German Atomic Bombs in WW2

[uk 75]

It has been reported that Luigi Romersa, an Italian correspondent during World War II, was personally dispatched by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) to the island of Rugen to witness the weapons test. Romersa (1917-2007) was the last known witness, at least to have come forward, to what he and some historians have said was the detonation of a Nazi nuclear device. In an article by John Hooper in The Guardian dated September 30, 2005, Romersa, relating his experience, is quoted as saying:

While for many Americans Rugen is obviously "wild, remote place, very far from civilization", in fact, it's a small (926 km2), tightly populated island, connected with mainland by road bridges, with a population about 20.000. How exactly those population was supposed to collectively ignore atomic test?

I can vouch for that. I spent a very pleasant weekend there visiting a local pastor in 1988. It had lovely countryside and reminded me of Dorset. Both places are remarkable for their lack of atom test sites.

 

[Hood]

There are too many holes in the story, as Arjen points out - Rider's table has no less than seven 'sources' that state the tests took place at Rugen or somewhere in Pomerania in October 1944. Then we have these Russian intelligence documents that claim the tests were in Thüringen - one of the most central and populated areas of Germany - in 1945. Plus earlier in this thread we had the Ludwigslust explosion (also Oct 1944) which is in another completely different location. So who do we believe? These claimed eyewitness reports or the GRU? The big smoking gun is the lack of any German scientists who fell into Western Allied hands holding their hands up saying "I was part of the team that tested a working bomb" and ensuring a cushy job in the USA for life, similarly nobody ended up boosting Soviet efforts to build a bomb by presenting plans of a workable bomb to them in 1945 to ease any terrors they might of what the Gulag might have in store for them.

Romersa's testimony in 1947 is rather after the fact, when conveniently nobody in the Italian fascist and Nazi hierarchies was around to corroborate his supposed letters of introduction to allow him to view a top secret project.

Zissner only tells his story regarding Ludwigslust on 19th August 1945 - after everybody knows exactly what an atomic mushroom cloud looks like. Why hadn't he spilled his momentous story in the three preceding months of his imprisonment?

Karlsch claims a Soviet spy who witnessed an A-bomb detonated at Orhdruf, in south-central Thuringia on 4th March 1945. Allegedly the report was radioed to Moscow and Stalin got a copy of their report within an hour. Other accounts state the 4th March Orhdruf test as being a single device using 100g of material with a second test on March 12th. The second memo posted above from Rider via Karlsch via Raibev seems to cover the rough outline of the Orhdruf trials (PoWs used as guinea pigs etc.) but of course the date of the 25th is weeks after the event, does not refer to the site by name nor any test on the 12th.

Orhdruf was a concentration camp - one liberated by the US Army on 4th April - exactly one month later so its odd they never found out about the results of the nearby test or found the location themselves. No lesser Generals than Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, and Eddy inspected the camp to see what had gone on there. There seems little doubt had some of the inmates been carted off and an atomic fireball had nearby had incinerated them only a few weeks earlier, that they would have mentioned it to the US troops.

Interestingly this second GRU memo, if dated 25th March, comes two days after Beria suggested sending teams to Germany to search for nuclear technology, and one day after he instructed Kurchatov to start organising these teams. By rights these SMERSH-led teams should have headed straight to Orhdruf as soon as they were able in July 1945, and Rugen too. Instead they went hunting down the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut für Physik in the Black Forest and uranium stocks to requisition across Eastern Europe.

Are the two memos fake or not?
Dilandu has posted a colour digital image of a similar document for comparison. It is from 1942 though, so I wouldn't want to make any assumptions regarding the different style of letterhead and stamps because these may have changed during 1942-44 and we have nothing else to compare too.

But I find a few points interesting:
- the pages are photocopies and not of great quality, so we cannot see the colour and patina of the paper to know whether its an original document showing signs of age or a fresh sheet of A4. (of course Raibev may or may not have had access to/permission to use a digital camera).
- the date stamps seem rather faint, is it [2]5 or 15 or just 5 March?
- the document does have some signs of underlining etc. (would be interesting to know which bits of the text are underlined), so they are not pristine
- but also there is a lack of further stamps and handwritten identification numbers that tend to clutter the first page of any memo that has been filed
- does Ilyichev's signature match other files?
- would a GRU report state "our trustworthy source in Germany" or would it refer to the source by a codename? It seems a very vague statement even allowing for the the fact this is a secondary report for onward transmission up the command chain.

I'm not saying its a fake, but as an historian I'd check all these points to satisfy myself it was genuine without being presented with the actual hardcopy.

And Scott makes a valid point - why hasn't anyone gone to the Deutsches Museum and quoted from their material? Why all the third-hand reports from other authors who use material in turn published by somebody else.
The Raibev link seems to be close, but if, as Dilandu states above, the copies are not included in the book then we have a problem accepting these as genuine. The evidence is presented by Karlsch as evidence to his claims that no-one else seems to have corroborated and claims which seem to directly contradict other claims of Rugen 1944 as the test.
Karlsch claims to have done his own soil tests with claims of radioactive elements but the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt did another test in 2006 and found nothing untoward (once you factored out Chernobyl deposits).

 

[Orionblamblam]

@Dilandu There's no reason to believe these memos are faked.

Yes, there is. These are "sensational" and "change the historical narrative." Those right there are reason enough to suspect.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I don't find them sensational at all. They amount to very little in reality unless corroborated. A spy, who's identity we don't know, made some claims about Nazi atomic bombs. The US, UK and USSR were all desperately looking for evidence as to how far the Germans had got before the war ended, and again afterwards when picking through the wreckage for war booty.

Rainer Karlsch himself agreed there was very little actual evidence to support his arguments in Hitler's Bombe.

 

[Archibald]

So it is complete popp, I mean, poop ?

 

[Michel Van]

I am confused. Mr Romersa claimed to have attended a test on Rügen, on the Baltic coast. The memos say tests were conducted in Thüringen, a landlocked part of central Germany. Tests on Rügen AND in Thüringen?

At the end of War "Happen" two weapon test according eyewitness

One on Island of Rügen by SS
The other Ohrdruf in Thüringen by the Wehrmacht

Eyewitness report a huge explosion with fire ball and mushroom cloud

What ever this was it was not Atomic Bombs
on both site were samples taken and radiological examine
no radioactivity prior August 1945 and most radioactive trace are from 1985 Chernobyl

 

[Dilandu]

I don't find them sensational at all. They amount to very little in reality unless corroborated. A spy, who's identity we don't know, made some claims about Nazi atomic bombs. The US, UK and USSR were all desperately looking for evidence as to how far the Germans had got before the war ended, and again afterwards when picking through the wreckage for war booty.

It could be argued, that a lot of this "nazi atom bomb" myths was born out of the fact, that they found much less, than anticipated. Before the war, Germany was well-known as one of the leaders of nuclear sciences. So, US, USSR and UK all expected to found some pretty advanced German nuclear program. Instead, they found barely started, half-hearth experiments, done independently by squabbling little laboratories. They found equipment, that was generation behind what Allies have. They found, that Germans were so unconcerned about their uranium supply, that they actually traded uranium to Japanese.

That difference between what Allies expected, and what they actually found, most likely fueled the suspicion - especially among non-specialists - that "there must be something else, something more". After all tall tales about German's "order" and Nazi "wunderwaffe", it was just hard to believe, that in fact Nazi were notoriously poor organizers, and just could not do massive research projects at all. So, the myth about German puny atomic project being more advanced than in reality, was born.

 

[Dilandu]

One on Island of Rügen by SS

And not only nobody on Rugen noticed it, but Soviet troops, that occupied island, found no signs of massive explosion? Unless Germans tested some kind of magical silent explosives, this is highly unlikely. Rugen is just 43 km East-to-West, and 50 km North-to-South. There are literally no areas on the island more than 5 km from settlements.

 

[Dilandu]

similarly nobody ended up boosting Soviet efforts to build a bomb by presenting plans of a workable bomb to them in 1945 to ease any terrors they might of what the Gulag might have in store for them.

Well... the terrors of Gulag for German scientists generally consisted of good living quarter, personal car with driver, and hefty payment in dollars (or pounds). They were hired to work as technical consultants for Soviet engineering bureaus mainly, and Stalin wanted them to be willing to work (of course, I suspect that they were hinted about... less attractive possibility, if they tried to, say, sabotage, or withhold the information).

For example, Hugo Schmeisser was hired as a consultant to teach Soviet engineers about modern production processes in metalwork. And frankly, he wasn't of much help. His personal characteristics was dismissive: "Due to lack of technical education, could not do any job himself. Was of no help during all his tenure. Capitalistic psychology. Have a corrupting influence on German workers. "




Essentially when he was kicked back to Germany after too many demands to raise his payment above agreed in contract, everybody sighed with relief.

 

[Michel Van]

And not only nobody on Rugen noticed it,

and the island was overrun by refugee in 1945
no one except a single Italian report that explosion...

...this smell like propaganda

 

[Dilandu]

and the island was overrun by refugee in 1945
no one except a single Italian report that explosion...

...this smell like propaganda

Exactly.

 

[dannydale]

Williamipellas

What is your source material you're quoting from ?

Asking the real questions. Otherwise this thread is clown shoes.

 

[williamjpellas]

I am confused. Mr Romersa claimed to have attended a test on Rügen, on the Baltic coast. The memos say tests were conducted in Thüringen, a landlocked part of central Germany. Tests on Rügen AND in Thüringen?

I am confused. Mr Romersa claimed to have attended a test on Rügen, on the Baltic coast. The memos say tests were conducted in Thüringen, a landlocked part of central Germany. Tests on Rügen AND in Thüringen?

At the end of War "Happen" two weapon test according eyewitness

One on Island of Rügen by SS
The other Ohrdruf in Thüringen by the Wehrmacht

Eyewitness report a huge explosion with fire ball and mushroom cloud

What ever this was it was not Atomic Bombs
on both site were samples taken and radiological examine
no radioactivity prior August 1945 and most radioactive trace are from 1985 Chernobyl

Michael, there is a good deal of conflicting information regarding soil testing at the purported WWII German nuclear test sites. There is a lengthy and very in depth discussion about all of this in Dr. Rider's book, Forgotten Creators, in Chapter 8 and Appendix D. Again I can post some of the relevant passages and am happy to do so, but I get the sense that such things should be used judiciously and in moderation on this forum, and in the meantime, Rider's work is available free to anyone who wants to download it. So, please have a look if you are so inclined.

 

[williamjpellas]

Williamipellas

What is your source material you're quoting from ?

Asking the real questions. Otherwise this thread is clown shoes.

Clown shoes. Got it. I don't know how many times I have specifically cited my sources already. All anyone has to do is read the thread to see them.

 

[williamjpellas]

And not only nobody on Rugen noticed it,

and the island was overrun by refugee in 1945
no one except a single Italian report that explosion...

...this smell like propaganda

Wrong. I stated earlier in this same thread that there are at least ten (10) known primary sources which describe the Rugen Island test detonation in October 1944. I posted entire original documents. Why do people presume to comment about things they haven't even read? I mean, this is Twilight Zone stuff. It's in the thread, Michael. Read it. Thanks.

 

[williamjpellas]

similarly nobody ended up boosting Soviet efforts to build a bomb by presenting plans of a workable bomb to them in 1945 to ease any terrors they might of what the Gulag might have in store for them.

Well... the terrors of Gulag for German scientists generally consisted of good living quarter, personal car with driver, and hefty payment in dollars (or pounds). They were hired to work as technical consultants for Soviet engineering bureaus mainly, and Stalin wanted them to be willing to work (of course, I suspect that they were hinted about... less attractive possibility, if they tried to, say, sabotage, or withhold the information).

For example, Hugo Schmeisser was hired as a consultant to teach Soviet engineers about modern production processes in metalwork. And frankly, he wasn't of much help. His personal characteristics was dismissive: "Due to lack of technical education, could not do any job himself. Was of no help during all his tenure. Capitalistic psychology. Have a corrupting influence on German workers. "

View attachment 663154
View attachment 663155

Essentially when he was kicked back to Germany after too many demands to raise his payment above agreed in contract, everybody sighed with relief.

Okay, so the postwar Soviets didn't like one German scientist - technician. So what? Manfred von Ardenne and his lieutenant scientists from his wartime superlab in Berlin-Lichterfelde all went over to the USSR en masse at war's end. Their surrender was brokered by Peter Adolf Thyssen, who was himself a communist. Four years later, the first Soviet atom bomb appeared, or so the conventional history reads. In any case, von Ardenne was twice---not once, twice---awarded the Stalin Prize for his work in the Soviet Union. One of these awards was for his help in building the bomb for Uncle Joe, and the other was for an electron microscope.

 

[williamjpellas]

One on Island of Rügen by SS

And not only nobody on Rugen noticed it, but Soviet troops, that occupied island, found no signs of massive explosion? Unless Germans tested some kind of magical silent explosives, this is highly unlikely. Rugen is just 43 km East-to-West, and 50 km North-to-South. There are literally no areas on the island more than 5 km from settlements.

Yes, there were in fact inhabited areas near all of the purported WWII German nuclear test sites. This was one reason, according to Grothmann, why the bombs expended in these detonations were loaded with what he called "smaller charges". The Soviet intellligence report states that just 100g of HEU was used in each of the two devices at Ohrdruf in March 1945. Yes, very small amounts of fissile material CAN be detonated if you can engineer a sufficient overload of fast neutrons in a sufficiently confined space using other means besides the fissioning neutrons in the critical mass itself. Fritz Houtermans described a method of doing this in at least one wartime letter which has survived to the present day. Friedwardt Winterberg has written a paper describing "mini nukes" based on this principle.

There is more than one known eyewitness to the Rugen test. Again this is mentioned in the chart I included upthread which nobody has apparently bothered to read. The East German stasi are known to have conducted an extensive investigation into the WWII German nuclear program in the mid-1960s, during which additional eyewitnesses, in this case to the Thuringia tests, were identified and interviewed. There is discussion about all of the known primary sources in Rider's book.

 

[williamjpellas]

I don't find them sensational at all. They amount to very little in reality unless corroborated. A spy, who's identity we don't know, made some claims about Nazi atomic bombs. The US, UK and USSR were all desperately looking for evidence as to how far the Germans had got before the war ended, and again afterwards when picking through the wreckage for war booty.

Rainer Karlsch himself agreed there was very little actual evidence to support his arguments in Hitler's Bombe.

Karlsch didn't particularly know what he was looking at. Although he is a very good researcher and a legitimate historian, he is not very knowledgeable about the mechanics and engineering of nuclear weapons. Rider is, by the way, as his PhD dissertation attests.

There is considerable corroboration for all of the tests mentioned by Grothmann and various writer-researchers. Edwest2 is correct when he states that a good deal of it is found today in German museums and archives. I have posted original primary source papers from US archives which clearly and obviously describe an active German nuclear weapon program which was believed (correctly) to be building actual weapons by late 1944 at the latest. These were prototypes only and it appears to me that the overall effort petered out at the prototype-testing phase or just past it. I am not aware of any credible evidence which establishes actual combat use of German nuclear weapons, though there is some to the effect that a last gasp attack on the western front with a bare handful of lower yield tactical weapons was planned.

All of this and more is in Rider's book. Again, I can write and cite and post here and am willing to do so as long as this does not violate forum rules (whether written or unwritten), and I have done much more detailed writing elsewhere on the web. If people aren't going to read the source material, then we're just talking past one another.

 

[Dilandu]

Yes, there were in fact inhabited areas near all of the purported WWII German nuclear test sites. This was one reason, according to Grothmann, why the bombs expended in these detonations were loaded with what he called "smaller charges". The Soviet intellligence report states that just 100g of HEU was used in each of the two devices at Ohrdruf in March 1945. Yes, very small amounts of fissile material CAN be detonated if you can engineer a sufficient overload of fast neutrons in a sufficiently confined space using other means.

Seriously, this is an extremely stretched explanation. That Germans not only somehow managed to test nuclear bombs, but managed to do it with some extra-advanced technology, nobody else used. And all for one reason - so the bomb would be very-very quiet and nobody would notice its blast? Because there were no reason to made this overcomplicated "smaller charge" bomb, you know.

With all respect, it is just plainly ridiculous. What next? You would claim that they used inter-dimension portal to actually explode bomb in parallel world?

 

[williamjpellas]

There are too many holes in the story, as Arjen points out - Rider's table has no less than seven 'sources' that state the tests took place at Rugen or somewhere in Pomerania in October 1944. Then we have these Russian intelligence documents that claim the tests were in Thüringen - one of the most central and populated areas of Germany - in 1945. Plus earlier in this thread we had the Ludwigslust explosion (also Oct 1944) which is in another completely different location. So who do we believe? These claimed eyewitness reports or the GRU? The big smoking gun is the lack of any German scientists who fell into Western Allied hands holding their hands up saying "I was part of the team that tested a working bomb" and ensuring a cushy job in the USA for life, similarly nobody ended up boosting Soviet efforts to build a bomb by presenting plans of a workable bomb to them in 1945 to ease any terrors they might of what the Gulag might have in store for them.

Romersa's testimony in 1947 is rather after the fact, when conveniently nobody in the Italian fascist and Nazi hierarchies was around to corroborate his supposed letters of introduction to allow him to view a top secret project.

Zissner only tells his story regarding Ludwigslust on 19th August 1945 - after everybody knows exactly what an atomic mushroom cloud looks like. Why hadn't he spilled his momentous story in the three preceding months of his imprisonment?

Karlsch claims a Soviet spy who witnessed an A-bomb detonated at Orhdruf, in south-central Thuringia on 4th March 1945. Allegedly the report was radioed to Moscow and Stalin got a copy of their report within an hour. Other accounts state the 4th March Orhdruf test as being a single device using 100g of material with a second test on March 12th. The second memo posted above from Rider via Karlsch via Raibev seems to cover the rough outline of the Orhdruf trials (PoWs used as guinea pigs etc.) but of course the date of the 25th is weeks after the event, does not refer to the site by name nor any test on the 12th.

Orhdruf was a concentration camp - one liberated by the US Army on 4th April - exactly one month later so its odd they never found out about the results of the nearby test or found the location themselves. No lesser Generals than Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, and Eddy inspected the camp to see what had gone on there. There seems little doubt had some of the inmates been carted off and an atomic fireball had nearby had incinerated them only a few weeks earlier, that they would have mentioned it to the US troops.

Interestingly this second GRU memo, if dated 25th March, comes two days after Beria suggested sending teams to Germany to search for nuclear technology, and one day after he instructed Kurchatov to start organising these teams. By rights these SMERSH-led teams should have headed straight to Orhdruf as soon as they were able in July 1945, and Rugen too. Instead they went hunting down the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut für Physik in the Black Forest and uranium stocks to requisition across Eastern Europe.

Are the two memos fake or not?
Dilandu has posted a colour digital image of a similar document for comparison. It is from 1942 though, so I wouldn't want to make any assumptions regarding the different style of letterhead and stamps because these may have changed during 1942-44 and we have nothing else to compare too.

But I find a few points interesting:
- the pages are photocopies and not of great quality, so we cannot see the colour and patina of the paper to know whether its an original document showing signs of age or a fresh sheet of A4. (of course Raibev may or may not have had access to/permission to use a digital camera).
- the date stamps seem rather faint, is it [2]5 or 15 or just 5 March?
- the document does have some signs of underlining etc. (would be interesting to know which bits of the text are underlined), so they are not pristine
- but also there is a lack of further stamps and handwritten identification numbers that tend to clutter the first page of any memo that has been filed
- does Ilyichev's signature match other files?
- would a GRU report state "our trustworthy source in Germany" or would it refer to the source by a codename? It seems a very vague statement even allowing for the the fact this is a secondary report for onward transmission up the command chain.

I'm not saying its a fake, but as an historian I'd check all these points to satisfy myself it was genuine without being presented with the actual hardcopy.

And Scott makes a valid point - why hasn't anyone gone to the Deutsches Museum and quoted from their material? Why all the third-hand reports from other authors who use material in turn published by somebody else.
The Raibev link seems to be close, but if, as Dilandu states above, the copies are not included in the book then we have a problem accepting these as genuine. The evidence is presented by Karlsch as evidence to his claims that no-one else seems to have corroborated and claims which seem to directly contradict other claims of Rugen 1944 as the test.
Karlsch claims to have done his own soil tests with claims of radioactive elements but the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt did another test in 2006 and found nothing untoward (once you factored out Chernobyl deposits).

Rider has gone to the Deutsches Museum and a number of other archives in Germany. Also many libraries and archives in the US, UK, Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Holland, and Australia. It's all in his book.

There were a number of WWII German nuclear tests according to the available evidence, which I have already described and cited elsewhere in this thread. Why does no one read it? For at least the second time, the known purported wartime German nuclear weapon tests, as described by Himmler's chief adjutant Werner Grothmann and corroborated by numerous other sources cited in Forgotten Creators, are:

1) Late October 1943 in the North Sea, probably off the coast of Norway. Grothmann stated that this test failed.

2) The first known successful detonation at Bug Peninsula on Rugen Island in October, 1944. This was said to have been placed on a platform or stand prior to detonating. Many additional details were described by Romersa in his 1955 book, "Hitler's Secret Weapons", in a 1985 article in the professional journal, "Defensa", and in a UK press story which appeared shortly before his death in the early 2000s.

3) An air dropped bomb which fell on a specially constructed faux village not far from the Auschwitz concentration camp. This was mentioned by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and also by one of Himmler's medical personnel in a book he wrote following the war. Jackson spoke of this event, which Grothmann stated occurred in late November 1944, during his cross examination of Albert Speer. Speer denied all knowledge and downplayed any progress the wartime German nuclear weapons program achieved and Jackson did not press him on the issue. However, Speer later discussed the nuclear effort in a little known book that appeared the same year he died, 1981. I can quote the relevant passages if anyone wants to see them, or you can read it in Rider's tome, or you can see them quoted in posts I wrote elsewhere. According to Grothmann, this test "used a larger charge" and "was highly explosive".

4) A pair of tests conducted on a large German Army parade ground near Ohrdurf in Thuringia in March 1945.

 

[williamjpellas]

Yes, there were in fact inhabited areas near all of the purported WWII German nuclear test sites. This was one reason, according to Grothmann, why the bombs expended in these detonations were loaded with what he called "smaller charges". The Soviet intellligence report states that just 100g of HEU was used in each of the two devices at Ohrdruf in March 1945. Yes, very small amounts of fissile material CAN be detonated if you can engineer a sufficient overload of fast neutrons in a sufficiently confined space using other means.

Seriously, this is an extremely stretched explanation. That Germans not only somehow managed to test nuclear bombs, but managed to do it with some extra-advanced technology, nobody else used. And all for one reason - so the bomb would be very-very quiet and nobody would notice its blast? Because there were no reason to made this overcomplicated "smaller charge" bomb, you know.

With all respect, it is just plainly ridiculous. What next? You would claim that they used inter-dimension portal to actually explode bomb in parallel world?

Read the book or don't. Have a nice day.

 

[Dilandu]

Read the book or don't. Have a nice day.

Thank you, I'll pass. Everything you tell persuaded me that the book is utterly terrible trasheap of weird ideas, insane explanations, fact-juggling, outright lies and fakery, existing only to push ridiculous idea that Nazi have atomic bomb. Because WUNDERWAFFE!!! I prefer to keep my brain sane, with a bit of Occam's razor.

 

[edwest4]

William,

My own research into Manfred von Ardenne reveals he had knowledge of uranium isotope separation supposedly unknown at the time. He also invented the electron scanning microscope. I have a copy of an original German publication which shows it on the cover. The machine was built by Siemens. Later, for the Soviets, von Ardenne built a smaller, desk-top model.

For someone more knowledgeable about engineering atomic bombs and Uranium enrichment by the Germans, get the book Critical Mass by Carter P. Hydrick. One enrichment site was located in Poland near Oświęcim. The plant was called IG Farben Buna Werke but no synthetic rubber was produced there. And even though IG Farben had existing experience building such facilities, this one was beset by delays. It was also a joint Luftwaffe/SS/Army project and heavily defended by flak units. Details about the flak units are only available in a Polish language book.

A photograph has been published showing a small, unknown bomb that was fitted to a Bf 109. The details of its method of attachment were also made known. It was set in a holster-type configuration where the front of the bomb was partly enclosed. The Americans copied this for tests with fighter type aircraft.

Your lack of a good response here was expected. I experienced the same. But, please continue.

Best,
Ed

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Yes, there were in fact inhabited areas near all of the purported WWII German nuclear test sites. This was one reason, according to Grothmann, why the bombs expended in these detonations were loaded with what he called "smaller charges". The Soviet intellligence report states that just 100g of HEU was used in each of the two devices at Ohrdruf in March 1945. Yes, very small amounts of fissile material CAN be detonated if you can engineer a sufficient overload of fast neutrons in a sufficiently confined space using other means. Fritz Houtermans described a method of doing this in at least one wartime letter which has survived to the present day. Friedwardt Winterberg has written a paper describing "mini nukes" based on this principle.

These claims get more bizarre with every post. To fast fission a 100g of HEU alone (don’t believe it’s feasible today) you would need a deep and fundamental understanding of neutron cross sections which is not evident from the real hardware evidence such as the B-8 experiment. Why would any thinking person, with the intelligence to perform thinking decades in advance of the state of the art, allocate a a big percentage of the country’s metallic Uranium without providing the necessary data to do anything useful with it?

If the miracle of fissioning tiny HEU masses was 70years old why are there no weapons of this capacity in the atomic powers arsenals? or is it time to bring out the next conspiracy?

Fritz Houtermans wartime letters;- “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”

As for your claim of a prototype core boosted device without Tritium ( we’re agreed, no working fission reactors, hence no Tritium?) there’s the problem of achieving D-T fusion’s 17.59 MeV neutrons without fusion?…….In any properly documented application, not achieved anywhere today, not even close. Hence the claim is fiction. or again, is it time to bring out the next conspiracy?

Apologies, but the understanding of nuclear physics demonstrated by such claims is so flawed it’s impossible to have any further meaningful discussion.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

William,

My own research into Manfred von Ardenne reveals he had knowledge of uranium isotope separation supposedly unknown at the time.

For someone more knowledgeable about engineering atomic bombs and Uranium enrichment by the Germans, get the book Critical Mass by Carter P. Hydrick. One enrichment site was located in Poland near Oświęcim. The plant was called IG Farben Buna Werke but no synthetic rubber was produced there. And even though IG Farben had existing experience building such facilities, this one was beset by delays. It was also a joint Luftwaffe/SS/Army project and heavily defended by flak units. Details about the flak units are only available in a Polish language book.

Your lack of a good response here was expected. I experienced the same. But, please continue.

Best,
Ed

Ed
I responded, they didn’t have enough Nickel to support a significant HEX (UF6) operation and your claimed alternative Aluminium coating is well documented as being useless against HEX. I got no creditable response from yourself.

 

[williamjpellas]

William,

My own research into Manfred von Ardenne reveals he had knowledge of uranium isotope separation supposedly unknown at the time. He also invented the electron scanning microscope. I have a copy of an original German publication which shows it on the cover. The machine was built by Siemens. Later, for the Soviets, von Ardenne built a smaller, desk-top model.

For someone more knowledgeable about engineering atomic bombs and Uranium enrichment by the Germans, get the book Critical Mass by Carter P. Hydrick. One enrichment site was located in Poland near Oświęcim. The plant was called IG Farben Buna Werke but no synthetic rubber was produced there. And even though IG Farben had existing experience building such facilities, this one was beset by delays. It was also a joint Luftwaffe/SS/Army project and heavily defended by flak units. Details about the flak units are only available in a Polish language book.

A photograph has been published showing a small, unknown bomb that was fitted to a Bf 109. The details of its method of attachment were also made known. It was set in a holster-type configuration where the front of the bomb was partly enclosed. The Americans copied this for tests with fighter type aircraft.

Your lack of a good response here was expected. I experienced the same. But, please continue.

Best,
Ed

The small, unknown bomb you mention here was described by both Grothmann and at least one British and two (2) German writer-researchers. Since you bring this up:

From Geoffrey Brooks' book, Hitler's Terror Weapons: From V1 to Virmana, pg. 109:

Senior Engineer August Condors who had designed the V-3 England Gun, reported in February 1945 that the new decisive weapons would not be ready for use before April 1945, and in the last days of March 1945 the Luftwaffe dropped leaflets across the Lower Rhine advising the population to evacuate the area, since from the beginning of April new decisive weapons were to be deployed there. A cordon sanitaire 50 kms wide was required. From a military point of view the period towards the end of March 1945 offered the last opportunity to shutdown the Western Front by driving back the first crossings to the western bank of the Rhine. Rumours were rife that near Munster a number of Bf109s were being converted for Kamikaze operations (SO=Selbstopfereinsatze, Self-sacrifice operations) using a special 250 kg bomb, even an Me 262 jet could not outfly the bombs pressure wave.

It is known that Erich Schumann, the lead scientist in the HWA's research branch, and his explosives expert, Walter Trinks (who later rose to a high position in the West German MOD), produced a number of very advanced weapons concepts which they submitted as documentation for a series of patents in 1952. These included tactical nuclear weapons which utilized linear implosion. While this was obviously several years after the end of WWII, it is all but certain that they were rooted in concepts developed during the war itself.

By the way, where was Schumann when Heisenberg and Co were at Farm Hall? Trinks was likewise nowhere to be found, nor Alfred Klemm or any of dozens if not hundreds of other world class nuclear scientists and physicists. Why weren't they put under house arrest in the English countryside? Where were they in the meantime?

I am confused. Mr Romersa claimed to have attended a test on Rügen, on the Baltic coast. The memos say tests were conducted in Thüringen, a landlocked part of central Germany. Tests on Rügen AND in Thüringen?

Yes, and in two (2) other locations as well.

This is probably because there were a handful or more of different bomb designs, and at least three (3) different laboratories or centers of research which, according to Grothmann, each produced 2 prototypes of their own version of a nuclear weapon. Therefore a total of six (6) prototypes.

Two of the three major entities involved in the overall German nuclear weapons effort were 1) the heereswaffenamt, the German Army Weapons Bureau, and 2) Manfred von Ardenne's facility in Berlin-Lichterfelde. The third may have been one or more SS technical labs located in Austria and Czechoslovakia, or the marinewaffenamt (the German Navy Weapons Bureau, perhaps on Borholm Island or otherwise in the Baltic Sea off the northern coast of Germany).

Romersa stated in the 1985 article in Defensa that the bomb tested at Rugen Island was extraordinarily heavy. According to him it came in two variants, one of which weighed about 20,000 pounds and the other, 30,000. Thus 10 or 15 tons, respectively. If this information is correct, these weapons were obviously much too heavy to be delivered on target by any known WWII German aircraft other than, perhaps, a modified Messerschmitt Gigant transport plane, and this would have been cannon fodder had an attempt been made to penetrate Allied airspace with one. This left only a submarine mission or a static land deployment as the only possible ways such a huge and ungainly device could possibly have been used in combat---which in turn is probably part of the explanation for why it was not.

The pair of weapons tested in March, 1945 were dramatically smaller and more efficient boosted fission strategic nuclear weapon prototypes which weighed about two tons each. They were capable of being fitted with a steel fairing which would have enabled them to be delivered by V-2 missile, as corroborated by a number of documents and participant testimonies.

 

[edwest4]

William,

My own research into Manfred von Ardenne reveals he had knowledge of uranium isotope separation supposedly unknown at the time.

For someone more knowledgeable about engineering atomic bombs and Uranium enrichment by the Germans, get the book Critical Mass by Carter P. Hydrick. One enrichment site was located in Poland near Oświęcim. The plant was called IG Farben Buna Werke but no synthetic rubber was produced there. And even though IG Farben had existing experience building such facilities, this one was beset by delays. It was also a joint Luftwaffe/SS/Army project and heavily defended by flak units. Details about the flak units are only available in a Polish language book.

Your lack of a good response here was expected. I experienced the same. But, please continue.

Best,
Ed

Ed
I responded, they didn’t have enough Nickel to support a significant HEX (UF6) operation and your claimed alternative Aluminium coating is well documented as being useless against HEX. I got no creditable response from yourself.

Speaking generally, aside from one person here, I will not be believed regardless of what I post.

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[williamjpellas]

Yes, there were in fact inhabited areas near all of the purported WWII German nuclear test sites. This was one reason, according to Grothmann, why the bombs expended in these detonations were loaded with what he called "smaller charges". The Soviet intellligence report states that just 100g of HEU was used in each of the two devices at Ohrdruf in March 1945. Yes, very small amounts of fissile material CAN be detonated if you can engineer a sufficient overload of fast neutrons in a sufficiently confined space using other means. Fritz Houtermans described a method of doing this in at least one wartime letter which has survived to the present day. Friedwardt Winterberg has written a paper describing "mini nukes" based on this principle.

These claims get more bizarre with every post. To fast fission a 100g of HEU alone (don’t believe it’s feasible today) you would need a deep and fundamental understanding of neutron cross sections which is not evident from the real hardware evidence such as the B-8 experiment. Why would any thinking person, with the intelligence to perform thinking decades in advance of the state of the art, allocate a a big percentage of the country’s metallic Uranium without providing the necessary data to do anything useful with it?

If the miracle of fissioning tiny HEU masses was 70years old why are there no weapons of this capacity in the atomic powers arsenals? or is it time to bring out the next conspiracy?

Fritz Houtermans wartime letters;- “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”

As for your claim of a prototype core boosted device without Tritium ( we’re agreed, no working fission reactors, hence no Tritium?) there’s the problem of achieving D-T fusion’s 17.59 MeV neutrons without fusion?…….In any properly documented application, not achieved anywhere today, not even close. Hence the claim is fiction. or again, is it time to bring out the next conspiracy?

Apologies, but the understanding of nuclear physics demonstrated by such claims is so flawed it’s impossible to have any further meaningful discussion.

There is no, repeat, no claim of achieving D-T fusion "without fusion". Houtermans' concept called for "a high voltage discharge tube" which produced a prompt fusion reaction generated by extremely high voltage. As described in the Soviet-GRU report, this produced a flow of fast neutrons which "attack(ed)" the fissile material. Therefore we are talking about a fusion-fission method of detonation rather than fission-fusion, as in most weapons described in public sources since WWII.

As for "no weapons of this capacity in the atomic powers arsenals", they have existed for decades. To give just one example, the Davy Crockett nuclear recoilless rifle system....

"....was produced in two variants: the “light” M28 120mm recoilless rifle and the “heavy” M29 155mm recoilless rifle. The M28 had a range of approximately 1.25 miles (2 kilometers), while the larger M29 could launch a projectile out to 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Both variants fire the 76-pound M388 atomic projectile, which had a diameter of eleven inches and a length of thirty-one inches. After firing, four fins on the round’s tail popped out to stabilize it in flight. Due to its oblong shape, some soldiers referred to the projectile as the “atomic watermelon.” The M388 carried the W54 warhead, the smallest nuclear weapon deployed by U.S. armed forces. The W54 weighed fifty-one pounds and had an explosive yield of .01-.02 kilotons of TNT (the equivalent of approximately 10-20 tons). The same warhead was also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Air Force’s AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile."

So, we are talking about an actual nuclear warhead that weighs less than 76 pounds, since some of the weight of the projectile was taken up by the bomb casing and internal wiring and explosives and so on. The "physics package" itself was just over 50 pounds. And this was produced in the late 1950s.

The M28/M29 Davy Crockett Nuclear Weapon System - The Army Historical Foundation

Written By: Matthew Seelinger During the Cold War, as the U.S. Navy and Air Force maintained America’s strategic nuclear arsenal of long-range bombers and submarine and land-based ballistic missiles, the […]

armyhistory.org

You can even watch one being test fired in 1962. Yes, that was Bobby Kennedy watching in the gallery:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEAuapfwHc

Here is Friedwardt Winterberg's paper on the subject. He studied directly under WWII German nuclear physicists Kurt Diebner and the knew-nothing-dolt, Werner Heisenberg. After receiving his PhD, he was brought immediately to the US as part of Operation Paperclip in 1955.

http://www.znaturforsch.com/aa/v59a/s59a0325.pdf

 

[edwest4]

William,

My own research into Manfred von Ardenne reveals he had knowledge of uranium isotope separation supposedly unknown at the time. He also invented the electron scanning microscope. I have a copy of an original German publication which shows it on the cover. The machine was built by Siemens. Later, for the Soviets, von Ardenne built a smaller, desk-top model.

For someone more knowledgeable about engineering atomic bombs and Uranium enrichment by the Germans, get the book Critical Mass by Carter P. Hydrick. One enrichment site was located in Poland near Oświęcim. The plant was called IG Farben Buna Werke but no synthetic rubber was produced there. And even though IG Farben had existing experience building such facilities, this one was beset by delays. It was also a joint Luftwaffe/SS/Army project and heavily defended by flak units. Details about the flak units are only available in a Polish language book.

A photograph has been published showing a small, unknown bomb that was fitted to a Bf 109. The details of its method of attachment were also made known. It was set in a holster-type configuration where the front of the bomb was partly enclosed. The Americans copied this for tests with fighter type aircraft.

Your lack of a good response here was expected. I experienced the same. But, please continue.

Best,
Ed

The small, unknown bomb you mention here was described by both Grothmann and at least one British and two (2) German writer-researchers. Since you bring this up:

From Geoffrey Brooks' book, Hitler's Terror Weapons: From V1 to Virmana, pg. 109:

Senior Engineer August Condors who had designed the V-3 England Gun, reported in February 1945 that the new decisive weapons would not be ready for use before April 1945, and in the last days of March 1945 the Luftwaffe dropped leaflets across the Lower Rhine advising the population to evacuate the area, since from the beginning of April new decisive weapons were to be deployed there. A cordon sanitaire 50 kms wide was required. From a military point of view the period towards the end of March 1945 offered the last opportunity to shutdown the Western Front by driving back the first crossings to the western bank of the Rhine. Rumours were rife that near Munster a number of Bf109s were being converted for Kamikaze operations (SO=Selbstopfereinsatze, Self-sacrifice operations) using a special 250 kg bomb, even an Me 262 jet could not outfly the bombs pressure wave.

It is known that Erich Schumann, the lead scientist in the HWA's research branch, and his explosives expert, Walter Trinks (who later rose to a high position in the West German MOD), produced a number of very advanced weapons concepts which they submitted as documentation for a series of patents in 1952. These included tactical nuclear weapons which utilized linear implosion. While this was obviously several years after the end of WWII, it is all but certain that they were rooted in concepts developed during the war itself.

By the way, where was Schumann when Heisenberg and Co were at Farm Hall? Trinks was likewise nowhere to be found, nor Alfred Klemm or any of dozens if not hundreds of other world class nuclear scientists and physicists. Why weren't they put under house arrest in the English countryside? Where were they in the meantime?

I am confused. Mr Romersa claimed to have attended a test on Rügen, on the Baltic coast. The memos say tests were conducted in Thüringen, a landlocked part of central Germany. Tests on Rügen AND in Thüringen?

Yes, and in two (2) other locations as well.

This is probably because there were a handful or more of different bomb designs, and at least three (3) different laboratories or centers of research which, according to Grothmann, each produced 2 prototypes of their own version of a nuclear weapon. Therefore a total of six (6) prototypes.

Two of the three major entities involved in the overall German nuclear weapons effort were 1) the heereswaffenamt, the German Army Weapons Bureau, and 2) Manfred von Ardenne's facility in Berlin-Lichterfelde. The third may have been one or more SS technical labs located in Austria and Czechoslovakia, or the marinewaffenamt (the German Navy Weapons Bureau, perhaps on Borholm Island or otherwise in the Baltic Sea off the northern coast of Germany).

Romersa stated in the 1985 article in Defensa that the bomb tested at Rugen Island was extraordinarily heavy. According to him it came in two variants, one of which weighed about 20,000 pounds the other, 30,000. Thus 10 or 15 tons, respectively. If this information is correct, these weapons were obviously much too heavy to be delivered on target by any known WWII German aircraft other than, perhaps, a modified Messerschmitt Gigant transport plane, and this would have been cannon fodder had an attempt been made to penetrate Allied airspace with one. This left only a submarine mission or a static land deployment as the only possible ways such a huge and ungainly device could possibly have been used in combat---which in turn is probably part of the explanation for why it was not.

The pair of weapons tested in March, 1945 were dramatically smaller and more efficient boosted fission strategic nuclear weapon prototypes which weighed about two tons each. They were capable of being fitted with a steel fairing which would have enabled them to be delivered by V-2 missile, as corroborated by a number of documents and participant testimonies.

I would add that the Americans had the Mark 9 artillery shell in 1952. It was fired from an Atomic Cannon which utilized the German K5 railroad gun carriage design. A photo showing a similar type German Artillery shell alongside the shell fired shows that the warhead portion was quite small. Somehow, it survived the G forces to detonate on impact. The yield was 15 kilotons.

A special Me 262 with windows in the nose and space for an aimer was built. On each side of the nose were two thin, horizontal projections like thick wires with paddle ends. Remember the desired release altitude and descent by parachute. The Me 262 would have had plenty of time to get to a safe distance when dropping one of the smaller bombs.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I am confused. Mr Romersa claimed to have attended a test on Rügen, on the Baltic coast. The memos say tests were conducted in Thüringen, a landlocked part of central Germany. Tests on Rügen AND in Thüringen?

Yes, and in two (2) other locations as well.

This is probably because there were a handful or more of different bomb designs, and at least three (3) different laboratories or centers of research which, according to Grothmann, each produced 2 prototypes of their own version of a nuclear weapon. Therefore a total of six (6) prototypes.

And this is why people scoff. The German economy was a small fraction of the US's. The German nuclear effort was *trivial* compared to the Manhattan Project, it's access to resources strangled, it's store of Smart Guys small. And you expect us to believe that the German effort made *three* *times* as many fully functional nuclear weapons designs, with the full effort split among multiple independent outfits? And better bombs, to boot, with the ability to not only detonate with kiloton yields but to clean up after themselves and leave not only no craters or fallout, but no witnesses among the many towns within just a few miles of ground zero?

The pair of weapons tested in March, 1945 were dramatically smaller and more efficient boosted fission strategic nuclear weapon prototypes which weighed about two tons each. They were capable of being fitted with a steel fairing which would have enabled them to be delivered by V-2 missile, as corroborated by a number of documents and participant testimonies.

There. *RIGHT* *THERE.* The supposition that you could put a two-ton payload onto a V-2 and have it get useful range? Bah. You'd have to offload one ton of fuel just so it could lurch off the launch pad... more than a *quarter* of its propellant load. Performance would have been pathetic.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

There is no, repeat, no claim of achieving D-T fusion "without fusion". Houtermans' concept called for "a high voltage discharge tube" which produced a prompt fusion reaction generated by extremely high voltage. As described in the Soviet-GRU report, this produced a flow of fast neutrons which "attack(ed)" the fissile material. Therefore we are talking about a fusion-fission method of detonation rather than fission-fusion, as in most weapons described in public sources since WWII.

You don’t understand;- for core boosting to work fusion energy neutrons are required, anything else is just a tiny-tiny initiator.

As for "no weapons of this capacity in the atomic powers arsenals", they have existed for decades. To give just one example, the Davy Crockett nuclear recoilless rifle system....

"....was produced in two variants: the “light” M28 120mm recoilless rifle and the “heavy” M29 155mm recoilless rifle. The M28 had a range of approximately 1.25 miles (2 kilometers), while the larger M29 could launch a projectile out to 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Both variants fire the 76-pound M388 atomic projectile, which had a diameter of eleven inches and a length of thirty-one inches. After firing, four fins on the round’s tail popped out to stabilize it in flight. Due to its oblong shape, some soldiers referred to the projectile as the “atomic watermelon.” The M388 carried the W54 warhead, the smallest nuclear weapon deployed by U.S. armed forces. The W54 weighed fifty-one pounds and had an explosive yield of .01-.02 kilotons of TNT (the equivalent of approximately 10-20 tons). The same warhead was also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Air Force’s AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile."

So, we are talking about an actual nuclear warhead that weighs less than 76 pounds, since some of the weight of the projectile was taken up by the bomb casing and internal wiring and explosives and so on. The "physics package" itself was just over 50 pounds. And this was produced in the late 1950s.

You can even watch one being test fired in 1962. Yes, that was Bobby Kennedy watching in the gallery:

You don’t understand;- these “examples that prove your case ” use Plutonium 239 cores which has a much smaller critical mass (approx. 10% of HEU), but still they have critical masses in the range of ten kilograms as opposed to your 100g of HEU nonsense. And they use either critical mass and/or D-T fusion core boosting which you’ve claimed is unnecessary.

As I say you don’t have an appropriate knowledge of the subject to lecturing people in this manner.

 

[williamjpellas]

William,

My own research into Manfred von Ardenne reveals he had knowledge of uranium isotope separation supposedly unknown at the time. He also invented the electron scanning microscope. I have a copy of an original German publication which shows it on the cover. The machine was built by Siemens. Later, for the Soviets, von Ardenne built a smaller, desk-top model.

For someone more knowledgeable about engineering atomic bombs and Uranium enrichment by the Germans, get the book Critical Mass by Carter P. Hydrick. One enrichment site was located in Poland near Oświęcim. The plant was called IG Farben Buna Werke but no synthetic rubber was produced there. And even though IG Farben had existing experience building such facilities, this one was beset by delays. It was also a joint Luftwaffe/SS/Army project and heavily defended by flak units. Details about the flak units are only available in a Polish language book.

A photograph has been published showing a small, unknown bomb that was fitted to a Bf 109. The details of its method of attachment were also made known. It was set in a holster-type configuration where the front of the bomb was partly enclosed. The Americans copied this for tests with fighter type aircraft.

Your lack of a good response here was expected. I experienced the same. But, please continue.

Best,
Ed

The small, unknown bomb you mention here was described by both Grothmann and at least one British and two (2) German writer-researchers. Since you bring this up:

From Geoffrey Brooks' book, Hitler's Terror Weapons: From V1 to Virmana, pg. 109:

Senior Engineer August Condors who had designed the V-3 England Gun, reported in February 1945 that the new decisive weapons would not be ready for use before April 1945, and in the last days of March 1945 the Luftwaffe dropped leaflets across the Lower Rhine advising the population to evacuate the area, since from the beginning of April new decisive weapons were to be deployed there. A cordon sanitaire 50 kms wide was required. From a military point of view the period towards the end of March 1945 offered the last opportunity to shutdown the Western Front by driving back the first crossings to the western bank of the Rhine. Rumours were rife that near Munster a number of Bf109s were being converted for Kamikaze operations (SO=Selbstopfereinsatze, Self-sacrifice operations) using a special 250 kg bomb, even an Me 262 jet could not outfly the bombs pressure wave.

It is known that Erich Schumann, the lead scientist in the HWA's research branch, and his explosives expert, Walter Trinks (who later rose to a high position in the West German MOD), produced a number of very advanced weapons concepts which they submitted as documentation for a series of patents in 1952. These included tactical nuclear weapons which utilized linear implosion. While this was obviously several years after the end of WWII, it is all but certain that they were rooted in concepts developed during the war itself.

By the way, where was Schumann when Heisenberg and Co were at Farm Hall? Trinks was likewise nowhere to be found, nor Alfred Klemm or any of dozens if not hundreds of other world class nuclear scientists and physicists. Why weren't they put under house arrest in the English countryside? Where were they in the meantime?

I am confused. Mr Romersa claimed to have attended a test on Rügen, on the Baltic coast. The memos say tests were conducted in Thüringen, a landlocked part of central Germany. Tests on Rügen AND in Thüringen?

Yes, and in two (2) other locations as well.

This is probably because there were a handful or more of different bomb designs, and at least three (3) different laboratories or centers of research which, according to Grothmann, each produced 2 prototypes of their own version of a nuclear weapon. Therefore a total of six (6) prototypes.

Two of the three major entities involved in the overall German nuclear weapons effort were 1) the heereswaffenamt, the German Army Weapons Bureau, and 2) Manfred von Ardenne's facility in Berlin-Lichterfelde. The third may have been one or more SS technical labs located in Austria and Czechoslovakia, or the marinewaffenamt (the German Navy Weapons Bureau, perhaps on Borholm Island or otherwise in the Baltic Sea off the northern coast of Germany).

Romersa stated in the 1985 article in Defensa that the bomb tested at Rugen Island was extraordinarily heavy. According to him it came in two variants, one of which weighed about 20,000 pounds the other, 30,000. Thus 10 or 15 tons, respectively. If this information is correct, these weapons were obviously much too heavy to be delivered on target by any known WWII German aircraft other than, perhaps, a modified Messerschmitt Gigant transport plane, and this would have been cannon fodder had an attempt been made to penetrate Allied airspace with one. This left only a submarine mission or a static land deployment as the only possible ways such a huge and ungainly device could possibly have been used in combat---which in turn is probably part of the explanation for why it was not.

The pair of weapons tested in March, 1945 were dramatically smaller and more efficient boosted fission strategic nuclear weapon prototypes which weighed about two tons each. They were capable of being fitted with a steel fairing which would have enabled them to be delivered by V-2 missile, as corroborated by a number of documents and participant testimonies.

I would add that the Americans had the Mark 9 artillery shell in 1952. It was fired from an Atomic Cannon which utilized the German K5 railroad gun carriage design. A photo showing a similar type German Artillery shell alongside the shell fired shows that the warhead portion was quite small. Somehow, it survived the G forces to detonate on impact. The yield was 15 kilotons.

A special Me 262 with windows in the nose and space for an aimer was built. On each side of the nose were two thin, horizontal projections like thick wires with paddle ends. Remember the desired release altitude and descent by parachute. The Me 262 would have had plenty of time to get to a safe distance when dropping one of the smaller bombs.

 

[williamjpellas]

Historians have long puzzled over why Hitler ordered that some Me-262's be completed as fighter-bombers. According to Werner Grothmann, only 10 people in the entire Third Reich knew the whole truth of the German nuclear weapons program. Hitler was obviously one of these. Could it be that he had in mind for the 262 jabo variant to be used as a battlefield nuclear bomber?

Brooks and Rider quote German sources who stated that the nuclear strike on the western front which was evidently planned for late March or early April would have utilized Me-109s as German-style kamikazes "because even an Me262 jet could not outfly the bombs pressure wave". This may have meant that this mission was intended to employ the larger of two tactical nuclear weapons described by Grothmann, which according to him had a projected yield of 3 kilotons.

Note that all of the primary source documentation which is cited in Rider's book indicates that the maximum number of German warheads was nine (9). If this included the 6 prototypes, it means that there were just three (3) available for the last gasp attack against US and/or UK forces in the field to the west of Berlin. If all of these were tactical weapons with 3 kt or less blast yield---less than the US managed with one bomb against Hiroshima on 6 August 1945---and also required a suicide attack to have any chance of getting through Allied defenses, it is easy to see why an apparent Luftwaffe mutiny may be the explanation for why this mission was never carried out.

There is no, repeat, no claim of achieving D-T fusion "without fusion". Houtermans' concept called for "a high voltage discharge tube" which produced a prompt fusion reaction generated by extremely high voltage. As described in the Soviet-GRU report, this produced a flow of fast neutrons which "attack(ed)" the fissile material. Therefore we are talking about a fusion-fission method of detonation rather than fission-fusion, as in most weapons described in public sources since WWII.

You don’t understand;- for core boosting to work fusion energy neutrons are required, anything else is just a tiny-tiny initiator.

As for "no weapons of this capacity in the atomic powers arsenals", they have existed for decades. To give just one example, the Davy Crockett nuclear recoilless rifle system....

"....was produced in two variants: the “light” M28 120mm recoilless rifle and the “heavy” M29 155mm recoilless rifle. The M28 had a range of approximately 1.25 miles (2 kilometers), while the larger M29 could launch a projectile out to 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Both variants fire the 76-pound M388 atomic projectile, which had a diameter of eleven inches and a length of thirty-one inches. After firing, four fins on the round’s tail popped out to stabilize it in flight. Due to its oblong shape, some soldiers referred to the projectile as the “atomic watermelon.” The M388 carried the W54 warhead, the smallest nuclear weapon deployed by U.S. armed forces. The W54 weighed fifty-one pounds and had an explosive yield of .01-.02 kilotons of TNT (the equivalent of approximately 10-20 tons). The same warhead was also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Air Force’s AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile."

So, we are talking about an actual nuclear warhead that weighs less than 76 pounds, since some of the weight of the projectile was taken up by the bomb casing and internal wiring and explosives and so on. The "physics package" itself was just over 50 pounds. And this was produced in the late 1950s.

You can even watch one being test fired in 1962. Yes, that was Bobby Kennedy watching in the gallery:

You don’t understand;- these “examples that prove your case ” use Plutonium 239 cores which has a much smaller critical mass (approx. 10% of HEU), but still they have critical masses in the range of ten kilograms as opposed to your 100g of HEU nonsense. And they use either critical mass and/or D-T fusion core boosting which you’ve claimed is unnecessary.

As I say you don’t have an appropriate knowledge of the subject to lecturing people in this manner.

 

[williamjpellas]

You don’t understand;- these “examples that prove your case ” use Plutonium 239 cores which has a much smaller critical mass (approx. 10% of HEU), but still they have critical masses in the range of ten kilograms as opposed to your 100g of HEU nonsense. And they use either critical mass and/or D-T fusion core boosting which you’ve claimed is unnecessary.

As I say you don’t have an appropriate knowledge of the subject to lecturing people in this manner.

Just so I understand you: you are saying that the Davy Crockett weapon utilized a core composed of 10kg of P-239 when the Fat Man bomb used against Nagasaki had 6.2. Is that correct? What is your source for this statement? Although I don't own a copy of Chuck Hansen's definitive Swords of Armageddon (because I don't have $2000 just now to purchase it) and therefore must rely on open sources, it is likely that the Davy Crockett W54 variant utilized about 4 kg of material in a mix of P-239 and uranium (it is not clear whether this was a blended core or a plutonium "pit" with a small uranium "tamper"). The low yields have to do with necessary tradeoffs between ignition - detonation methods and the internal arrangements of the warhead and so on. Meaning that sometimes it is necessary to have larger than expected amounts of fissile and/or tamper material in order to achieve the desired effect in an otherwise smaller weapon.

But, alright. Technically you're correct inasmuch as the Davy Crockett is not an example of a weapon which detonated a very small amount of fissile material via a prompt fusion reaction. So, I must concede on that point, fair enough.

However: the fact remains that functional nuclear warheads that were orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than the first weapons produced by the Manhattan Project were fielded by the United States barely more than a decade later. And there are German sources which state that 1) their own early strategic nuclear weapons, with the exception of the Rugen bomb(s), were still considerably smaller than the Allied versions, 2) that they also produced tactical nuclear weapon designs which were much smaller and lighter than even the Ohrdurf bombs (which weighed about two tons) and 3) that ignition via the method described by Houtermans and the Soviet-GRU report is possible. My own research into this issue indicates that opinion on this last point is split. Hansen says no, Winterberg and others say yes. Note, however, that the Ohrdurf-Diebner-HWA design was actually meant to use both fusion and fission synergistically and was thus what is known today as a "boosted fission" bomb rather than a pure Winterberg device, per se. We are now probably further down into the weeds than most reading this want to go, I suspect.

Meanwhile, on the question of the small amount of fissile material said to have been expended in the Ohrdruf tests, Dr. Rider states the following, beginning on page 3609 of Forgotten Creators:

D.4.2 Estimating Explosive Yield from Primary Sources

Simple estimates of the relationship between the energy released in an explosion and the radius of damage caused by that explosion can easily be made from first principles. The explosion will be assumed to release an energy E at a point source at radial position r = 0 at or very near the surface of the earth, surrounded by atmosphere of initial pressure patm, as shown in Fig. D.215. For reference, one ton of TNT high explosive is defined to produce an energy of 4.184 × 109 Joules (J) (although the actual yield from real TNT can vary somewhat around this value). The energy of the explosion will be distributed throughout a hemispherical volume of ever-expanding radius R, where the surface at r = R is a shock wave propagating outward into the atmosphere. Using the volume (2/3)πR3 of the hemisphere and defining the average energy density deposited within the hemispherical volume as Uavg, the explosive energy yield may be written as E = 2 3 π R3 Uavg (D.46).

Since the total energy E is constant (neglecting any losses), the average energy density Uavg of the explosion will decrease as the explosion radius R increases with time. The explosion will be the dominant force in the local environment until its average energy density drops below the pressure-derived potential energy density of normal atmospheric pressure, patm ≈ 1.01×105 Pascals
(Pa=J/m3 ) (using the sea-level average pressure). Of course, the shock wave at the expanding surface contains more energy density than the volume-averaged value, and the explosive energy density can do serious damage to buildings, trees, and people even when it is only a fraction of normal atmospheric pressure. If one assumes that the explosion will do major damage until the average energy density drops to Uavg ≈ patm/10 at some blast radius R = Rblast, the energy from Eq. (D.46) may be written as: Emax ≈ 2 3 πR3 blast patm 10 = 2π · 1.01 × 105 J/m3 3 · 10 · 4.184 × 109 J/ton! R 3 blast ≈ Rblast 58.3 meters3 tons , (D.47)

 

[williamjpellas]

(continued)....

(D.49) in which Eq. (D.47) expresses the explosive energy yield in equivalent tons of TNT. On the other hand, if one assumes that the explosion will do significant damage until the average energy density drops much further to Uavg ≈ patm/100 at some blast radius R = Rblast, the explosive yield from Eq. (D.46) may be written as: Emin ≈ 2 3 πR3 blast patm 100 = 2π · 1.01 × 105 J/m3 3 · 100 · 4.184 × 109 J/ton! R 3 blast ≈ Rblast 126 meters3 tons (D.48) For a given measured blast radius, the released explosive energy could vary somewhere between the minimum value given by Eq. (D.48) and the maximum value given by Eq. (D.47), depending on how resistant to blast damage the surround area is, deviations of the actual terrain from the assumed perfectly flat surface, and other factors. Note that Eq. (D.47) gives a maximum energy 10 times larger than the minimum energy of Eq. (D.48), since its assumed energy density is 10 times larger (patm/10 vs. patm/100). Within that range, a good single value for a ballpark approximation would be the geometric mean, found by using Eq. (D.46) with Uavg ≈ patm/(10√ 10): Egeo mean ≈ 2 3 πR3 blast patm 10√ 10 = 2π · 1.01 × 105 J/m3 3 · 10√ 10 · 4.184 × 109 J/ton! R 3 blast ≈ Rblast 85.5 meters3 tons (D.49)

Ilyichev described the blast radius as Rblast = 500–600 meters. Using Eqs. (D.47)–(D.49), a blast radius of Rblast = 500 meters corresponds to an explosive energy somewhere in the range E =63– 630 tons, with a geometric mean of 200 tons. Likewise, the larger blast radius Rblast = 600 meters corresponds to an explosive energy somewhere in the range E = 110–1100 tons, with a geometric mean of 350 tons. These values are consistent with previous estimates based on the same data [Eilers 2007, 2015; Mineev and Funtikov 2007]. Ilyichev also described the bomb as having a total weight of approximately 2 tons and being filled largely with TNT. If such a bomb had exploded in a conventional, non-nuclear manner, its explosive energy would therefore be only ∼ 2 tons. The absolute minimum explosive energy consistent with the reported blast radius is 30 times larger than that value, and the actual energy may well have been several hundred times greater than the non-nuclear yield of TNT alone. Thus some sort of nuclear explosion appears to be the only satisfactory explanation for the reported blast size. An independent method of estimating the explosive energy would be to use the dimensions of the crater it created in the ground. Unfortunately, if the bomb had an explosive energy less than 1000 tons and was mounted on a tower for the test (to facilitate diagnostics, as in the first U.S. fission bomb test in New Mexico on 16 July 1945, and as described by Schumann and Grothmann), it would likely not leave a significant crater [Glasstone and Dolan 1977, p. 255]. If the aerial reconnaissance photos on pp. 3325–3329 do indeed show the correct location of the test, the suggestive ejecta pattern that is visible in the 21 March 1945 and 9 June 1945 aerial reconnaissance photos may have been the only physical trace of the blast, apart from radioisotopes.

 

[williamjpellas]

Continuing on page 3612:

Fission fuel consumed

By definition, one mole (6.022 × 1023) of uranium-235 atoms has a total mass of 235 grams. Upon fission, each atom releases approximately 180 million electron-volts (eV) of energy (not counting energy lost as neutrinos, or energy released in delayed radioactivity), which can be converted into Joules or equivalent tons of TNT energy by the conversion factors 1.602 × 10−19 J/eV and 4.184×109 J/ton. Putting all of this information together, the number of grams of U-235 that must be completely fissioned to produce one ton TNT equivalent of explosive energy is: (235 g) (4.184 × 109 J/ton) (6.022 × 1023) (180 × 106 eV) (1.602 × 10−19 J/eV) ≈ 0.0566 grams ton (D.50)

Ilyichev specifically said the device used U-235 as fission fuel. In principle, two other fission fuels could have been used: uranium-233 (U-233, created by bombarding natural thorium-232 with neutrons) or plutonium-239 (Pu-239, creating by bombarding natural uranium-238 with neutrons). Energy values for those other fission fuels are approximately the same as that for U-235, so Eq. (D.50) can safely be used as the basis for any fission calculations. For explosive yields in the range of 63–1100 tons with a geometric mean of 200–350 tons, as calculated in Section D.4.2, the mass of fuel completely fissioned is: Mfissioned = 3.6–62 grams, with a geometric mean of 11.3–19.8 grams. (D.51) Thus the best ballpark guess is that the reported explosion would have completely fissioned ∼ 10–20 grams of uranium. This is a very small quantity considering that nuclear weapons would normally have many kilograms of fission fuel, but Grothmann reported that only a very small amount of fuel was used in this test device, and that larger amounts of fuel were ready to be used in subsequent devices. For a small test, the total amount of fissionable fuel might have been as little ∼100 grams, which is very consistent with the result in Eq. (D.51), since only some fraction of the fuel would have time to fission during the very brief time that the core of the bomb was maximally compressed.

 

[williamjpellas]

Page 3613:

Initial radiation from the explosion

People who were very close to the test site would have been exposed to the initial radiation (gamma, neutrons, and beta) released during the actual explosion. For a fission explosion of 200–350 tons, the lethality (10 Grays or 1000 rads) radius for this prompt radiation is ∼ 500 meters, very comparable to the blast radius [Glasstone and Dolan 1977, p. 333]. Thus anyone present on the field where the device was tested would have been either killed immediately or left injured and dying from the blast, radiation, and heat. This is highly consistent with the reports of Ilyichev, Grothmann, Werner, and Wachsmut. If the blast radius was 500–600 meters as reported by Ilyichev, Wachsmut’s estimate of 700 bodies was correct, and those victims had been uniformly spread out within an area πR2 ∼ 785,000– 1,130,000 m2 around the device when it was tested, the spacing would have been ∼ 1100–1600 m2 per person on average (D.52) or ∼ 33–40 m between people if uniformly spread out (D.53) Thus 700 people could have easily fit within the blast radius, even if they were spread out. It seems highly unlikely that the detonation would have been accidentally triggered at an unexpected time before people had had time to take cover. A far more plausible explanation is that the SS scattered POWs around the test area to serve as human guinea pigs to measure the effects at varying distances from the explosion. Indeed, Ilyichev’s report appears to suggest that the SS made detailed correlations of prisoners’ positions before the explosion and their conditions after the explosion (p. 3284): “Prisoners of war who were near the epicenter of the explosion died, often without leaving a trace. Prisoners of war who were in the area beyond the center of the explosion have burns on their face and body, the strength of which depends on their position in relation to the epicenter of the explosion.” It is well documented that POWs were used as human test subjects for new nerve agents [Tucker 2006, p. 51] and for new biological weapons.12 Thus the allegations made separately by Ilyichev and Wachsmut are highly consistent with what is known to have taken place in other Third Reich programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. In fact, if the statements of Grothmann and Wachsmut are correct, the large size of the explosion and the large number of casualties for the very small amount of fission fuel used apparently surprised even the SS.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Historians have long puzzled over why Hitler ordered that some Me-262's be completed as fighter-bombers.

Only dumb ones. Hitler's preference for offense over defense is no secret. His ordering the construction of bombers over fighters which might have defended the Reich is old and well-explained news. The man was a dumbass who got lucky early on, and listened too much to liars and crackpots who promised wunderwaffen that they had no chance of producing. Wunderwaffen, like, say, nuclear bombs.

Could it be that he had in mind for the 262 jabo variant to be used as a battlefield nuclear bomber?

Could it be... aliens?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

@williamjpellas you are so convinced of the rightness of your hypothesis that it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about any aspect of it. All evidence that supports your hypothesis, no matter how second hand or flimsy, is instantly to be trusted. Anything that doesn't fit, isn't.

The Manhattan Project was an astronomical expenditure of money, manpower and engineering. In 1996 dollars it was costed at $20 Billion or so. Germany had no way to match this. I'm sure various people claimed to be building atom bombs at various times, they may even have had an idea how to. Doesn't meant they did.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Historians have long puzzled over why Hitler ordered that some Me-262's be completed as fighter-bombers.

Only dumb ones. Hitler's preference for offense over defense is no secret. His ordering the construction of bombers over fighters which might have defended the Reich is old and well-explained news. The man was a dumbass who got lucky early on, and listened too much to liars and crackpots who promised wunderwaffen that they had no chance of producing. Wunderwaffen, like, say, nuclear bombs.

Could it be that he had in mind for the 262 jabo variant to be used as a battlefield nuclear bomber?

Could it be... aliens?

This is correct, and this kind of "could it be?" argument is all through Rider's book and undermines any valid arguments it might present. If this is the level of thinking in the rest of it, I can safely ignore it. It is typical conspiracy material.

As said above, this is scratching around looking for ways to shoehorn actual facts into support of an unsupported theory.