pull a retreat, and set the bomb off when the red army is over it.
 
It is my understanding that while the Russians had trucks, they also needed railroads. I would recommend bombing two of the major transportation hubs in Western Russia. This would destroy both the railroad and the trucks in that area. Also any troops and supplies would be destroyed. This would disrupt the flow of supplies to the Red Army. Also the rebuilding would be almost impossible due to radiation. With the reduction in supplies, the Red army would have to slow down.
 
It is my understanding that while the Russians had trucks, they also needed railroads. I would recommend bombing two of the major transportation hubs in Western Russia. This would destroy both the railroad and the trucks in that area. Also any troops and supplies would be destroyed. This would disrupt the flow of supplies to the Red Army. Also the rebuilding would be almost impossible due to radiation. With the reduction in supplies, the Red army would have to slow down.

Can you get the Bomb to the railroad nexus?
 
"Can you get the Bomb to the railroad nexus?"

I had read that the Western Allies found a bomber at the end of the war which was modified to carry an atomic bomb. I am assuming that if the Germans had an atomic bomb, they could speed up building two bombers to carry the bombs. They would send the bombers out at night with other aircrafts to provide cover. It would be a suicide mission.
 
I think it would be a waste of a priceless asset to use it to wreck a division, it would far more beneficial to use it/them on operational or strategic targets. Something like the major supply/staging/transportation hub behind one of the Red Army 'Fronts' and if there was a major HQ that would be a bonus. Moscow would also be a good target as it has all those things plus Stalin and Stavka.

I think targets in the west would be less profitable because of the power balance between land, air and sea forces: crippling an Army Group won't stop the combined bombers and vice versa.
 
If I had two shots? The Yelstin Conference if possible, wipes out the allied leaders right there, if it has to be in Europe, Moscow when Stalin is in it just after the launch of Operation Barbarassa. As well as being blitzkreiged, they have no leader and no real sucession with the destruction of Moscow. For a second shot, the factories east of the Urals OR London. With London and Moscow gone you effectivley get about 6 months of uninterrupted free reign around Europe.
 
Do the Germans even have an aircraft or rocket capable of delivering an atomic bomb comparable to Fat Man and Little Boy?

They didn't. There's a theory that a variant of the He-117 was being developed to carry one but there's no real evidence back it up if memory serves.
 
It's tempting to say one for Portsmouth in late May 1944, and one for Uncle Joe. But in reality, if they only had 1 or 2 to use on Russia, they're better off holding their fire. By that point in the war, they'd need a lot more than 2 warheads to stop the Soviets from overrunning Germany. Using only 2 nukes is just going to make the Russians hate them even more, and the civilian population of Germany would have been massacred by an utterly infuriated Red Army.
 
Last edited:
Moscow and a British port slated to support the invasion are indeed the Germans best bets. It likely won't win them the war, but it will send the Allies reeling for a bit...
 

FBKampfer

Banned
London and Moscow.

Make harsh but acceptable peace terms, and then fortify the living hell out of the 200 miles along the new borders, and then get cranking on more nukes!
 
Top