Enola Gay over Berlin?

You don't nuke Germany by making the atomic bomb earlier, but by making Germany last longer. You probably need a PoD back in 1940 or 1941 to delay the Soviet Union by six months or so.
The most obvious way to delay the conquest of Nazi Germany is to have Hitler decide against declaring war on the US. Had he not done so, FDR would have had a *chore* figuring out how to declare war on Germany. The American people probably would have been perfectly happy devoting the great bulk of our war effort towards smacking the Japanese around the Pacific. It was of course several years before the US war machine made a whole lot of *direct* impact in Europe, but with the US Navy not pestering the U-Boats and lend-lease not throwing whole mountains of trucks and such at the Russians, the secondary effect could well have slowed the UK and USSR by a lot.
 
How does the planned, pre-December 11th lend lease volume projections for 1942 compare with the IRL, post-german declaration of war volumes and their targets?
 
It was of course several years before the US war machine made a whole lot of *direct* impact in Europe, but with the US Navy not pestering the U-Boats and lend-lease not throwing whole mountains of trucks and such at the Russians, the secondary effect could well have slowed the UK and USSR by a lot.
The US Navy was doing a fair bit of pestering U-Boats, and Lend-Lease was already supplying both the UK and USSR, before the German declaration of war on the USA.

What Hitler could have done, to really confuse matters, is declare war on Japan.
 
The US Navy was doing a fair bit of pestering U-Boats, and Lend-Lease was already supplying both the UK and USSR, before the German declaration of war on the USA.

Sure, but actual declared war with Germany kinda ramped things up a tad. Had there been *no* war with Germany, and had the American populace been wholly devoted to curbstomping the Japanese, might be that lend-lease might've been turned down.

What Hitler could have done, to really confuse matters, is declare war on Japan.

That would be an odd timeline. Maybe do an armistice with the UK...
 
Nope.

Even if Hitler would have one million fighters would have ran out of fuel the very same.
The Me 262 alone used immediately as air superiority fighter would become a true nightmare if Luftwaffe had only enough fuel...

This is a no way scenario.

Germany was also allready out of trained fighter, one plane wreck was found in todays Poland with the body of the pilot which still had the open manual on his lap. The Volksjäger was planed to be operated by hardly trained boys (starting from 16 years....).
 
Actually not so much was underground, as simply disperced among rural areas and forests. The program of massive underground factories was nearly-universally considered a failure; while SOME were build and worked, the majority never were ever finished.

Incorrect. Underground shelters began construction in 1943. Some were unfinished but some did begin being used regardless. The underground factory at Kahla in Thuringia was captured.
 
The most obvious way to delay the conquest of Nazi Germany is to have Hitler decide against declaring war on the US. Had he not done so, FDR would have had a *chore* figuring out how to declare war on Germany. The American people probably would have been perfectly happy devoting the great bulk of our war effort towards smacking the Japanese around the Pacific. It was of course several years before the US war machine made a whole lot of *direct* impact in Europe, but with the US Navy not pestering the U-Boats and lend-lease not throwing whole mountains of trucks and such at the Russians, the secondary effect could well have slowed the UK and USSR by a lot.

President Roosevelt told the American people that he wanted the U.S. to stay out of European affairs. Prime Minister Chamberlain had gotten "Peace for our time." from Hitler. There were still too many World War I vets around.
 
Eh, it's probably possible in 1942 with a better case Blue.
Just taking Moscow would really screw over the Soviets. Because all the railroads went to Moscow, there were few-if-any other cross-links points in other places. Trains with divisions from Siberia had to go to Moscow before getting routed south towards Stalingrad, for example.

That would probably delay a successful Soviet counter-offensive to sometime after 1944. Would also probably kill another 20mil various Slavs.
 
Just taking Moscow would really screw over the Soviets.
The last 20 miles or so to Moscow weren't quite as difficult for the Wehrmacht as the last 20 miles or so to Dover, but getting on for it. Their logistics were at the end of their tether.

Taking Leningrad in late 1941 makes things interesting; there is a potential there for Soviet morale to collapse, which doesn't require a German logistical miracle. Not having to support the siege of Leningrad then frees up resources for Moscow and/or Baku in 1942.
 
The last 20 miles or so to Moscow weren't quite as difficult for the Wehrmacht as the last 20 miles or so to Dover, but getting on for it. Their logistics were at the end of their tether.
Yes, the German logistics were stretched to the breaking point.

But the point is to make it so that the Russian logistics were screwed and forced to lay new railroad track if they wanted to fix the issue quickly. Otherwise they'd have to retake Moscow. "All Roads and Rails lead to Moscow."


Taking Leningrad in late 1941 makes things interesting; there is a potential there for Soviet morale to collapse, which doesn't require a German logistical miracle. Not having to support the siege of Leningrad then frees up resources for Moscow and/or Baku in 1942.
yes, that's probably what would allow the Germans to take Moscow. Stalingrad was mostly a distraction.
 
Just taking Moscow would really screw over the Soviets. Because all the railroads went to Moscow, there were few-if-any other cross-links points in other places. Trains with divisions from Siberia had to go to Moscow before getting routed south towards Stalingrad, for example.

That would probably delay a successful Soviet counter-offensive to sometime after 1944. Would also probably kill another 20mil various Slavs.
To be fair, I think taking Moscow,or Leningrad then moscow would delay the soviet by a lot more than 6 months. "Just" Not splitting Army group south in July 42 could probably achieve that
 
Just taking Moscow would really screw over the Soviets. Because all the railroads went to Moscow, there were few-if-any other cross-links points in other places. Trains with divisions from Siberia had to go to Moscow before getting routed south towards Stalingrad, for example.

That would probably delay a successful Soviet counter-offensive to sometime after 1944. Would also probably kill another 20mil various Slavs.
The traditional view in the West is that these Soviet troop transfers from the Far East happened at the end of 1941 (Nov-Dec 1941). So your argument is that capturing Moscow earlier prevents their distribution to other parts of front.

I've often wondered about how that was actualy achieved in such a short timescale. And also why they waited so long especially given that the Soviet-Japan Neutrality Pact came into effect on 13 April 1941?

The information here suggests an entirely different picture.

22 June to 31 Dec 1941 - 28 divisions transferred West. Broken down:-

June -11 (and some of these were apparently under orders to move before Barbarossa began)
July - 3
Aug-Sept - 3
Oct - 6
Nov-Dec - 5

Many of these divisions weren't "Siberian" and many didn't go to the defence of Moscow. Some were sent to Leningrad and some to other fronts.

And looking at this map of the Soviet rail network in 1941 it is an exaggeration to say everything had to go via Moscow.

1712144333393.png
 
Don't forget the Anthrax research that made an island unlivable.

A quip from "Great Medical Disasters"

Reasons for dropping the Atom rather than the Anthrax bomb-

1.) The population of Berlin, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Aachen and Wilhelmshaven could be reasonably reliably exterminated by six 1945 atom bombs (possibly only five, Frankfurt and Stuttgart being near enough to share.) This would need only six Flying Fortress sorties, not 2,690 Lancaster sorties.

2.) Though the Anthrax bomb is considerably quieter, a big bang impresses the enemy tremendously.


3.) Anthrax fallout cannot be easily measured with a Geiger counter.


4.) An atom bomb is probably easier to make, is easier to handle, and looks better.


5.) Death from an atomic explosion occurs in a millisecond, with Anthrax you have to wait a week


6.) The atom bomb is more warlike. Nobody ever got a medal for spreading disease.
 
Yes, 2) and 6) do reflect *proper* military thinking. I think men would rather be exposed to radiation than some bacteria.
 
I'll note that a significant portion of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were there specifically to prevent Nazi Germany from getting it first and expected Germany to be the target.
 
I'll note that a significant portion of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were there specifically to prevent Nazi Germany from getting it first and expected Germany to be the target.

I have seen no evidence of that. Germany being the target that is. There was no American atomic bomb in March, 1945. Manhattan Project supervisor James F. Byrnes had sent a letter to President Roosevelt. To that point $2 billion had been spent with no guarantee of production. He recommended the Project be shut down to undergo scientific review (FDR Library).
 
No idea why the presence of Soviet tanks in Germany means not nuking the place. Giving Uncle Joe a bloody nose before the real event might just be a bonus.

Get in before the Soviets have the tech and the cold war might just have been a whatif on an internet forum.
 
1.) The population of Berlin, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Aachen and Wilhelmshaven could be reasonably reliably exterminated by six 1945 atom bombs (possibly only five, Frankfurt and Stuttgart being near enough to share.)
Frankfurt and Stuttgart are over 150 km (or almost 95 miles) apart, so I don't think so. Where do you get your data/info from???
 
Last edited:
Nuking the very west of Germany (Greetings from Aachen....) was surly not a good idea when you will enter the country, you would have to cross many ground zeros... Be aware, that Aachen was the first big city which was freed in the late war. For mysterios reasons, the US than choosed to explore the Hürtgenwald deeply instead of marching streight on through the almost flat route from Aachen to Cologne...
 
I have seen no evidence of that. Germany being the target that is. There was no American atomic bomb in March, 1945.
By the time actually picking targets was a consideration, Germany was off the list. There doesn't seem to have been an explicit decision to that effect, it just sort of stopped being discussed.

Earlier on, it was just another weapon to be used against the right kinds of target. There are documents discussing (e.g.) the different burst heights required for German and Japanese cities.
 
By the time actually picking targets was a consideration, Germany was off the list. There doesn't seem to have been an explicit decision to that effect, it just sort of stopped being discussed.

Earlier on, it was just another weapon to be used against the right kinds of target. There are documents discussing (e.g.) the different burst heights required for German and Japanese cities.

Do you have any specific document references you can name?
 
Nuking the very west of Germany (Greetings from Aachen....) was surly not a good idea when you will enter the country, you would have to cross many ground zeros... Be aware, that Aachen was the first big city which was freed in the late war. For mysterios reasons, the US than choosed to explore the Hürtgenwald deeply instead of marching streight on through the almost flat route from Aachen to Cologne...
Its just a timing issue. Air-bursts are relatively "clean" with limited fallout, the worst of which decays in about two weeks. Simple protection (basic face mask, no eating local produce) is all that is needed at that point.
 
Frankfurt and Stuttgart are over 150 km (or almost 95 miles) apart, so I don't think so. Where do you get your data/info from???
It was a book (Great Medical Disasters) written by a physician with tongue firmly in cheek.
 
The most obvious way to delay the conquest of Nazi Germany is to have Hitler decide against declaring war on the US. Had he not done so, FDR would have had a *chore* figuring out how to declare war on Germany. The American people probably would have been perfectly happy devoting the great bulk of our war effort towards smacking the Japanese around the Pacific. It was of course several years before the US war machine made a whole lot of *direct* impact in Europe, but with the US Navy not pestering the U-Boats and lend-lease not throwing whole mountains of trucks and such at the Russians, the secondary effect could well have slowed the UK and USSR by a lot.


Considering that the US Navy was "pestering the U-boats" well before 11 Dec 1941, I don't see that stopping. In any case, a far more isolationist president was convinced that Germany wanted war with the US by the less-than-brilliant diplomacy of Wilhelm II's government. I predict (retroactively ;)) that hitler's government would bring the US into war against Germany no later than June 1942. This would delay the start of the Manhattan Project, but not the influx of refugee scientists thanks to the immoral and idiotic racial policies of hitler and his minions.
 
Considering that the US Navy was "pestering the U-boats" well before 11 Dec 1941, I don't see that stopping.

Before Dec 7 41, the US was at war with nobody. But after that, the US was at war with Japan. Had we remained not at war with Germany, then it seems unlikely that the US Navy would have ramped up anti-U-Boat efforts. In fact, I'd expect that at least some of the Atlantic subs would be sent to the Pacific to deal with the war the US had actually declared.
 
Before Dec 7 41, the US was at war with nobody. But after that, the US was at war with Japan. Had we remained not at war with Germany, then it seems unlikely that the US Navy would have ramped up anti-U-Boat efforts. In fact, I'd expect that at least some of the Atlantic subs would be sent to the Pacific to deal with the war the US had actually declared.
IIRC, most of the subs in the Atlantic fleet were the older, shorter ranged designs, pre Gato class. So shuffling those west wouldn't have been particularly useful.
 
It was a book (Great Medical Disasters) written by a physician with tongue firmly in cheek.
Firstly, you could easily have checked out and debunked that patently false assertion by applying basic critical thinking and simple online research, so my best recommendation would be to not ever consult that particular physician with any potential health problems at all. Secondly, there is an *extremely* good reason why physician and geographer are two very distinct professions. Thirdly, to me it appears that consistently medical doctors have to pass a much lower bar of scientific scrutiny than say mechanical, let alone aerospace, engineering doctors. Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
First off, you could easily have checked out and debunked that patently false assertion by applying basic critical thinking and simple online research, so my best recommendation would be to not ever consult that particular physician with any potential health problems at all. Secondly, there is an *extremely* good reason why physician and geographer are two very distinct professions. As an aside, to me it appears that consistently medical doctors have to pass a much lower bar of scientific scrutiny than say mechanical, let alone aerospace, engineering doctors.
The problem is that the human body (or any living critters, really) are sufficiently complex that you cannot directly predict what happens when given small amounts of (insert drug here). Too many interlinked interactions between "Take tylenol when your head hurts or you have a fever" and "crud, you took too much and now your liver is using an atypical breakdown method that makes all sorts of nasty toxic crap"
 
IIRC, most of the subs in the Atlantic fleet were the older, shorter ranged designs, pre Gato class. So shuffling those west wouldn't have been particularly useful.
Imagine a world where Hitler took pains to *not* go to war with the US, but December 7 happens. A *lot* of America really didn't want to go to war in Europe... but seemingly a *vast* number of Americans wanted to stamp Japan down to the sea bed. In that timeline, those shorter range Atlantic subs seem like they'd still be brought west, for two reasons:
1) To protect the mainland from the Immanent Japanese Invasion
2) To move the crews into the "real war."

As for 2, you'd imagine that both the public *and* the crews would demand that.

A smart, non-insane Hitler - or whoever is standing in for him in this other timeline - would recognize Dec 7 as one hell of an opportunity. Yes, the US had been providing material aid to UK/USSR, as well as messing with the U-boats... but a *smart* Nazi, seeing the US public insane with rage at the Japanese, would make nice with the US, perhaps even play nice with the UK, as a way to convince the US to devote *all* it's effort to the Pacific. At least for six months or a year.
 
Imagine a world where Hitler took pains to *not* go to war with the US, but December 7 happens. A *lot* of America really didn't want to go to war in Europe... but seemingly a *vast* number of Americans wanted to stamp Japan down to the sea bed. In that timeline, those shorter range Atlantic subs seem like they'd still be brought west, for two reasons:
1) To protect the mainland from the Immanent Japanese Invasion
2) To move the crews into the "real war."

As for 2, you'd imagine that both the public *and* the crews would demand that.

A smart, non-insane Hitler - or whoever is standing in for him in this other timeline - would recognize Dec 7 as one hell of an opportunity. Yes, the US had been providing material aid to UK/USSR, as well as messing with the U-boats... but a *smart* Nazi, seeing the US public insane with rage at the Japanese, would make nice with the US, perhaps even play nice with the UK, as a way to convince the US to devote *all* it's effort to the Pacific. At least for six months or a year.
Requires a Nazi willing to abrogate a treaty with Japan. And a smart Nazi in general, which should eliminate the possibility of that happening at all.
 
The problem is that the human body (or any living critters, really) are sufficiently complex that you cannot directly predict what happens when given small amounts of (insert drug here). Too many interlinked interactions between "Take tylenol when your head hurts or you have a fever" and "crud, you took too much and now your liver is using an atypical breakdown method that makes all sorts of nasty toxic crap"
Sure, so the question at hand then becomes what were any noticeable short and/or long term physical or biological effects of Little Boy and Fat Man on any surrounding communities located at a radius of at least 150 km around Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, this particular discussion is about snuffing out both Frankfurt (which for almost two decades I lived about 23 miles from, pretty much the distance I have to commute to my cubicle [when I even rarely go there these days]) and Stuttgart (which I lived in for several years while getting my degree in aerospace engineering). Continue to color me extremely skeptical on publiusr's assertion apparently based on the musings of a potential quack.
 
Last edited:
Requires a Nazi willing to abrogate a treaty with Japan.
That's kinda what Nazis did. However, the Germans did not have a treaty obligation to come to Japans aid in all circumstances; they had a mutual defense pact which said the Germans would come to Japans aid if Japan was attacked. But Japan started the war, which meant the treaty was not in effect (or at least it could be easily argued that way if the Germans wished).


Against this backdrop, officials from Germany, Italy, and Japan met in Berlin in September 1940 to devise the Tripartite Pact. It notably called on signees “to assist one another with all political, economic and military means” when any one of them was attacked by “a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Sino-Japanese Conflict.”


The Nazi declaration of war on the US - the only such declaration they officially made - was not just strategically stupid, it didn't make any sense. The Japanese certainly didn't come to Germany's aid in their war with the USSR.
 
Its just a timing issue. Air-bursts are relatively "clean" with limited fallout, the worst of which decays in about two weeks. Simple protection (basic face mask, no eating local produce) is all that is needed at that point.
The borders to Netherland and Belgium are just about 3 km from the center of the town, even a small atomic bomb would have caused a lot of destruction abroad the border. Also, the rail road connection between Aachen and Cologne was concidered impoortant and was spared from bombine (the only houses left in Düren, were all close to the rails).
 
Sure, so the question at hand then becomes what were any noticeable short and/or long term physical or biological effects of Little Boy and Fat Man on any surrounding communities located at a radius of at least 150 km around Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, this particular discussion is about snuffing out both Frankfurt (which for almost two decades I lived about 23 miles from, pretty much the distance I have to commute to my cubicle [when I even rarely go there these days]) and Stuttgart (which I lived in for several years while getting my degree in aerospace engineering). Continue to color me extremely skeptical on publiusr's assertion apparently based on the musings of a potential quack.
The long term results of heavy radiation exposure are not particularly predictable. And I say that as someone with officially documented occupational rad and a couple dozen different toxins exposure.
 
The long term results of heavy radiation exposure are not particularly predictable. And I say that as someone with officially documented occupational rad and a couple dozen different toxins exposure.
I have no reason to doubt your qualifications, but based on fundamental logic I continue to extremely strongly dispute the assertion that both Frankfurt and Stuttgart could have been taken out *simultaneously* by either a *single* Little Boy or Fat Man.
 
Last edited:
I have no reason to doubt your qualifications, but based on fundamental logic I continue to extremely strongly dispute the assertion that both Frankfurt and Stuttgart could have been taken out *simultaneously* by either a *single* Little Boy or Fat Man.
Reread the tone of the points. That statement should be taken about as seriously as the one in another thread that Pershing was a superior weapons system to Polaris because it was ten letters earlier in the alphabet.
 
With Japan, rainfall cleaned things up better than desert test sites I imagine.
 
I'll just focus on the 50,000 fighters, presumably over the OTL production.

From what i've read each V-2 equals a high performance fighter resource/cost wise, not clear if jets or props. So that's 6000 fighters.
Also, iirc the bombing of 1943-44 cost the germans 18,000 aircraft not produced, of which 14,000 fighters. So that's 20,000 fighters.
However, to actually have a chance to greatly reduce that production loss in the first place, they need to give top priority to fighters much earlier. So problematic or small numbers programs must be cancelled, and production of bombers, at least obsolete ones must be greatly reduced.

So, no 1200 He-177, no 1100 Hs-129, no roughly 2000 Me-210 (this includes the estimated production loss due to the failure of that program), no 1200 Me-410, no 300 He-219. Just going by the number of piston engines, and assuming increased production due to the economies of scale, we get 15,000 piston fighters, possibly more especially if there are some cuts to the Ju-88, Ju-87, He-111 bombers and indeed some other obscure types. So indeed we get quite close to the 50,000 figure.

Instead of Ar-234 more Me-262 are built. If 6000 V-2 equals 6000 Me-262 that would dramatically change the air war picture as well.
So, 50,000 fighters means much heavier losses to US/UK bombers which indeed might cause the raids to stop altogether for a period, less damage on the ground (hence less disruption and more production for prop and jet fighters), less damage to oil infrastructure so more oil produced and available etc..

As to R4M rockets, how many R4M rockets can be built for every V-1 and/or for every Me-163? There were 30,000 V-1 built, so if 10 R4Ms can be built for every V-1, that's 300,000 R4M rockets, though that might be too conservative. Perhaps say 500,000 is more realistic. By the same metric, if we have the 6000 V-2s converted to R4Ms instead, considering that it cost about 20 (!) times more than V-1 to built, then that would be 6 to 10 million R4M rockets, so we actually got to the number in the OP. However, for the rockets to have an impact they need to be ready 1 year earlier.

So all in all, it seems doable with an early enough POD. The downside of no V weapons means the fighters used for air defence over UK would be mostly used over Europe, i'm curious how many, probably a few thousands? Same about the AA guns.

However with so many extra german fighters means there is likely no D-Day in 1944 in the first place, as there would be no air superiority. In 1945 maybe they could try an invasion, but by that time the germans have a lot more jets ITTL, plus high performance piston fighters like Ta-152. It will be in this scenario that the B-29/nukes would be seen as the last chance to do something about an invasion, BUT i would think an R4M equipped Me-262 would eat B-29s for breakfast. Same as the Ta-152H. Considering the small numbers of nukes, would they even survive interception from either day jet/prop fighters or night radar equipped jets/props to drop the nuke on a german target?

So probably in this scenario the nukes might actually be used in Normandy to clear the way for an invasion because it's a lot closer and they can be protected by literally thousands of US/UK fighters.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom