Best front for Germany to use nukes

Assuming no issues with delivery (I realize at this point in the war this is ASB), then Oak Ridge Tennessee and Hanford Washington.

Gotta maintain that monoploy.
 
I actually doubt that germany would use them considering that they did not make use of their extensive chemical weapon stockpiles which could be used to far deadlier effect than two nukes. Use of nukes would result in the allies using their own gas stockpiles and you'd end up with a lot more dead german civilians. not to mention the fact that the germans never figured out how to make gasmasks for their horses.
 
I think they would at least demonstrate they had them; use one on a military target, be it a division, a transportation link, a battleship. Just as a bargaining chip, if they're beginning to realize they may have to think about discussing peace terms with the Allies. They were languidly pursuing nukes IOTL as it happens - they must've had some plan for them.
 
The more I think about it, the more I wonder what the point would even be for them. What good are 2 nuclear weapons going to do them in 1944? There's no credible scenario where 2 nukes change the outcome of the war at that point. It's over; they've already lost. All they can realistically hope to do is delay the inevitable, but at the cost of absolutely enraging whichever country they nuke.

I just don't see how they gain anything even remotely comparable to the fury they're going to bring down upon themselves. Hell, when we dropped on Japan, they already knew there was no way on Earth they could win that war, but it still took 2 nukes before they surrendered. In this scenario, you're dropping nuclear weapons on countries that already know they're going to win, and there isn't anything about this development that would make them question that. They still know they're going to win, and now they're whipped into a psychopathic fury over tens of thousands of their people being incinerated. If you're Germany, how do you suppose that's going to turn out for you?

If we were talking a few years earlier, when the outcome of the war was still in doubt, then yeah. Maybe it could have swayed an opinion or two. Or, if there was some way to convince the Allies that maybe 2 wasn't the whole inventory, and that maybe there were more available if they felt like using them. But just 2, and no more than 2? It would have been sheer suicide.
 
I think they would at least demonstrate they had them; use one on a military target, be it a division, a transportation link, a battleship. Just as a bargaining chip, if they're beginning to realize they may have to think about discussing peace terms with the Allies. They were languidly pursuing nukes IOTL as it happens - they must've had some plan for them.

Germany also had an extensive chemical weapons program intended for military use (you know, besides for concentration camp use) that they developed with concrete plans for deployment and never ended up using them (except in one case on the eastern front where they gassed a whole cave network to root out some 3000 soviet defenders hiding in there.

Same with Japan, used it against china but not against anyone who could retaliate properly (which is the reason australia had a huge stockpile of the stuff). At the time widespread use of chemical weapons would be far more deadly than nukes.
 
Or, if there was some way to convince the Allies that maybe 2 wasn't the whole inventory, and that maybe there were more available if they felt like using them. But just 2, and no more than 2? It would have been sheer suicide.


That's specifically what I was getting at - drop one, and let them think you have 100s more, and thousands more in production. You're right; if they know or stongly suspect that you've just blown your entire inventory, then you have no leverage, and an even angrier enemy.

As far as having a mere 2 devices, no more on the way, but you have decided you simply must use them and gleen whatever advantage you can from them, they could be used effectively on a port - say Antwerp. An A-bomb could do some serious damage there. Unfortunately, this is effective only in obstructing the Anglo-American campaign, meaning the Soviets probably take all the more of Germany in the end.
 
All they can realistically hope to do is delay the inevitable, but at the cost of absolutely enraging whichever country they nuke.

The Soviets were already fully enraged, but if they were knocked back a bit by a couple of nukes then the time they buy would have serious effects for the post-war settlement. For example it was agreed that the Soviets would take Berlin and move Poland westward, but if the British/Americans were undoubtedly going to reach Berlin first that would not have been the agreement.
 
Using the logic of the Ardennes offensive in the winter of 44 I think that they would be used against the Wallies on the grounds that Hitler et al would think that there would be a greater chance of getting them to withdraw from war, or perhaps even come in with him against Russia. I'm not saying thats logical just the way they may have thought.
 
they seemed to think attack by Mistels on Soviet hydroelectric plants as late as 1945 would stall their advance? in 1944 if they had nukes they could strike Dnieper Station Zaporizhia, Ukraine with one (basically driven to the target) and attack others by air with conventional strikes.

plausibly wait to gauge effect? then decide East or West?
 
Depends - if they just make the Sovs angry, Germany's getting torn to the ground by a horde of angry Reds. 2 Nukes won't be enough to stop the Soviets from running over the German troops.

I say go after London, and then threaten to nuke Moscow with the other. Takes down one threat, and paralyzes the other. Then again, nuking London just makes the British as angry as the Russians.

Germany's screwed no matter who they nuke. If they nuke the USSR, the Red Army will be killing everyone they run into. If they nuke GB, the British airforce will torch the cinders into cinders. If they nuke the USA... The USA's going for some instant sunshine over Germany.
 
What happens to the Western Allied armies in Normandy in June/July 1944 if they lose the mulberry harbours (edit: including the breakwaters that helped use of Landing Craft to put supplies ashore, as I understand it, at Omaha, even after the OTL storm damage) before they can capture Cherbourg? Do their logistics become untenable and they have to surrender/evacuate?
 
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.

Then it appears the names Fat Boy and Little Man are appropriate. As nice as it would be, the best target is Moscow, the head of the truly dangerous enemy, as much as it was a Hydra, Moscow is the true center of the spider's lair, the USSR will be lost without the heads there. Second bomb likely goes to London. Now we are just churning death for sake of argument.
 
I would think that the most efficacious use of the atomic bombs for the Nazis would be to hit ports on the western front. They're logistical bottlenecks and I'm not aware of equivilant bottlenecks on the Eastern Front.

If Nazi use of nuclear weapons cause chemical retaliation by the Allies, the Nazis can respond in kind, and with nerve agents more dangerous than what mustard gas Allies have. The Allies have their secret anthrax weaponry, and I don't know how devastating that will be because to the best of my knowledge refined biological weapons have never seen large scale use in warfare, unlike chemical weapons where we can look to the events of WW1 and the Iran-Iraq war for examples.
 
Battlefield deployment of gas by the germans is unlikely as they were much less motorized and mechanized than their counterparts and thus much more vulnerable. Against population centers they are hampered by lack of proper delivery systems able to reach them. This is the same reason they won't use nukes even if they had them. They get it much worse back than they are able to give. Many allied leaders including churchill knew this and repeatedly urged that chemical weapons be used against germany for the same reasons.
 
Top