WI: Atomic Bomb one year early?

You have to take in account the paranoia factor, if little boy failed to detonate there was no chance the japanese could make any use of it, on the other hand Germany '44 will have some use for such a device..

You mean Fat Man, Little Boy would have detonated if the plane crashed which was a major cause for concern at the time and one of the main reasons the bullet devices were discontinued. However it's unlikely a bomb would fall into enemy hands in any sort of easily repairable condition unless the crew defects.
 
You mean Fat Man, Little Boy would have detonated if the plane crashed which was a major cause for concern at the time and one of the main reasons the bullet devices were discontinued. However it's unlikely a bomb would fall into enemy hands in any sort of easily repairable condition unless the crew defects.

Good point. The idea of using a dud Abomb seizes too many over active imaginations around here.
 
While everyone is assuming air delivery, there is another possibility.

Deliver it by submarine, as a mine, into a major german port. Should reduce the number of available U-boats significantly...

IIRC, that was one of the delivery options...
 
For delivery vehicles its a shame some of those deciding the fate of Barnes Wallis' Victory bomber and the Vickers studies following it didn't seem to know of the existence of the bomb and vice versa - the Air Staff's objection to the original design was that it could only drop one big bomb...........but one hell of a bomb if the right type..........and given it was all proven technology the original design could well have been available before the B-29's were.

I dont have the specs of the original VictoryBomber but the follow ons were not far different


Original Wallis design around middle 1940 had a range of 3,600 miles and size, ceiling and bombload not much different from the developed versions of 41 and 42.

1941

Span(ft.in/m): 172/52.4
Length(ft.in/m): 96/29.3
Wing area(ft2/m2): 2675/248.8
Max Weight(lb/kg): 104,000/47,174
Engines: 6x Merlin RM.6.SM or Hercules
Max speed(mph/kmh) at height(ft/m): 352/566 at 32,000/9,754
Armament: 1x 10ton bomb, 4x defensive guns


1942

Span(ft.in/m): 172.1/52.5
Length(ft.in/m): 100.8/30.7
Wing area(ft2/m2): 2676/248.9
Max Weight(lb/kg): 113,500/51,484
Engines: 6x Merlin 60
Max speed(mph/kmh) at height(ft/m): 360/579 at 40,000/12,192
Armament: 32,000lb of bombs with fuel for 2,000miles+ or 16,000lb with fuel for 4,000 miles+, 2x 0.5" MGs

 
Last edited:
A few general points. The historical Manhattan Project pursued both the U235 bomb and the plutonum bomb. They both reached fruition roughly simultaneously. I think a remote but not completely implausible case can be made for 6 months early but not with with both paths reaching fruition together. I think an early U-235 bomb is the more plausible of the two maybe with the POD that the centrifuge refinement method is not abandoned. The Russians got the centrifuge to work rather well using a captured German scientist whose name is not on the tip of my tongue.

If bomb weight is causing troubles with the delivery system I think one option that would be considered would be to cut down on the tamper and accept a lower yield.

A nuke strike on Germany would definitely be at night and it would not be going for Berlin. The tactics are sort of interesting. Probably 48 hours of concentrated attacks on night fighter airfields and radar stations near the target. Large scale diversionary night missions against other targets and massive use of window and jamming. Pathfinder missions on the target.

As for the intel issue anyone who raised it would likely have Voltaire thrown back at him "Perfection is the enemy of the good"
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
The British had been used to modifying aircraft for special livery during the war for example the Barnes Wallace Dam busters and the 12,000 Tall Boy Bomb if we are looking at Earlier Bomb how heavy are we looking.

For this Bomb a Lancaster should have had an Ideal height of 40,000 ft (12,200m) but only could manage around 25,000 (7,700m).

If you have specifications of a bomb size before it is available The British had experience of getting aircraft ready before hand.
For a Lancaster maybe the B VI Version gets a priority Reliable Engines aside this aircraft should be able to get to the 30,000ft with a Little Boy sized Bomb.

Nine aircraft converted from B IIIs. Fitted with Merlin 85/87 which had two-stage superchargers, giving much improved high altitude performance. The Merlin 85/87 series engines were fitted with annular cowlings similar to the post war Avro Lincoln and four bladed paddle-type propellers were fitted. These aircraft were only used by Pathfinder units; by No. 7 Squadron RAF, No. 83 Squadron RAF, No. 405 Squadron RCAF and by No. 635 Squadron RAF. Often used as a "Master Bomber" the B VI's allocated to RAF Bomber Command (2 being retained by Rolls Royce for installation and flight testing)[14] had their dorsal and nose turrets removed and faired-over. The more powerful engines proved troublesome in service and were disliked by ground maintenance staff for their rough running and propensity to 'surge and hunt', making synchronisation impossible. This 'hunting' is caused by variations in the fuel/air mixture and could over time eventually damage the engine. [15] The B VI was withdrawn from service in November 1944 and the surviving aircraft were used by Rolls Royce, the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Bomb Ballistics Unit (BBU) for various testing and experimental duties.

Then again if you have a Projected special Project and need to Throw resources at it I am sure the US could set aside a small Number of B29’s at 33,000 and 350nph they would have little threat from Me110 and or Ju88G’s that had problems with over loading late in the war with all there equipment,

If British are going to carry the Bomb I am sure Elite Pathfinders would be Used, These Guys would not be used in totally Suicide Missions , But certainly up for very very Dangerous ones.

If using a B29 and drop east enough of Berlin and let the Russians see the fireworks in the distance, Give Stalin something to think about. Something in East Prussia worth Bombing and sending a Message ?
 
The British had been used to modifying aircraft for special livery during the war for example the Barnes Wallace Dam busters and the 12,000 Tall Boy Bomb if we are looking at Earlier Bomb how heavy are we looking.

If you are going to go for the Lancaster then you need the Type 684 Startosphere version but as i've said in the post earlier on the Barnes Wallis 'Victory bomber', you need the people who know about the bomb and the people who now about the aircraft talking to each other.


From Tony Buttler’s British Secret Projects – Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950

In August 1941 Avro completed a brochure for its Type 684 Stratosphere Bomber. This all-metal airplane was designed to operate at a height that made it immune from fighter or AA interference and, with the exception of the nose portion of the fuselage, was identical to the Lancaster. The nose contained a pressure cabin, as designed for the experimental high-altitude Vickers Wellington flown in September 1940, which in conjunction with a Rotol blower, would maintain air conditions corresponding to 10,000ft when flying at an altitude of 40,000ft. To achieve this high-altitude flight the air flowing to the carburettors of the four wing-mounted Merlins would be increased in pressure by a slave Merlin 45 housed within the fuselage between and above the wing spars (the blower was placed between and above the rear spar). By regulating the rpm of the slave-blower to suit the prevailing conditions its discharge pressure could be made to correspond to 20,000ft conditions at all heights between 20,000ft and 40,000ft.

The 684 could carry either 4,000lb; 8,000lb or 12,000lb bombs, average cruise would be about 320mph and range 2,300 miles. The service ceiling at the start of the mission was 42,000ft and at the end of a flight 49,600ft. The absolute ceiling was 50,300ft, sea-level rate of climb at 60,000lb was 940ft/minute and at 38,492lb 1,910ft/min, time to 40,000ft was 57 minutes. A total of 2,130 gal of fuel was carried in the wings. The development workload needed for the standard Lancaster and its variants, and the new Avro 685 York transport which used the same mainplane, power eggs, tail and undercarriage, led to the design work on the 684 being suspended.

Dimensions: Span 103.2ft, length 72ft, WA 1,297 square feet,

Powerplant: 4 x Merlin XX, 1 x Merlin 45 (slave)

Performance: Max Speed 410mph at 42,500ft.

Armament: 12,000lb, no defensive armament carried.
 
Why would a submarine-delivered nuclear mine be impractical? It wouldn't have the weight problems an aircraft-delivered weapon would have.
 
Why would a submarine-delivered nuclear mine be impractical? It wouldn't have the weight problems an aircraft-delivered weapon would have.

It also has the advantage that if it doesnt work, noone knows about it..you havent got a suspicious (if damaged) bomb in a hold in the ground near to you...:D
 
Why would a submarine-delivered nuclear mine be impractical? It wouldn't have the weight problems an aircraft-delivered weapon would have.


MP,

Why did the US waste time building a bomber and training a bomber crew when several of the targets on their nuke list - Hiroshima included - were ports?


Bill
 
MP,

Why did the US waste time building a bomber and training a bomber crew when several of the targets on their nuke list - Hiroshima included - were ports?


Bill

That still does not prove that a submarine-delivered bomb was impractical.

Perhaps the really "good stuff" in the Japanese target cities was too far inland for a bomb that detonates in the harbor to hit.
 
MP,

Why did the US waste time building a bomber and training a bomber crew when several of the targets on their nuke list - Hiroshima included - were ports?


Bill

I dont know, but I can speculate...

You need good data about the port and its defences. Did the allies have that for the Japanese ports in question?

You need to be able to drop the mine quite close in. Was the water depth available?

With a subsurface detonation, you lose some of the effect of a bomb dropping. It isnt as spectacular, and you give the impression you can only attack ports. With a bomb, it can hit anywhere in Japan, nowhere is safe.

The allies were considering tactical usage of nukes, so they'd need a bomb for this anyway. So it saves developing another system you cant use tactically.
 
That still does not prove that a submarine-delivered bomb was impractical.


MP,

But it does suggest that developing submarine delivery system was seen as a waste of time and resources. And it also suggests that the people who built the bomb believed air delivery was the best possible way to use it.

Submarine delivery may not have been "impractical", but it was certainly seen as not worth pursuing and as a waste of a nuke by the people who knew best.

You and several others seem to be forgetting about the "bleeding edge" nature of nuclear technology at the time in question. Because nukes today are robust, fairly small, and easily portable, you subconsciously assume they were also like that in 1945. It's a mistake made very often on these boards and with more technologies than just nuclear weapons too.

The OTL bombs were physically armed with several critical components installed aboard the bomber after take off. A Navy captain was aboard Enola Gay for just that job.

What kinds of changes would be necessary for a bomb like that to be carried underwater for days? When would it be armed? How would it be armed? A fleet boat wouldn't have been able to penetrate a harbor far enough to place the weapon for the best possible effect as an underwater detonation somewhat limits the surface blast produced. The US would have to develop "chariot" or "swimmers" to place the bomb from a sub, so how long would that effort take.

There are many many questions involved here and none of them bode well for an underwater delivery and detonation. Just because something is possible, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is smart.


Bill
 
I think we went with the bomber option for multiple reasons.

1) It would be harder to dispute it was an american action if it was clearly shown a american bomber dropped it.

2) It showed the world that america had the power to ignite mini suns wherever we saw fit.

3) The B29 was not just developed for the nuke. It also did quite a job on japanese cities with conventional weapons.

4) With a sub delivery it would have meant the loss of a sub and a number of submariners.
 
Top