Hitler killed by Lancaster Tallboy in Fuhrer Bunker Berlin

hammo1j

Donor
I'm assuming this would be technically possible but was never attempted due to the arrangement whereby Germany had already been divided with the Russians to take Berlin.

Either Hitler's demise was judged a good or a bad idea by the Wallies and would stiffen or lessen resistance to the Soviets.

It certainly wasnt off the radar too because I understand Bertesgarten took a pounding in one of the very last raids of the war.

Would it have been beneficial to kill Hitler at this very late stage of the war. Or would the Soviets have reaped all the benefits?
 

trurle

Banned
Would it have been beneficial for Allied war effort to kill Hitler at this very late stage of the war. Or would the Soviets have reaped all the benefits?
Both. Beneficial to Allies, and even more beneficial to Soviets. The busting of Hitler`s bunker was not technically possible though.
Due Hitler personal insistence on scorched earth policy (which have very limited support in German army in 1945), after the death of Hitler both Allies and Soviets will advance faster. The Soviets, having less damaged roads and local supplies, will suffer less from longer supply arm, therefore are to advance relatively faster. As result, Allied troops will not need to wait weeks on Elba river to allow Soviets to capture Berlin.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I'm assuming this would be technically possible but was never attempted due to the arrangement whereby Germany had already been divided with the Russians to take Berlin.

Either Hitler's demise was judged a good or a bad idea by the Wallies and would stiffen or lessen resistance to the Soviets.

It certainly wasnt off the radar too because I understand Bertesgarten took a pounding in one of the very last raids of the war.

Would it have been beneficial to kill Hitler at this very late stage of the war. Or would the Soviets have reaped all the benefits?
IIRC part of the problem was the FLAK towers in the area that would make a Tall Boy attack too dangerous.
 
*Eyebrows fly upwards*
Tallboy bombs weighed five tonnes and long-range attacks like the one that blew the Tirpitz up in Norway required long range drop tanks or a temporary base on Soviet territory. Berlin is a hell of a long way for a Tallboy mission, would have to be done in daylight (as Wiking said that would mean braving the flak towers, plus fighters), plus that bunker is a very small aiming point.
There's also the fact that for a large part of the war he was not in the bunker, but rather in the Wolf's Lair in Rastenburg.
 
According to Paul Brickhill in his classic (but not completely historically accurate) book on 617 squadron "The Dam Busters", the attack on Berchtesgarten was only done in response to a piece of Nazi propaganda,

Hitler supposedly published a remark "I have read in the British Press that they intend to destroy my country house. I almost regret that this has not been done, for what I call my own is not more valuable than my compatriots' possessions"

BTW I rather suspect this is simple plagiarism of Queen Elizabeth's comment "Now I can look the East End [of London] in the eye" which was made in 1941 after Buckingham Palace actually was bombed during the Night Blitz
(but not I think deliberately targetted, BP is close to a major station).

In any case, in spring 45 617 was unable to distinguish the Berhof itself amid all the snow and low cloud
and instead smashed the buildings occupied by the garrison ( with 4 tallboys plus other ordinance).
Other aircraft area bombed the compound actually hitting the residence with two bombs
but doing no damage to the extensive and well-built set of shelters and bunkers
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
The main bunker had a 4m deep roof - easily penetrated by tallboy if it could be located and bombed!
..it could neither be located nor bombed if located.
Too long range, too small and hard target, too heavy AA defences (flak towers and fighters)
If somebody would realistically try to bomb the Hitler in Berlin bunker, he must be ready to accept the loss of several tens of bombers (Bombing of Berlin 3 February 1945 resulted in loss of 36 Allied aircraft IOTL), without any guarantee of being successful. Not a viable proposal for the closing stage of war which is going to be won anyway.
 
What about using Grand Slams:

Bremen-Farge%2C_Royal_Air_Force_Bomber_Command%2C_1942-1945_CL2607.jpg

An RAF officer inspects the hole left by a 'Grand Slam' bomb which exploded in the reinforced concrete roof of the German submarine pens at Farge, north of Bremen, Germany. This was the result of a daylight raid by 18 Avro Lancasters of No. 617 Squadron RAF on 27 March 1945. Two direct hits by 'Grand Slams' caused sections of the partially-completed roof to collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)

Not sure on the defences that the Germans could throw up:
18 April 1945 – Heligoland
969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes and 20 Mosquitos of all groups bombed the naval base, airfield and town "almost into crater-pitted moonscapes". Three Halifaxes were lost; the islands were evacuated the following night.
 

trurle

Banned
What about using Grand Slams:
Not sure on the defences that the Germans could throw up:
18 April 1945 – Heligoland
969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes and 20 Mosquitos of all groups bombed the naval base, airfield and town "almost into crater-pitted moonscapes". Three Halifaxes were lost; the islands were evacuated the following night.
I seen the similar photos. It mostly shows the shitty quality of German late wartime concrete mix and the shortage of rebar. Doubt even 20% of damage would be done by same bomb on Hitler`s bunker.

By the way, i have visited Hitler`s field bunker built near Smolensk. The quality of concrete is excellent - something which look like 76mm shell hit mark is shallow conical crater about 10cm deep and 50cm wide.

Also, 18 April was just 12 days before Berlin itself was smashed by Soviet ground forces. Luftwaffe interceptors were not effective at that point.
 
I think there is a big difference between 76mm shells and 22,000lb seismic bombs. A seismic bomb differs somewhat in concept from traditional bombs, which usually explode at or near the surface, and destroy their target directly by explosive force. In contrast, a seismic bomb is dropped from high altitude to attain very high speed as it falls and upon impact, penetrates and explodes deep underground, causing massive caverns or craters known as camouflets, as well as intense shockwaves.
 
Suppressing the flack towers would be a priority and not a difficult one. The flak towers themselves may have been incredibly sturdy but the flak guns and their crews were relatively unprotected on the roof.
 
What benefit would be delivered by attacking the Fuhrer bunker at the stage in the war when Hitler was permanently ensconced within? That is assuming that the the required bombs could be transported to Berlin without incident, the small target located and marked accurately and the bombs delivered with such accuracy as to destroy the bunker or to create such damage as to kill the occupants.

A bit pointless to bother with such pin point attacks when the RAF and USAF have spent several years systematically flattening every German city!
 
Suppressing the flack towers would be a priority and not a difficult one. The flak towers themselves may have been incredibly sturdy but the flak guns and their crews were relatively unprotected on the roof.
I have wondered about this.. Reportedly at least some of the flak towers held out and continued to offer resistance until the end of the battle of Berlin ? If they were easy to suppress I am surprised the Soviet Air Force didn't manage to put them out of action ?
 
..it could neither be located nor bombed if located.
Too long range, too small and hard target, too heavy AA defences (flak towers and fighters)
If somebody would realistically try to bomb the Hitler in Berlin bunker, he must be ready to accept the loss of several tens of bombers (Bombing of Berlin 3 February 1945 resulted in loss of 36 Allied aircraft IOTL), without any guarantee of being successful. Not a viable proposal for the closing stage of war which is going to be won anyway.

Why could it not be located?

Why could it not be bombed?

3rd Feb was 36 US aircraft lost from all causes including for example B-17G-75-BO (43-38031/VN-M) 'Blue Grass Girl' whose crew celebrated their 35th and therefore last mission by firing flares out of the plane and accidently set fire to it - that would be a funny story but for all but 2 of crew were killed as a result - just minutes from landing.

36 out of I think it was 1600 sorties

In the cruel and abhorrent math that WW2 subjected the human race to - just over 2% losses was a good day at the office for a such a mission.
 

trurle

Banned
Why could it not be located?
Radio navigation of era was accurate to plus-minus few kilometers. To target something less than city, you need to align with visual clues, and camouflage was well developed in WWII. In particular, i remember Soviets painted entire Kremlin as park and football field, which made a passable camouflage against high-level bombing. Germans also did lack neither camouflage skills nor paint. Only practical solution to locate bunker i can imagine, is to run continuously Mosquitoes at low level (well inside deadly range of even AA machine guns) to mark the target with smoke or flares (accuracy plus-minus hundred meters). And be ready the indicators will disappear in the smoke raised by 1st volley of heavy bombs, or by Germans launching deception flare/smoke cans.
Why could it not be bombed?
3rd Feb was 36 US aircraft lost from all causes including for example B-17G-75-BO (43-38031/VN-M) 'Blue Grass Girl' whose crew celebrated their 35th and therefore last mission by firing flares out of the plane and accidently set fire to it - that would be a funny story but for all but 2 of crew were killed as a result - just minutes from landing.
36 out of I think it was 1600 sorties
In the cruel and abhorrent math that WW2 subjected the human race to - just over 2% losses was a good day at the office for a such a mission.
OTL mission was exchange 36 bombers for the crippling of a number of Vermacht divisions. By the way, the 3rd February Berlin bombing mission still technically failed because target divisions were elsewhere. Exchanging 36 bombers (and likely tens of fighter-bombers too - see locating problem above) with the loss of ~500 crew for an attack on just one bunker is sounds like madness or desperation, not fitting with Allied command attitudes of 1945.
 
Radio navigation of era was accurate to plus-minus few kilometers. To target something less than city, you need to align with visual clues, and camouflage was well developed in WWII. In particular, i remember Soviets painted entire Kremlin as park and football field, which made a passable camouflage against high-level bombing. Germans also did neither lack camouflage skills nor lack paint. Only practical solution to locate bunker i can imagine, is to run continuously Mosquitoes at low level (well inside deadly range of even AA machine guns) to mark the target with smoke or flares (accuracy plus-minus hundred meters). And be ready the indicators will disappear in the smoke raised by 1st volley of heavy bombs, or by Germans launching deception flare/smoke cans.

OTL mission was exchange 36 bombers for the crippling of a number of Vermacht divisions. By the way, the 3rd February Berlin bombing mission still technically failed because target divisions were elsewhere. Exchanging 36 bombers (and likely tens of fighter-bombers too - see locating problem above) with the loss of ~500 crew for an attack on just one bunker is sounds like madness or desperation, not fitting with Allied command attitudes of 1945.

No it was 36 aircraft lost from all causes of the 1600 sent that included fighters (25 bombers and 8 fighters) initially 18 KIA and 208 MIA (many of whom would be POWs and sadly many more who would be also KIA)

The Central Railway station was destroyed, as was the entire government quarter. Yes the 'target Divisions' were not there but it did force that rat like creature to spend the rest of his days living in said bunker. So it wasn't a total waste.

The Elite RAF Bomber Squadrons had a track record of some pretty good precision bombing late in the war.

As for the sense of such a mission I agree with you - little point in it.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Remember 617 and 9 squadron managed to drop 3 or 4 bombs on the Tirpitz from 20,000 feet. Admittedly they got lucky with the fighters.

If they could locate it then they could hit it. Flak would have been a danger but fighters were even more of a danger and could have been kept at bay by Mustangs.

Of interest would be Wallies reaction to such a request from Stalin. They bowed to pressure to flatten Dresden. Would they have hit the bunker in the same way?
 
Remember 617 and 9 squadron managed to drop 3 or 4 bombs on the Tirpitz from 20,000 feet. Admittedly they got lucky with the fighters.

If they could locate it then they could hit it. Flak would have been a danger but fighters were even more of a danger and could have been kept at bay by Mustangs.

Of interest would be Wallies reaction to such a request from Stalin. They bowed to pressure to flatten Dresden. Would they have hit the bunker in the same way?

Perhaps more equivalent was the raid on Mimoyques suspected to be a V Weapon site.
In fact it held the incomplete V-3 "Supergun" battery
The visible target was concrete slab 5mx30m covering the exit of the first 15 barrels
with the rest of the complex being a maze of service tunnels up to 100 meters underground.

617 dropped Tallboys and collapsed tunnels, blocked the barrel shafts and killed workers through the "earthquake" effect.
Unfortunately, the damage could not be fully evaluated from the air and other methods were attempted
(including the badly thought out Aphrodite attack tried by the USAAF that would have been next to useless against such a target)
 
Top