WI: Atomic Bombing on German cities?

[Capt Thunderbolt]

That sum needs to be prorated across the number of bombs built for the war. In the OTL case it can be divided by 2 for those used, or maybe seven available August - December.

The program cost was about $2.5b, so not quite.

As debated elsewhere, the maybe seven was questionable. Plenty of bomb parts, very few cores and triggers, even less folks to assemble and drop.

Well, you are certainly going to get shock as the fronts C3 vaporizes. We had the luxury (?) of being able to use nukes tactically.

The shock wears off quickly..
A luxury unless you are on a two way range.

 

[DougM]

You are. Still ignoring that every bomb dropped on Germany is a bomb you can’t drop on Japan and by early 45 Germany had zero chance to win and was not putting up that hard a fight vs the resis Japan was putting up and the projected horror of Invading Japan itself,

So why in the world waste your limited Nukes on Germany?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

So why in the world waste your limited Nukes on Germany?

Cause around that time General Groves was estimating production was going to be more. Thrity six of the buggers by the end of 1946. That is cores for 36 Pu bombs. I've not seen any estimates for what might have been had the Ur production been continued. Plenty to toss around. It is correct the actual production would have been less, but Groves, Roosevelt, nor anyone else involved was tapping into our hindsight.

If the Allies really are stalled in mid 1945 & looking at another eight, ten, or twelve months of German resistance using four or five of them would be attractive from the PoV then.

 

[raharris1973]

The early Cold War will certainly look a lot different if the taboo looks different. The obvious change is that the US Army and Navy might not be drawn down as much as IOTL--

But even without the exagerrated faith in the majestic , decisive, deterrent power of the bomb, would the US in the mid and late forties have had the political will to maintain a large standing army, and get over its historical aversion to maintaining one on a permanent basis?

Despite the WWII experience it drew down to the bone. And during demobilization it faced troop riots for not demobilizing fast enough.

Will to demobilize seemed bipartisan. Truman supported it in favor of domestic spending and foreign aid. Taftite Republicans supported in favor of limiting the state and cutting taxes. In the 1948 campaign, Tom Dewey apparently wanted to keep larger all-purpose combat forces, but I don't really know if he had many followers on this issue. Navy Secretary JAmes Forrestall committed suicide over defense cuts in the 40s. Truman and Marshall's solution for deterrence, aside from atomic potential, was the old one from WWII and WWI, America's mobilization potential, the Universal Military Training program, to build vast reserves, but not a large standing, "come as you are" force. In any case, that plan did not pass.

The Chinese, by 1945 IOTL, had gone on the offensive--the ROC forces might reach Shanghai and begin pushing into the Beijing area as Japan's home islands get invaded.

They went on the offensive, sure, probably at least a little because of their own efforts, and maybe boosted supplies from Burma finally being reopened and air aid routes being at max efficiency, but the Japanese were also doing retreating/retrograding to more eastern and coastal cities to counter potential US landings, and that also likely accounts for some Chinese end of war gains. Looking at what the ROCs achieved at the end of the war in territorial recovery from May 45 to September 45 doesn't add up to a truly impressive total. The occupied portions of Guizhou and west Guangdong province, and all occupied Guangxi province, neither Wuhan, nor Guangzhou, nor the rails between them, nor any cities east. So the Japanese still held some of their Ichigo captured territory on VJ Day. I don't really know we can feel confident the ROCs were getting to Nanjing, Shanghai or certainly Beijing very hard or very fast against actively resisting, non-cooperating Japanese. As it was, post-Japanese surrender, ROCs were flown and shipped in and dropped off amidst Japanese ordered to cooperate and hold the cities and arsenals and rails for them, and still lost units to the Commies when they went too far into the countryside.

 

[edgeworthy]

Even with a parachute you can only slow down the bomb to a certain point.

The Lincoln, on the other hand, had performance closer to the Silverplates, with a top speed to 310mph and a ceiling of 30,000 feet. That would make it marginal, at best, but far better than the slower, far lower flying, Lancaster

A Lancaster B.VI is a possibility. With a top speed (Officially) of 313mph, some sources put this higher, and a ceiling of 28,500ft.
(It was tested to 350mph in a powered dive, at 26,000ft)

It was used by Pathfinder Squadrons and Master Bombers. However, it was something of a "Hangar Queen" and was withdrawn from active service in November 1944. (The Master Bombers and Pathfinders seemed to prefer using Mosquitoes) Several were retained by Rolls Royce, the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Bomb Ballistics Unit for testing and experimental usage. So it would technically have been available.

A "Silverplate" Lincoln is not completely outrageous.

 

[DougM]

A hanger queen aircraft is exactly what you dont want, Because it is much to likly to break while on the bombing mission. The B-29 was temperamental enough.
And we still cant get around the simple fact that the US is not handing a furst generation nuclear weapon over to GB. And there is no need for the US to fly British aircraft when they already have the B-29.
And this goes double when you factor in that in 1945 Germany is not the best place to use you handful of nuclear weapons.
We seam to keep overlooking that last point. This is not a regular bomb where we can use it this month and the ammunition factories will have a to e of replacements available next month. Heck even the big conventional bombs such as tallboys or whatever were “readily” available conpared to the Atom bombs. Even limited aircraft such as B-29s or Silverplate B-29s were readily available when compared to the atom bomb.
So the powers taht he are going to be very choosy in where they are used (and rightly so). And nothing in Germany is going to drasticly shorten the war or save tens of thousands of US lives but using them in Japan will.

If you want Atom Bombs in Europe you need to delay the USSR offensive and the D-day landings and the invasion of Italy until after you have the atom bomb and. the B-29 to drop them. Or you need to get the Atom Bomb and the B-29 by Jan 1945 or so. But by Aug 45 they were mo longer as useful in Europe as they would be in Japan. And the folks running the US war KNEW that. In 1943 or early to mid 44 you could get the bomb used in Europe as it may help with or possible avoid the need for an invasion. And it was not yet as obvious how hortible the invasion of Japan would be.

 

[Crowbar Six]

This is an interesting idea to me.
A major difference between bombing Germany and Japan is that Germany was already being invaded. In Japan, the bombs were deployed to prevent the need for an invasion. So if the bombs were deployed to support an invasion, they might just be viewed as another weapon for tactical use on the battlefield. Maybe MacArthur's perspective during the Korean War -- that the same restrictions generally applied to atomic weapons as conventional weapons -- would be a more popular one (at least until the effects of nuclear fallout were better understood, the nuclear arms race was well under way, and the risk of nuclear annihilation became more apparent).

If the bomb had been available in 1944 then Germany would have been on the receiving end of the multiple nuclear weapons or if the invasion had taken longer to break into Northern Europe and they were outside the borders of Germany in 1945 then yes they would have used the bomb.

If it got used in Europe it was definitely getting used against Japan.

 

[Hammerbolt]

I just realised/remembered something. In both japanese bombings the USAAF was able to send what was basically a bomber alone to do the job, because the japanese airforce was pretty much dead. They had few planes that could get up there, and even less fuel to do it with. So they only went for massed raids.

But, in Europe right till the end, OTL, the Luftwaffe could offer some opposition. And the longer the nuking is delayed the more jets will show up. Neither the P-80 nor the Meteor have the range to escort B-29s from the UK, so we're stuck with P-51s. And that's not counting the excelent flak. So either surround 3-4 B-29s with a couple hundred P-51 and hope for best (and pray flak doesn't it it) or make up a fake raid with severall dozen B-29s, a couple hundred P-51 and go for it (and pray flak doesn't it it). So... yeah... suddenly this doesn't seem that easy anymore...

 

[Crowbar Six]

A Lancaster B.VI is a possibility. With a top speed (Officially) of 313mph, some sources put this higher, and a ceiling of 28,500ft.
(It was tested to 350mph in a powered dive, at 26,000ft)

It was used by Pathfinder Squadrons and Master Bombers. However, it was something of a "Hangar Queen" and was withdrawn from active service in November 1944. (The Master Bombers and Pathfinders seemed to prefer using Mosquitoes) Several were retained by Rolls Royce, the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Bomb Ballistics Unit for testing and experimental usage. So it would technically have been available.

A "Silverplate" Lincoln is not completely outrageous.

The Lancaster was actually considered as a bomb carrier for use against Japan.

 

[Crowbar Six]

I just realised/remembered something. In both japanese bombings the USAAF was able to send what was basically a bomber alone to do the job, because the japanese airforce was pretty much dead. They had few planes that could get up there, and even less fuel to do it with. So they only went for massed raids.

But, in Europe right till the end, OTL, the Luftwaffe could offer some opposition. And the longer the nuking is delayed the more jets will show up. Neither the P-80 nor the Meteor have the range to escort B-29s from the UK, so we're stuck with P-51s. And that's not counting the excelent flak. So either surround 3-4 B-29s with a couple hundred P-51 and hope for best (and pray flak doesn't it it) or make up a fake raid with severall dozen B-29s, a couple hundred P-51 and go for it (and pray flak doesn't it it). So... yeah... suddenly this doesn't seem that easy anymore...

The Japanese didn't have many aircraft capable of reaching B29's at altitude partly due to the poor quality of aviation fuel available to the IJA and UJN at the end.

You seem to forget, if the allies were on the ground in Holland and France they would be able to escort the bombers all the way to the target with piston and jet aircraft depending on the targets.

 

[Hammerbolt]

The Japanese didn't have many aircraft capable of reaching B29's at altitude partly due to the poor quality of aviation fuel available to the IJA and UJN at the end.

You seem to forget, if the allies were on the ground in Holland and France they would be able to escort the bombers all the way to the target with piston and jet aircraft depending on the targets.

If the allies are allready that far in Europe, then there's no point in nuking. I assumed the nukign would happen due to a failed D-Day.

 

[Crowbar Six]

If the allies are allready that far in Europe, then there's no point in nuking. I assumed the nukign would happen due to a failed D-Day.

Not necessarily. If the WALLIES are stuck in the low countries and France and Market Garden failed but the Russians are screaming through Poland and Czechoslovakia I could see them using the Bomb if they think it can cause a collapse in the West.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

The Japanese didn't have many aircraft capable of reaching B29's at altitude partly due to the poor quality of aviation fuel available to the IJA and UJN at the end.

Never mind the poor quality of available aviation fuel. The poor quality of their available pilots was even more relevant.

 

[DougM]

You cant have you cake and eat it too.
If you are using the Atom Bombs in Europe (were in RTL they were NOT needed) then those bombs CANT be used in Japan.
No matter how you want to flip this the US was not up to producing tons of bombs in the first year of production.
So once the US is in Range of Japan you have a choice. Bomb Germany where the troops on the ground are doing well amd face. the bloody cost of invading Japan with no atom bombs. OR. Use the bombs to best effect on Japan.

This is basic math. You are getting a handful of bombs the first year. You can only use them on a handfull of targets.

And yes using them in Europe is both much more dangerous AND going to be less effect e due to construction methods.
By the time you were reasonably safe sending in B-29s with Atom bombs you no longer need them.
You also have very few of the Silverplate B-29s so from the very start Germany will be suspicious of these unusual aircraft (the B-29 will NEVER be used in Germany in mass numbers as they were needed in the Pacific because of the range). and after the first atom bomb drops Germany will know that those B-29s are priority #1 as well as #2#3#4#5#6#7 and #8 And with Germanys flak guns, its prop interceptors, its jets and its Rocket planes it is much much more dangerous then the situation in Japan.

So frankly unless the Atom bombs are available in Jan or Feb 1944 or D Day fails you are not getting the Atom bomb used in Europe as only a moron would use them all things considered in Europe when they are going yo be desperately needed in Japan.

I know it is interesting to speculate what would happen if they were used in Europe but it is just not realistic.
One thing i will say is lilely is that if the Atom bombs were used I may mot be here as my father was a kid in Germany at the time.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Somehow I don't think the US leaders are going to decide: there's too much destruction, lets not use this device.

Is it basically what Truman said about the third bombing?? Too many kids???

 

[Sekhmet_D]

You cant have you cake and eat it too.
If you are using the Atom Bombs in Europe (were in RTL they were NOT needed) then those bombs CANT be used in Japan.
No matter how you want to flip this the US was not up to producing tons of bombs in the first year of production.
So once the US is in Range of Japan you have a choice. Bomb Germany where the troops on the ground are doing well amd face. the bloody cost of invading Japan with no atom bombs. OR. Use the bombs to best effect on Japan.

This is basic math. You are getting a handful of bombs the first year. You can only use them on a handfull of targets.

You can always hit Germany first, then wait a while until the bomb stockpile is replenished before hitting Japan.

With Japan, you can afford to delay; there's no hurry to land on the Home Islands, and their offensive capability is all but gone.

 

[DougM]

So we are supposed to have the US extend the war in the pacific indefinitely so they drop some pointless bombs on Germany when they were not needed? You know the people plan the war for the US were neither insane or stupid, right?
And even the might US can not afford to stand off the coast of Japan forever. The troops had been at war for out 4 years already and wanted to go. Also you sort of need them at home to get back to work to pay for the war, Add in that you also need then to get started on the next generation, Not to mention that the families at home and even the single women were getting a tired of all the young men being gone,

And what do you do with the troops from Europe after the war is over? Do you send them home because you don’t need them to maintain the blockade? If so you are asking for trouble from those you keep in. And if you send them to help maintain the blockade then you are asking for trouble when they just sit around. So sud you are all but FORCED to invade because you can’t keep the blockade up forever and you stupidly used your nukes where tjey were not needed. In Germany after you already landed in France and were successful pushing Germany back with relatively minimal casualties.

Instead of saving them for the invasion you knew was going to make D-Day look like a cake walk.

And you can only build a handfull of bombs in the first year any more and we are totally ASB. So you are probably waiting until very late 45 or more likely 46.

And all for no good reason other than it would be “cool”. Strategically drop a Nuke in Europe after The Normandy beach are secure is is a dumb idea. They are much better saved up for Japan.

Now if you are turning out a couple a month in Feb of 45 and you have B-29s to spare and you somehow can protect them then from interceptions (because B-29s in Europe will stick out like a sore thumb to everyone) then by all means bomb Germany.
But you CANT make even 1 bomb a month / 12 bombs a year, and you don’t have B-29s to spare and you can’t be sure to protect them and you can’t build so many B-29s that they become just another bomber.