Where would Nazi Germany test their first A-bomb?

Cook

Banned
You aren't going to cram an atomic weapon aboard a transport and get the job done.
You are also going to have some two years to develop an airframe. Given the speed that German aircraft manufacturers were able to produce an airframe in response to a Luftwaffe specification this isn’t a problem; if they had had a bomb program they would have had a program to develop a delivery method.
 

Flubber

Banned
... if they had had a bomb program they would have had a program to develop a delivery method.

In the OTL, the program which developed the delivery method cost more than the program which developed the bomb.

If Germany had the financial ability to build a bomb, would they necessarily also have the additional financial ability to build the required plane?

I think we're talking about two miracles here and one miracle is bad enough.
 

Flubber

Banned
If it takes place at Budapest Soviet losses will likely amount to 100-120 thousand and German losses will be close to 70,000.


In all the speculation about using an atomic weapon as a "mine", I think we need to remember that ground/surface bursts are inherently less destructive than air bursts.

A detonation at or near ground level is not the same as one at ~600 meters.
 
I guess it all depends on who is calling the shots. If it's Hitler, then either on London or one of the Camps in Poland. If it's the Army (by whatever means), then they might sucker the Red Army into taking up a certain position in the middle of a bull's eye.
 

Jason222

Banned
Handover Japan and let them hit US with it. Either when we already capture on Island. This push USA has send more force that in Europa over to Japan seem them big threat.
 
On the one hand, nobody sane would use their first nuclear bomb for a test if they were in the position of Germany in 1944.

On the other hand, these are Nazis we're talking about, and it's possible that bureaucratic inertia and fear of being punished for failure would result in a test being done.
 
The original timeline is the the same. Say they had one to test in early 1944.
Sorry, this belongs in ASB. The Nazis simply didn't have have the resources to spare to produce a bomb, even if they hadn't driven most of their best scientists away.

Given that the US/UK program would have been VERY hard pressed to get a bomb by '44...

Why not wish up functional Soyuz scale ICBMs at the same time, and integrated circuits. Almost as likely.
 
Sorry, this belongs in ASB. The Nazis simply didn't have have the resources to spare to produce a bomb, even if they hadn't driven most of their best scientists away.

It's a purely hypothetical question.

What about putting into a submarine with a bunch of people willing to do a Kamikaze run for the Reich? If it works, then somewhere near a major British city in plain daylight the bomb would go up. If it doesn't work, the evidence is destroyed?

There are two points in going nuclear:
  1. Proof that you have the bomb,
  2. proof that you have more.
That's why the US used two. Therefore, IMHO the Germans should use a second as well - which makes the whole thing even more ASB.
 
You're forgetting the nuclear artillery option. The German army in WWII used several extremely powerful ultra long range railroad guns, and one such piece could be modified to deliver a nuclear payload. The Americans experimented with nuclear artillery on a very small scale in the post-war era, most famously with the Davey Crocket nuclear recoil-less rifle; there's no reason the Germans couldn't do something like that.

Heck, when Saddam was looking into building a nuclear weapons program prior to the 1991 Gulf War, he started Project Babylon (Iraqi super-guns) to serve as a delivery system.

So, that's one choice that could work better than a plan requiring a suicidal stay-behind team.
 
100,000 within a two mile radius of ground zero?

If they're all concentrated within Budapest as IOTL, yes.

In all the speculation about using an atomic weapon as a "mine", I think we need to remember that ground/surface bursts are inherently less destructive than air bursts.

A detonation at or near ground level is not the same as one at ~600 meters.

True, which is why losses only take into account Soviet and German forces concentrated within Budapest during the siege.
 
You're forgetting the nuclear artillery option. The German army in WWII used several extremely powerful ultra long range railroad guns, and one such piece could be modified to deliver a nuclear payload. The Americans experimented with nuclear artillery on a very small scale in the post-war era, most famously with the Davey Crocket nuclear recoil-less rifle; there's no reason the Germans couldn't do something like that.

Heck, when Saddam was looking into building a nuclear weapons program prior to the 1991 Gulf War, he started Project Babylon (Iraqi super-guns) to serve as a delivery system.

So, that's one choice that could work better than a plan requiring a suicidal stay-behind team.
You would need Dora or Schwer Gustav and even they are barely big enough for a 1st gen atom bomb, assuming Germany could work out the manifold issues with creating the detonators to survive firing

The US and USSR did this with later generations of nuclear weapons after years of development and testing
 
Top