DBWI: Atomic Weapons DEveloped during WWII?

While a number of people have pointed out how in theory a atomic bomb was possible from circa 1939-46 R & D for a such a thing did not really become serious until 1948. A unused artifact of the Cold War is it possible a working Uranium or Plutonium bomb could have been built for use by 1946?

Of course the first obstacle would have been motivation. While the question was investigated as early as 1939 by all the major powers, none did more than laboratory work. The Brit MAUD project was stillborn in 1941, judged impractical; the Soviet research projected results in the 1950s & placed a low priority on it; the German research was also still born, funding for 'Jewish Physics' being dismissed as a waste. Enrico Fermi in Italy had the best theoretical foundation, but dragged his feet until post 1946 after which he acquired funds for his first experimental atomic pile; the Curie laboratory work was interrupted by the German occupation; the US was still playing catch up in the theoretical physics field; Japan did fund two paralle projects, but the lack of resources meant they had only reached advanced laboratory levels for acquiring the necessary isotopes & had no practical work done on construction of a bomb.

Does anyone see any chance of a effective bomb project coming together 1939-42 & producing even a handful of them to use before the end of the war?
 
Well, it depends. Are we talking about the (DB)OTL WWII? Because if we have a different WWII in which Germany isn't nazi, then the Germans can gather the required brainpower. The problem for them is gambling so many resources in what looks like a silver bullet rather than the actual tanks and planes they need.

The USA is the only one with enough resources to spare in a crash project, but they need to gather the brainpower. Fermi might end up in the USA if, instead of a neutral Italy, Germany decides to invade it (and successfully cross the Alps - not a light undertaking). But I don't know if by itself that's enough. Most likely, to get such early results, you'd need a multinational project, and I'm not sure I see one happening:

France fell to quickly to, somehow, help the British
The UK and the USA had a rather cold relationship, despite being allies, due the American push for decolonization. You'd need either an American goverment willing to forgo the markets of the British empire, or a British government willing to let go of the empire.
Italy had enough in its plate bringing its military into shape and staying neutral.
A Soviet and American partnership, perhaps?
 
I read somewhere, maybe on this forum, that when the Germans looked into attempting to build the bomb, they realized that it would take a ton of resources that were needed more urgently elsewhere, and they calculated that the war would be over one way or another by the time it was ready.

You pretty much need a POD where the theoretical breakthroughs happen alot earlier and the thing can actually be built and used by 1944 at the latest.

Another possible POD would involve an American project, since the Americans had the resources to literally burn. One striking thing about the war was how little the United States really mobilized. So you have someone like Einstein, or someone of similar stature since Einstein was too much of a pacifist to do this, write to FDR and convinces him to back the project. But with this POD the war probably still ends before any bombs are ready.
 

Insider

Banned

A crude device like Cannoner could be assembled early on. But there is problem with fissible materials. It is almost imposible to separate fissible U 235 from unfissible uranium. Without lasers at least. 1. Had somebody stumble upon the idea of laser early on. (post 1920 is plausible) 2. Had them stumble upon the idea of using it to sort isotopes. 3. Build a bomb and enjoy nuclear world war 4. Profit!
 
Some intersting rough ideas here.

Well, it depends. Are we talking about the (DB)OTL WWII? Because if we have a different WWII in which Germany isn't nazi, then the Germans can gather the required brainpower. The problem for them is gambling so many resources in what looks like a silver bullet rather than the actual tanks and planes they need.

No, keep the PoD to a minimum, so no 'nazis lite'. About the only thing that might work here is if someone sells Hitler or Goering on the idea of a super bomb early on. Goering had considerable control over resource allocation through the 1930s. If he had retained a interest he might have been able to bull through a project as long as he could BS Hitler into thinking it was not actually taking resources from other needs. Afterall he had Hitler convinced he was a competent air force leader right to the end.

France fell to quickly to, somehow, help the British
The UK and the USA had a rather cold relationship, despite being allies, due the American push for decolonization. You'd need either an American goverment willing to forgo the markets of the British empire, or a British government willing to let go of the empire.
Italy had enough in its plate bringing its military into shape and staying neutral.
A Soviet and American partnership, perhaps?

A Soviet/US partnership is unlikely to form earliy enough to make a difference. The core problem with the USSR was its physicits correctly identified many of the difficulties, but not solutions. They were convinced it would take years to reach pratical application. Even if the idea came up they probablly would have held things up for a critical few years.
 
I read somewhere, maybe on this forum, that when the Germans looked into attempting to build the bomb, they realized that it would take a ton of resources that were needed more urgently elsewhere, and they calculated that the war would be over one way or another by the time it was ready.

You pretty much need a POD where the theoretical breakthroughs happen a lot earlier and the thing can actually be built and used by 1944 at the latest.

My take is the theoretical proofs were in place circa 1939. Its was the large scale field trials, like Fermis first atomic pile that remained. At this point the question revolves around how fast the project can be rammed through. The US project started in 1948 & had its first bombs, both Uranium and Plutonium ready in 1953, or 57 months. Could that be halved? Say 1942-45 or <40 months. The USN project started in 1939, but the BuOrd only had a $1,500 budget for it that year, & under $50,000 in 1940. Using that - 1940, as a starting point then 60 months comes out to very late 1944.

The British MAUD investigation matured in early 1941. With that as a starting point then a 60 month project squeezes in a working bomb near the end in 1946.

The Soviet investigation reported to Stalin circa 1939-41. Had the academics been more focused on solutions vs problems identified in theoretical work something ther might have been pushed through in 60 months.

A crude device like Cannoner could be assembled early on. But there is problem with fissible materials. It is almost imposible to separate fissible U 235 from unfissible uranium. Without lasers at least. 1. Had somebody stumble upon the idea of laser early on. (post 1920 is plausible) 2. Had them stumble upon the idea of using it to sort isotopes. 3. Build a bomb and enjoy nuclear world war 4. Profit!

Probablly a early focus on a Plutonium bomb. The US effort was expensive because of the start at two different methods. The Plutonium route emerged early on as the more efficent, but building a test breeder reactor was necessary to prove it. The Uranium route was pursued in paralle for far to long. By 1951 its should have been shut down & out of the budget, but that would have broken too many large rice bowls. Congressional prokbarreling kept the Uranium refinement prograrms going on long past their expiration dates.
 
The UK and the USA had a rather cold relationship, despite being allies, due the American push for decolonization. You'd need either an American goverment willing to forgo the markets of the British empire, or a British government willing to let go of the empire.
Italy had enough in its plate bringing its military into shape and staying neutral.
A Soviet and American partnership, perhaps?

For a US/Brit joint project two PoD are needed. One, the Brits need to sieze on the findings of the MAUD investigation and push hard on turning that into a viable project. Second is getting the two to work together, the US providing the muscle & practical engineering experitise. A possible third is how important Fermi was in translating the assorted lab experiemnts of others into a pratical large scale test. Specifically his atomic pile test. If that could have been swiftly got to by any of the Brit physiciysts or the few Yanks, then its possible.
 
So, if a few atomic bombs had been available circa 1944-45 how might they have been used in actual combat? This is going to vary according to who exactly builds & controls them. I'm assuming here the Soviet Union, Japan, Britain alone, and German would build fewer. Perhaps one per three months .

A. Soviet: vs Germany. This is the one army that might have used the bomb vs field armies, but more likely vs a eastern city like Berlin

B. Germany: vs London or possiblly Moscow. vs the US a distant third. There a near ASB possibility of use vs a operational target, such as a beachhead or invasion fleet or a critical port.

C. Britain alone: vs Germany first, later Japan, either a industrial/transportation target, or Berlin

D. Britian /US: Germany First, then Japan. vs multiple industrial/transportation centers including Berlin. As many as one per month would be available.

E. US alone: Germany First, then Japan. vs multiple industrial/transportation centers. As many as one per month would be available.

F. Japan: West coast US port/industrial city, or a invasion site. Japan is the most likely to save up three or more for simultaneous use. Neither would they be constrained by things like survival of the delivery crew.
 
A crude device like Cannoner could be assembled early on. But there is problem with fissible materials. It is almost imposible to separate fissible U 235 from unfissible uranium. Without lasers at least. 1. Had somebody stumble upon the idea of laser early on. (post 1920 is plausible) 2. Had them stumble upon the idea of using it to sort isotopes. 3. Build a bomb and enjoy nuclear world war 4. Profit!
I know there are processes where mass is crucial, like centrifugation. Perhaps a volatile uranium fluoride could be centrifuged for the necessary isotope separation?
 

Insider

Banned
I know there are processes where mass is crucial, like centrifugation. Perhaps a volatile uranium fluoride could be centrifuged for the necessary isotope separation?
Yes the process is known, and used for research purposes. It is was also used by USSR to get slightly enriched fuel for first reactors and even by USA to build first weapons in late fifties. However it would require a lot of centrifuges used both serially and parallely to augument it to weapon grade level in reasonable time. That means you are making huge investments into untested technology, you need thousands pieces of precise machines, and you are doing it in the middle of a war.
Thats crazy.
Perhaps had the Nazis get their math right, they are crazy enough.

Compared to this plutonium and breeder reactors sounds easy.
 
Yes the process is known, and used for research purposes. It is was also used by USSR to get slightly enriched fuel for first reactors and even by USA to build first weapons in late fifties. However it would require a lot of centrifuges used both serially and parallely to augument it to weapon grade level in reasonable time. That means you are making huge investments into untested technology, you need thousands pieces of precise machines, and you are doing it in the middle of a war.
Thats crazy.
Perhaps had the Nazis get their math right, they are crazy enough.

Compared to this plutonium and breeder reactors sounds easy.
Well, if you suppose there is a powerful nuclear lobby in America (which is the easiest way to get early canned sunshine) then nuclear budget has the potential to allow for that. Of course, it's a very "treating everything as a nail" solution, but it can work.
Then again, it's a lot of investment on just shock and awe.
 
Well, if you suppose there is a powerful nuclear lobby in America (which is the easiest way to get early canned sunshine) then nuclear budget has the potential to allow for that. Of course, it's a very "treating everything as a nail" solution, but it can work.
Then again, it's a lot of investment on just shock and awe.

Well, if you use the costs of the 1948-52 Long Island bomb development project its still cheaper than the B29 development/production project.
 

Insider

Banned
Well, if you use the costs of the 1948-52 Long Island bomb development project its still cheaper than the B29 development/production project.
Because it was 5 years long project, had USA tried to rush things it would cost more. And they enriched uranium for first bomb core for 2.5 years. This is hardly a military utilty. B 29s could remove a lot more cities from the map using standard bombs.
 
Costs were run off the charts through paralle pursuit of several bomb types & methods of fissiles production. The panic within the Truman administration and subsequent race with the Soviets from 1948 created a lot of waste & excess costs. Another comparison would be the gross costs of the war in 1945 or 46. Depending on how you add it up the costs of military operations alone for one month exceeded atomic bomb project costs. Even if the project costs double under war time pressure its just one of many expensive activities the various major powers embarked on.
 
Top