WI: Japan Attacked With Superheavy Nuclear Torpedoes

Delta Force

Banned
New Zealand and the United States experimented with the tsunami bomb concept during World War II. Ultimately they determined that an explosion of around 2 kilotons detonated five miles off the coast could produce a tsunami. That would be unfeasible to do with conventional explosives, but well within the capabilities of nuclear bombs. Also, early on it was thought that nuclear weapons would be so heavy that it would only be practical to deploy them by ship. What if the two concepts came together and resulted in a World War II analogue to the Soviet T-15 superheavy torpedo for use against both fleets and land targets?
 
Japanese fleet was a sunk asset in 1945 (pun intended). I wonder if the creation of the water wave would suck away energy and hence destruction, vs the airbursts used OTL?
 
That would definitely be one way to clear the beach defences for MAJESTIC and CORONET....

The torpedo would probably bear some resemblance to the Helmover 38-inch torpedo; the air-launched version was to be carried by a Lancaster, with a range of 50 miles snorting and 3 miles submerged, all at 40 knots thanks to a Meteor engine. This version actually made it to the point of loading a dummy weapon on a Lancaster. The surface-launched version was good for 150 miles snorting and 8 miles submerged, weighing 20,900 lbs and 49 ft 9 in long; both carried a one-ton warhead.

Of course, fitting a Mark One nuclear weapon to any kind of torpedo is a terrifying prospect given that it would go off if filled with water.
 

Cook

Banned
In October 1952, the British detonated a 25 kiloton atomic bomb in the hold of HMS Plym, anchored 360m offshore in a bay off Trimouille Island, one of the Monte Bello Islands. The bomb carved a crater 6m deep and 300m across on the sea bed, but did not cause a Tsunami of any note; I suspect the results of such a Tsunami bomb would be rather underwhelming and would be seen as a waste of an atomic bomb.
 
That would definitely be one way to clear the beach defences for MAJESTIC and CORONET....

The torpedo would probably bear some resemblance to the Helmover 38-inch torpedo; the air-launched version was to be carried by a Lancaster, with a range of 50 miles snorting and 3 miles submerged, all at 40 knots thanks to a Meteor engine. This version actually made it to the point of loading a dummy weapon on a Lancaster. The surface-launched version was good for 150 miles snorting and 8 miles submerged, weighing 20,900 lbs and 49 ft 9 in long; both carried a one-ton warhead.

Of course, fitting a Mark One nuclear weapon to any kind of torpedo is a terrifying prospect given that it would go off if filled with water.
I rather like the idea of Helmover, and it does allow for an air-dropped, guided torpedo using WW2 technology. I doubt it's practicable though. Also it's warhead was only about a tonne, too small for the first nuclear weapons.
 
I rather like the idea of Helmover, and it does allow for an air-dropped, guided torpedo using WW2 technology. I doubt it's practicable though. Also it's warhead was only about a tonne, too small for the first nuclear weapons.
Not necessarily - a significant amount of the weight of the first nuclear weapons was armour against ground fire. Remove the armour, and you save a couple of tonnes. Given the amount of fuel the torpedo would have to carry, cut range until you have space and weight for a nuclear weapon.

I'm not convinced that it's impractial with HE, either. Expensive and a bit pointless, yes, but building one wouldn't be particularly difficult.
 
Not necessarily - a significant amount of the weight of the first nuclear weapons was armour against ground fire. Remove the armour, and you save a couple of tonnes. Given the amount of fuel the torpedo would have to carry, cut range until you have space and weight for a nuclear weapon.

I'm not convinced that it's impractial with HE, either. Expensive and a bit pointless, yes, but building one wouldn't be particularly difficult.
The outer layer on the MK1 was 3/8" steel and didn't contribute that much mass to the bomb. More than three-quarters was the target case, tamper and gun barrel.
The masses of the components were:
Gun tube: 450kg
Target assembly: 2,300kg
Fission tamper (tungsten carbide): 310kg
Uranium core (two pieces); 64kg
Additional projectile components: 48kg
 
Not necessarily - a significant amount of the weight of the first nuclear weapons was armour against ground fire. Remove the armour, and you save a couple of tonnes. Given the amount of fuel the torpedo would have to carry, cut range until you have space and weight for a nuclear weapon.

I'm not convinced that it's impractial with HE, either. Expensive and a bit pointless, yes, but building one wouldn't be particularly difficult.
Halifax explosion in WW1 was 2.9 kT - so if it had merit it was not technically infeasible
 
Top