What if D-Day fails.

With Germany could they risk it and weaponise the Gadget so they have 3 bombs at immediate disposal?

Probably. remember, Little Boy was a uranium bomb, while Fat Man and gadget were plutonium. The scientists needed to be sure that fat man would detonate, so they tested gadget. OTOH, they never even bothered to test Little boy, because it was so much simpler (i.e. easy to set off). If defeating the nazis is a more pressing concern, maybe Trinity gets scrapped, and Gadget is used in combat. It might wind up being deployed in the Pacific instead, to make the bluff that the US has more weapons than their enemies can take more effective, and to remind Stalin that the US doesn't want him muscleing in on Japan.
 
i think what she is asking is "what if normandy turns into another dieppe?"

there is a stalemate, germans do some bombing of Britain than realizing the lion has claws pulls out and there is a fear of mutual assured destruction once Germany catches up with the bomb. Germany keeps her gains for a while, but breaks apart after Hitler's natural death. That's when the Third World War erupts when everything is in chaos, they allies have to strike quickly to avoid getting nuked. Britain, in fear of the nuke sits out. Paris gets blown sky high, yet Germany is captured.

Okay, I made all that up with no reference, it is the most ASB thing I can think of.
 
with a protracted war against Nazi Germany going into possibly 1946, the B-32 might have been developed earlier.

Except the POD is June 1944, I don't see them changing the planning and tasking on the 509th bombardment group to change them over to the B-32 at this lat date. Yes if the war against Germany goes another whole year then I could see some B-32 raids. I don't think the initial atomic bombing would be with anything except the group that was training for it with the special planes they were training with!
 

Sachyriel

Banned
What if D-day fails?

Yeah, it was a big fucking mistake then.

The Western allies were still advancing up Italy, and they were attacking Southern France.

It was still over in 1945, and I'd bet unless Skip the ASB came down from the sky and told the Americans how exactly to make the bomb, they wouldn't have needed to use the Atomic bomb in Europe.

In OTL, there are three months separating VE-Day from VJ-Day, and in those three months the Allies probably would have gotten to Berlin with time to spare.

There will be no Soviets at the British Channel and there won't be an atomic fireball over Berlin.

Use your heads.
 
What if D-day fails?

Yeah, it was a big fucking mistake then.

The Western allies were still advancing up Italy, and they were attacking Southern France.

It was still over in 1945, and I'd bet unless Skip the ASB came down from the sky and told the Americans how exactly to make the bomb, they wouldn't have needed to use the Atomic bomb in Europe.

In OTL, there are three months separating VE-Day from VJ-Day, and in those three months the Allies probably would have gotten to Berlin with time to spare.

There will be no Soviets at the British Channel and there won't be an atomic fireball over Berlin.

Use your heads.

Fun killer.

But he's right. As much as we'ld all love Atomic Berlin, or Soviet europe, Most likely the war Would Push up trough what land the Allies have and the war will end the same, maybe more casualties on all sides, however.
 
were there any German cities that the Allied air forces laid off on? as I recall in preparation for the atomic attacks, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly touched so as to make the devastation that much more dramatic. Also would the fact that Hitler is considered mad as a hatter by the allies have an effect on whether they chose Berlin as a target? I know the idea would be to scare the Germans into surrendering, but if hitler was too insane to surrender then what would be the point of letting him live? or were they planning on someone putting a bullet in Adolf's brain pan?
 
This is getting interesting

I would think that letting him live long enough to free the people in the camps and allow them to do what they will with him. :)
 
We used a gun type assembly on Hiroshima because we wanted to drop the bomb before the Russians invaded Manchuria, so if the Japanese immediately surrendered we could claim the Russians had nothing to do with it.
If we weren't trying to push it, we could have used the same amount of uranium to make four implosion bombs.
Figure on Berlin, Vienna (if the Germans somehow held the Russians off that long), maybe forcing a lodgement on the Channel, and probably some other eastern German city.
 
Berlin would not have been bombed. There's a reason Dresden was firebombed instead of Berlin. The allies were trying to get to Berlin as much as the Soviets were, even after Yalta.

Patton wanted to take the war to Moscow, and it's a rather lucky break for the soviets that he was held back from what he wanted to do. Remember: Czechoslovakia could have been liberated by the allies three months before the Soviets got there. It was Yalta that kept that from happening, and it was Yalta that allowed the Soviets to storm Berlin.

In any scenario where a nuclear drop in Germany is even remotely possible, Berlin is not a target. And if it is, it is in preparation for a war with the USSR which, by 1945/46, would not have been feasible or doable. The trenches would have returned and shown their ugly faces in Poland and Ukraine. Russia had a million tractor factories that had all been turned into tank factories at this point. So imagine the same scenario where the Soviets throw more men at the enemy than the enemy has bullets, but turn it around into a scenario where they're throwing more tanks at the enemy than the enemy has tank shells and you have two things:

A war that cannot possibly continue and the USSR becoming utterly insolvent by 1960 and a collapse no later than 1970 (and that's being generous.)

Cooperation with the Soviets was paramount to winning the war in Europe, and Stalin wanted Berlin.

Berlin is NOT a target. At all.
 
What if D-day fails?

Yeah, it was a big fucking mistake then.

The Western allies were still advancing up Italy, and they were attacking Southern France.

It was still over in 1945, and I'd bet unless Skip the ASB came down from the sky and told the Americans how exactly to make the bomb, they wouldn't have needed to use the Atomic bomb in Europe.

In OTL, there are three months separating VE-Day from VJ-Day, and in those three months the Allies probably would have gotten to Berlin with time to spare.

There will be no Soviets at the British Channel and there won't be an atomic fireball over Berlin.

Use your heads.

This is not necessarily the case, it depends on how it fails, and how people respond to it. I agree that what I said about Soviets on the English channel was low probability but only low probability. I actually think that it is a higher probability that without the Western Allies on the Continent the Germans could have moved troops around slowing down the Eastern and Italian fronts some. If (and this is an if) the Allies lost enough landing ships and landing craft in the botched landings then it could have delayed the landings in southern France by a couple of months while more landing craft were built and shipped to England. If this causes a 3 month delay is a question, and if the 3 month delay leaves enough of Germany to be worth an Atomic bombing is another question. But I can see cases where Truman wants to pop the bomb in Stalin's front yard so he can send troops in see the effects...:eek:
 
Top