@SuperbattleshipYamato hard to argue against any of this really. The IJN was so far gone by this point in the war that there’s not really much they could have done to salvage their situation one way or another. The bit about the allies not having many LSTs in general is something I never knew before though.
What would you do if you had six A-bombs?
-
@rjpeters70:
Aequitas, as far as yields go, 15 kt is on the really, really low end. It’s not going to vaporize a city made of steel and concrete and masonry. It would wipe out a large neighborhood that size, and cause structural damage to buildings outside the initial blast zone, but we’re not talking megatons here. We’re talking a handful of kilotons. That’s not something that destroys a city.
I’m aware of that and still think that these would have been the targets for Germany.
@rjpeters70:
And:  “With the drop of those bombs, Amerika not only implemented  sovereignty and independency to the world ,but also create a lot of enemys who smiling in her face and just waiting for big shot!” So, you think Japan, America’s closest Asian ally, is just biding it’s time for revenge against the United States?  You honestly think that?
Is it impossible ?
-
@Herr:
Good point. But I’d say it would be a distinct advantage to know what to aim for
Which is how the Soviets were able to build them so quickly with a fraction of the resources available to the United States…
-
The date doesn’t matter. I would use my 6 A-bombs to destroy the international financial system that is the root of all evil in the world today. New York, Chicago, London, Geneva, Tokyo, Beijing. Simultaneous detonations near the financial districts of those cities, no warning, maximum casualties, then I’d release my biological weapons (surprise I got those too :evil:).
-
If I were Germany early in the war, say in 1942 then I use them to destroy Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad…if Russia is still fighting after that, use them against the remaining industrial cities in the East (Chelyabinsk, Magnitogorsk, etc.). In either case, the point is to decisively win in the East (where the vast majority of the German war effort was focused…). In 1943 or 1944 (after the tide of the war has turned) use them tactically such at the battle of Kursk to increase my defensive capacity, the idea being to bleed the Russians into capitulation. In 1945, the war is lost so hit London, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, New York and Washington DC (via submarine) to try to bluff a negotiated peace.
If Russia, then Berlin and tactical use on the east front.
If Japan, then the American West coast cities (Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco) the Panama Canal, Pearl Harbor, and probably Sidney, Australia. For them, the war was against the USA and UK.
If the USA, then I would pretty much do what they did, unless I had the A-bomb earlier in the war in which case I would bomb the larger cities of Japan and Germany (Tokyo, Osaka, Berlin, etc.) instead of Hiroshima and tiny Nagasaki.
If Great Britain, I absolutely use them to destroy the U-boat pens and would probably bomb the larger cities and industrial areas of Germany with the remaining bombs.
-
Good post 221 Baker Street!
I like that you remembered the Russian Industrial places and that you considered them as well.
-
Aequiteas,
Yes, it goes unappreciated by most but the Russian industrial cities east of the Urals were extremely important to the Russians. If I, as Germany, had only one A-bomb, I might destroy Magnitogorsk (or as much as 15 kT will) instead of any other target (perhaps including even Moscow). Most of the Russian steel was produced in this relatively small city…without which there would be very few Russian tanks…without which, I don’t see how the Russians win the war.
-
I would use Sarin gas in Northern Syria.
I mean… wait. Wrong conversation. ;)
-
How would every nation delivered these bombs?
Suggestions ? -
So isn’t that a possibility??
-
Yeah it’s a possibility, so long as the rocket doesn’t veer off course, or explode on the deck like this.
-
The Germans worked allready on guided missles like the V-1 and V-2.
Launching via Subs it would have meant that two Subs would have been needed to fire a V-1 or V-2,
while the first Sub was firing the V-1, the second sub would have guided it via Radio.
Since the German Navy ran allready successful tests with the new XXI boats as beeing a true SUBMARINE (U-Boat) it would have been an easy one to sneak up to any coast in the world.
Working allready on Rocket launchers for subs and test to fire a V-1 by a sub would have been the next level to the end of 1945. -
@rjpeters70:
In 1945, the nuclear powers did not know enough about nuclear physics to produce weapons small enough to fit on ballistic missiles. It would simply not have been possible to put an atomic warhead on a V1 or V2.Â
Who are those power"s" you talking??
-
@rjpeters70:
Ok, fair enough. I should have written, “In 1945, no one knew enough about nuclear physics to produce weapons small enough to fit on ballistic missiles.”
I guess another way of approaching the problem would be to try to build a ballistic missile big enough to carry the large atomic weapons of the time, though I don’t know if rocket technology in those days was sufficiently advanced to do the job. The Germans did fool around with some large missile designs such as the A9/A10 (which in principle might have been able to reach New York), but these designs may have been optimized for range rather than payload-carrying capacity. At any rate, the problem would be made a bit easier if a gun-type uranium-based bomb was used, since this design was more compact (though harder to produce in large quantities) than an implosion-type plutonium-based bomb.
-
This is a no brainer. You got Hitler in 33 chomping at the bit to get in power so he can wage his war for “living space”, than suddenly he gets the weapon of his dreams… IMO he nukes Paris and London. He now knows his western flank is secured because they can not compete with that kind of weapon. Than he goes after Russia with his last 4. The war is over and all of us should invest in Roseta stone to learn German.
-
@rjpeters70:
Just because you have a missile or rocket, doesn’t mean you have the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon. You need to have the nuclear warhead itself be small enough that can 1) fit on the tip of a rocket/missile, and 2) still have enough critical mass to achieve fission (and thus, yield).
That’s why the earliest weapons were so large: They required a huge amount of fissile material, because the weapons were so inefficient (i.e., required an enormous amount of material to produce yield). The reason why we are able to fit multiple, high yield weapons on missiles in the modern era is because modern nuclear powers know how to produce really efficient warheads that can produce large amounts of yield for relatively small amounts of fissile material.
In 1945, the nuclear powers did not know enough about nuclear physics to produce weapons small enough to fit on ballistic missiles. It would simply not have been possible to put an atomic warhead on a V1 or V2.Â
If you have these six A-bombs you will also have the right things to deliver it!
This statement goes as well with in real time based History!!If I recall it correctly, then the Russians launched a atomic warhead after the war from a German sub XXI class successfully, didn’t they??
Exactly Zooey72 , who will dare afterwards when you see your capitol with the shadows of your peoples on the walls?
-
6 atomic bombs and the means to deliver??
1 on London. Sue for peace " or else" option
2 on Manchester…. England will surrender after thatThe French will surrender… Well because their French
Poland would be crushed conventionally, and the rest of Europe would be annexed
from fear of same fate as Poland or London.Now I would hold the other 4 in reserve. I know I only got 4 left but the rest of the world does not.
My next move would be towards the middle east, not Russia.
-
@Deaths:
6 atomic bombs and the means to deliver??
The French will surrender…. Well because their FrenchOn the other hand, A-bombing Paris might have had the opposite effect. France’s biggest problem was that many senior political and military leaders (like General Gamelin) lacked guts and/or brains, and were wedded to obsolete military tactics. It’s possible that an A-bomb attack on Paris might have vaporized many of these problematic figures, and that military command might then have fallen on one of the more competent, aggressive and mechanization-minded officers (like de Gaulle) who were lower down the hierarchy.
-
It’s a weird question whether or not an atomic Germany would considering using one of a limited supply of warheads against France.
With the advantage of hindsight, its obvious that using a nuclear weapon would be unnecessary.
However, putting yourself in the head of a commander prior to the invasion of France, such an overwhelming victory was not a certain or even expected outcome.
-
It is kinda weird how you, rjpeters70 project this topic, you kinda don’t allow alternative ways and rely mostly on actual events and the informations gained out of it ,but in the same token apply things wich could not be known at that time…
And now you made me curious about how to deploy a weapon like this with a truck?
Six bombs you say??!..hmm :-)
-
Limited knowledge breeds limited solutions.
Suggested Topics
