The BIG what if...

[Kyle Holgate]

Realizing of course that they were off track in many ways and no where near doing it - what do you suppose would have followed had Germany managed to develop a working Atomic Bomb in late 1944 or early 1945? Assuming it's similar to those made by the US - they'd be BIG bombs. What would Germany use to deliver them, and would a single bomber get through to London in late 44-45? Would they use it as a tactical weapon on the Soviets instead?

[Mart]

Realizing of course that they were off track in many ways and no where near doing it - what do you suppose would have followed had Germany managed to develop a working Atomic Bomb in late 1944 or early 1945? Assuming it's similar to those made by the US - they'd be BIG bombs. What would Germany use to deliver them, and would a single bomber get through to London in late 44-45? Would they use it as a tactical weapon on the Soviets instead?

Hi Kyle,

I think they'd have used in on the Soviets, to slow them up in the hope that it would give impetus for the western allies to break ranks, come further east, and grab the technology for themselves, thereby keeping Germany, and perhaps other countries out of Soviet final control.

I doubt it would have prevented a complete German surrender to someone, though they may have felt it would help them bargain with the western allies in some way.

Of course, that may be complete rubbish, and knowing my history, probably is. :)

Cheers, Martin

[Ed Rotondaro]

Realizing of course that they were off track in many ways and no where near doing it - what do you suppose would have followed had Germany managed to develop a working Atomic Bomb in late 1944 or early 1945? Assuming it's similar to those made by the US - they'd be BIG bombs. What would Germany use to deliver them, and would a single bomber get through to London in late 44-45? Would they use it as a tactical weapon on the Soviets instead?

Kyle:

The question becomes could they have mounted a big bomb on a modified V2 missile? Then you've got a real problem to deal with. If they needed a bomber, possibly the Arado jet bomber could be fast enough to get in to London.

[old_pop2000]

Realizing of course that they were off track in many ways and no where near doing it - what do you suppose would have followed had Germany managed to develop a working Atomic Bomb in late 1944 or early 1945? Assuming it's similar to those made by the US - they'd be BIG bombs. What would Germany use to deliver them, and would a single bomber get through to London in late 44-45? Would they use it as a tactical weapon on the Soviets instead?
The Hiroshima bomb, a gun-type nuclear device, was 10 feet long and 2 feet wide and weighed 8000 lbs. The Nagasaki bomb, an implosion device, weighed 10,000 lbs. The He-177 A-5 could carry a max bombload of 15,783 lbs.

The A-4 had a max payload of about 2200 lbs. of amatol. A multi-stage rocket would have been a requirement for this type of delivery system.

I see nothing to stop the He-177 from carrying the bombs.

[old_pop2000]

Kyle:

The question becomes could they have mounted a big bomb on a modified V2 missile? Then you've got a real problem to deal with. If they needed a bomber, possibly the Arado jet bomber could be fast enough to get in to London.
The Arado 234 only had a 3300 lb. bombload.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Kyle,

I think they'd have used in on the Soviets, to slow them up in the hope that it would give impetus for the western allies to break ranks, come further east, and grab the technology for themselves, thereby keeping Germany, and perhaps other countries out of Soviet final control.

I doubt it would have prevented a complete German surrender to someone, though they may have felt it would help them bargain with the western allies in some way.

Of course, that may be complete rubbish, and knowing my history, probably is. :)

Cheers, Martin
Why waste a bomb on the Soviets. it would have been a drop in the bucket against their numbers. Hit London and destroy the English government and the docks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Arado 234 only had a 3300 lb. bombload.


Dennis:

Looks like they would need the Hienkel bomber then. As a tactical weapon, I wonder if the effects would have been worth it? As strategic weapon it might have been more useful against Moscow then London. Either way, if Germany uses a nuclear weapon you can guarantee the US would have used theirs against Germany before Japan. One unrealized nightmare that I glad never came to pass.

P.S. I finally installed Medieval Total War II after extensively upgrading my PC. I'm going to try the tutorial to get the feel for the game.

[Kyle Holgate]

The Hiroshima bomb, a gun-type nuclear device, was 10 feet long and 2 feet wide and weighed 8000 lbs. The Nagasaki bomb, an implosion device, weighed 10,000 lbs. The He-177 A-5 could carry a max bombload of 15,783 lbs.

The A-4 had a max payload of about 2200 lbs. of amatol. A multi-stage rocket would have been a requirement for this type of delivery system.

I see nothing to stop the He-177 from carrying the bombs.

The HE-177 could carry 15,173lbs of bombs (checking only one source, could be wrong) so the shotgun type bomb like Little boy could fit in it and be carried. Use it at night to be fairly sure it gets through or even use it in a mistle configuration (though less accurate, make the whole bomber a missile of sorts).

[old_pop2000]

Some mission planning details to consider:

1. At this late date, Allied night fighters are pretty potent as are English radar defenses.

2. This will have to be a night mission, so pathfinders and diversions are important.

3. The aircraft carrying the bomb, will have to be mixed with another bomber formation to disguise the intent of the mission.

4. Absolute security is important. The British get a whiff of this, and Bomber Command will bomb all the airfields capable of carrying the He-177 back to the stone age.

5. A direct route outbound to the target is not possible as it entails a flight over Allied territory and a wandering night fighter might get lucky. The flight will have to fly north over the North Sea and then turn to port, heading back to the target; London. The return flight can be direct but we must assume the bombers will not make it home.

6. The crew of the bomber carrying the bomb, must not be captured.

7. Night fighter escort might be valuable, at least part of way to the target.

8. Target area should be a relatively undamage portion of London.

9. Possible targeting position could be Parliament.


I can think of some other details, but this is a starter.

[djcyclone]

I say forget London, or Moscow. Just launch it on Paris, or in Poland to stop the Allied Armies. Such a blow would easily stop the advance and make the allies think long and hard about what to do next. If you send that bomber to London then there is to much chance it will not make it.

The Allies might sue for peace if they loose enough troops in such an attack. Hitler was already diying, but I do not know if the Allied Inteligence knew anything about that yet. Such an act may have simply caused the cold war to start early.

Just a thought.

[old_pop2000]

Paris is not a strategic target to the Germans. Bomb it and no one cares, except the French. London is the target of choice and this is a high risk mission.

Moscow is out. It is 790 miles from Warsaw to Moscow, one way. The He-177 had a nominal range of 975 miles. With even an 8000 lb. bomb, that is pushing its limits. Where was the Russian Army in late 1944 or early 1945? The bomber has to take off far behind that line. In late 1944 to early 1945, the Russians were almost to the border of Germany. From the border of Germany to Moscow, one way, is over 952 miles.

C'mon guys, doesn't anyone look at a map.:D We can't perform mission planning without a map.:eek:

[Kyle Holgate]

What about the psycological aspects of any attack by Germany - or even a test of the bomb somewhere? If the Germans use it against the Russians - nuke a major concentration of Soviet tanks and infantry it's going to have an impact far, far beyond the actual damage it may have done. Follow that up with a nice, reasonable peace proposal to Stalin perhaps? Would he bite? My guess is that he would.

Now against the western allies I'm not entirely sure. Nuking London will just infuriate the world that much more and the allies will make immediate changes in their air defenses to keep anything like that from happening again. Even so, they could not stop a raid on Paris (to mention an earlier suggested target).

Making peace with Hitler still in charge - and in posession of A-bombs just wouldn't fly for the Allied governments. The public though may have some say as the potential price of winning the war has just gone WAY up. New York - U-boat... Ouch.

[old_pop2000]

What about the psycological aspects of any attack by Germany - or even a test of the bomb somewhere? If the Germans use it against the Russians - nuke a major concentration of Soviet tanks and infantry it's going to have an impact far, far beyond the actual damage it may have done. Follow that up with a nice, reasonable peace proposal to Stalin perhaps? Would he bite? My guess is that he would.

Now against the western allies I'm not entirely sure. Nuking London will just infuriate the world that much more and the allies will make immediate changes in their air defenses to keep anything like that from happening again. Even so, they could not stop a raid on Paris (to mention an earlier suggested target).

Making peace with Hitler still in charge - and in posession of A-bombs just wouldn't fly for the Allied governments. The public though may have some say as the potential price of winning the war has just gone WAY up. New York - U-boat... Ouch.
Kyle:
Do you have any idea, how hard it would be to catch a major concentration of Soviet tanks and infantry with a long range bomber? It might be better to wait, until you have sufficient nukes to hit Moscow and major railway centers or leningrad. But you can forget about hitting armies on the move. Most of the suppy dumps can be damaged or destroyed with conventional munitions.

This nuke attack must a psychological war winner and the target has to be something of vital importance. London is the location of the headquarters for the British Army, SHAEF, and the traditional capital and seat of power for the English nation. What better psychological target that that one. The London docks are also a hub of incoming and outgoing war supplies. If you are going to go for the jugular, London is the target. Think of the significance with all the radar defenses, fighter command and such, if London get's wiped off of the map.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:
Do you have any idea, how hard it would be to catch a major concentration of Soviet tanks and infantry with a long range bomber? It might be better to wait, until you have sufficient nukes to hit Moscow and major railway centers or leningrad. But you can forget about hitting armies on the move. Most of the suppy dumps can be damaged or destroyed with conventional munitions.

This nuke attack must a psychological war winner and the target has to be something of vital importance. London is the location of the headquarters for the British Army, SHAEF, and the traditional capital and seat of power for the English nation. What better psychological target that that one. The London docks are also a hub of incoming and outgoing war supplies. If you are going to go for the jugular, London is the target. Think of the significance with all the radar defenses, fighter command and such, if London get's wiped off of the map.

Hi Dennis,
I don't think hitting a major army concentration would be easy by any means, but it could put the Soviets at the peace table. To be clear I think that the material damage wouldn't be as important as the psycholgical damage. Perhaps they'd get a few hundred tanks if they were really lucky and several thousand infantrymen - a drop in the proverbial bucket for Moscow. The implication would be there though, that Moscow could be next or Leningrad or anywhere else.
I'm also thinking of Hitler's mentality (such as it was) - the Soviets were seen as the bigger threat in a lot of ways, and I still think that their dropping from the war due to the bomb would be greater than the west doing so.
As far as making a real statement AND doing a lot of "good" (from the German side) then yes, I totally agree - London is the only real target short of New York. For NY they'd have needed to get a couple subs to spitting distance of the coastal US and then transferred the crew from the Nuke carrying one to the other - at least one way to do it that came to mind anyway.

[djcyclone]

Hi Dennis,
I don't think hitting a major army concentration would be easy by any means, but it could put the Soviets at the peace table. To be clear I think that the material damage wouldn't be as important as the psycholgical damage. Perhaps they'd get a few hundred tanks if they were really lucky and several thousand infantrymen - a drop in the proverbial bucket for Moscow. The implication would be there though, that Moscow could be next or Leningrad or anywhere else.
I'm also thinking of Hitler's mentality (such as it was) - the Soviets were seen as the bigger threat in a lot of ways, and I still think that their dropping from the war due to the bomb would be greater than the west doing so.
As far as making a real statement AND doing a lot of "good" (from the German side) then yes, I totally agree - London is the only real target short of New York. For NY they'd have needed to get a couple subs to spitting distance of the coastal US and then transferred the crew from the Nuke carrying one to the other - at least one way to do it that came to mind anyway.



Your thinking of a suicide mission with the sub. There would be no way to get a sub into harbor, then transfer the crew to another sub, then get that sub far enough away so that it does not take any damage. The sub would be spotted before the device went off, unless it was scuttled by the exiting crew, but then we are really getting into a complicated plan that can have many things go wrong. The only way to use a sub is to get some people who are willing to do a kamikazie run. There would be no way to get the nuclear device off of the sub by way of firring. A torpedoe gernerally only had a range of 2 to 3 miles and was unguided, so you are hoping it hits something that is proper enough to cause detination. If it hits the ground by simply running up on shore, then chances are it would simply get stuck in the sand, or mud and never actually detonate, unless it was on a timer. Either way the firing sub is not going to be able to get a safe distance away before the explosion. They could try to go deep, but the torpedo is in the water, and shock wave is going to affect the sub in one way or the other. If you are going to attack New York, then just put the device in a sub and make it a suicide mission. Missile technology was still 20 years off, so that is not an option.

[asnrobert]

The Germans were developing the A9/A10, a two stage rocket that would have been able to reach the East coast of the United States. Don't know how accurate it would have been.

[Kyle Holgate]

Your thinking of a suicide mission with the sub. There would be no way to get a sub into harbor, then transfer the crew to another sub, then get that sub far enough away so that it does not take any damage. The sub would be spotted before the device went off, unless it was scuttled by the exiting crew, but then we are really getting into a complicated plan that can have many things go wrong. The only way to use a sub is to get some people who are willing to do a kamikazie run. There would be no way to get the nuclear device off of the sub by way of firring. A torpedoe gernerally only had a range of 2 to 3 miles and was unguided, so you are hoping it hits something that is proper enough to cause detination. If it hits the ground by simply running up on shore, then chances are it would simply get stuck in the sand, or mud and never actually detonate, unless it was on a timer. Either way the firing sub is not going to be able to get a safe distance away before the explosion. They could try to go deep, but the torpedo is in the water, and shock wave is going to affect the sub in one way or the other. If you are going to attack New York, then just put the device in a sub and make it a suicide mission. Missile technology was still 20 years off, so that is not an option.

First off, I wouldn't recommend trying to penetrate into the harbor with even one submarine, as you say - suicide. I would instead get two subs to a point off Coney Island perhaps, and send the nuke carying sub toward shore - offload the crewman or two needed to get it going and set the bomb timer - and scoot with the "rescue" sub. The nuke sub will of course run aground but I think that the other sub could get far enough away - several miles would be good enough for the comparatively small nuke of the time.
One problem is how close to shore the sub would get before beaching, and whether the blast zone would extend inland enough to matter, and they wouldn't know unless they test fired one somewhere (imagine what sort of attention that would get from the Allies!!!).
It wouldn't have to be New York in any case, though that would be the most obvious target. Any East Coast US city borering the Atlantic would work - Boston, Miami...

[john964]

IIRC SHAEF and most of the Allied High Command was HQed outside Paris, IIRC this was done in late Oct 44. The only major high command left in the London area were the HQ's for the 8AF and 9AF along with RAF Bomber Command. Though the 9AF may have moved to Paris too. The reson for them not moving is its where the bulk of the bombers are located.

[old_pop2000]

IIRC SHAEF and most of the Allied High Command was HQed outside Paris, IIRC this was done in late Oct 44. The only major high command left in the London area were the HQ's for the 8AF and 9AF along with RAF Bomber Command. Though the 9AF may have moved to Paris too. The reson for them not moving is its where the bulk of the bombers are located.

The specification in the starting post for the discussion was:


Atomic Bomb in late 1944 or early 1945

SHAEF moved from London in early December 1944 to the Hotel Rainon, in Paris. I assumed then that an attack in late 1944 might catch them still in the London area.

[old_pop2000]

The Germans were developing the A9/A10, a two stage rocket that would have been able to reach the East coast of the United States. Don't know how accurate it would have been.
Payload for the A9/A0 was 2210 lbs at a range of 5100 miles. That is not enough to carry the 8000 lb bomb, depending on whether the German could reduce the casing size of the bomb and lighten it. I doubt that seriously.

[djcyclone]

I am still against the U-boat attack on the East Coast. By 1944 U.S. and British Navy was at the top of their game. Radar was so advanced that it could catch a snorkel. The chances of moving two or even one U-boat all the way across the Atlantic would be nearly impossible. Plus even if you did, what are the chances of puting a U-boat on Auto pilot (a rope tied to the wheel and something else) and having it head into a harbor. The boat would almost certainly be spotted and sank by surface fire before it ever reached a decent location. It would then sink and when the bomb went off, only ships would be lost. I think you are better to go with the gamble of sending a bomber to London, but if I had to choose I would say drop it on Paris. Even if you do not catch the high command of the Allied forces, you are going to get a lot of big wig commanders, and even more allied troops not to mention the amount of supplies that was kept at Paris. All of the Allied troops in Europe would have to stop their advance, and wait for supplies to catch up. Then Germany could launch the Bulge attack, and catch a lot of Allied troops with no supplies. This could have won the war for them.

All of the Allied Nations where near Bankrupt by the end of 1944, and so a blow of that sort, would almost certainly force their hand, and make them at least consider offering peace.

[old_pop2000]

What about the BV-238 flying boat. Range of 4474 miles, with refueling at sea from a Milch Cow sub. It had a gross weight of 111,000 lbs. It should be able to fly to New York with the bomb, and return with refueling.

See enclosed video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVIaOSQBFAE

[Ed Rotondaro]

I say forget London, or Moscow. Just launch it on Paris, or in Poland to stop the Allied Armies. Such a blow would easily stop the advance and make the allies think long and hard about what to do next. If you send that bomber to London then there is to much chance it will not make it.

The Allies might sue for peace if they loose enough troops in such an attack. Hitler was already diying, but I do not know if the Allied Inteligence knew anything about that yet. Such an act may have simply caused the cold war to start early.

Just a thought.

DJ:

Exactly what good does hitting Paris do? The armies aren't dependent on Paris, they are dependent on the ports like Antwerp or Marseilles. I'm not even sure that Ike and staff used Paris as much as more forward HQ. Also you are completely forgetting something with discussion. We're giving Germany the benefit of the doubt that they somehow can build the bomb, we already know the Allies are building them. Nuke one major city and kiss Berlin goodbye.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,
I don't think hitting a major army concentration would be easy by any means, but it could put the Soviets at the peace table. To be clear I think that the material damage wouldn't be as important as the psycholgical damage. Perhaps they'd get a few hundred tanks if they were really lucky and several thousand infantrymen - a drop in the proverbial bucket for Moscow. The implication would be there though, that Moscow could be next or Leningrad or anywhere else.
I'm also thinking of Hitler's mentality (such as it was) - the Soviets were seen as the bigger threat in a lot of ways, and I still think that their dropping from the war due to the bomb would be greater than the west doing so.
As far as making a real statement AND doing a lot of "good" (from the German side) then yes, I totally agree - London is the only real target short of New York. For NY they'd have needed to get a couple subs to spitting distance of the coastal US and then transferred the crew from the Nuke carrying one to the other - at least one way to do it that came to mind anyway.


Kyle:

Dennis has a point here. Did Germany use V weapons against the Russians? Not to my knowledge, or at least not in any significant numbers. No they rained them down on London. If they can't reach Moscow and Dennis has presented good evidence that they can't, then Big Ben and the Tower are toast.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

Exactly what good does hitting Paris do? The armies aren't dependent on Paris, they are dependent on the ports like Antwerp or Marseilles. I'm not even sure that Ike and staff used Paris as much as more forward HQ. Also you are completely forgetting something with discussion. We're giving Germany the benefit of the doubt that they somehow can build the bomb, we already know the Allies are building them. Nuke one major city and kiss Berlin goodbye.



Well at least you would not have to worry about Hitler anymore.:D

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am still against the U-boat attack on the East Coast. By 1944 U.S. and British Navy was at the top of their game. Radar was so advanced that it could catch a snorkel. The chances of moving two or even one U-boat all the way across the Atlantic would be nearly impossible. Plus even if you did, what are the chances of puting a U-boat on Auto pilot (a rope tied to the wheel and something else) and having it head into a harbor. The boat would almost certainly be spotted and sank by surface fire before it ever reached a decent location. It would then sink and when the bomb went off, only ships would be lost. I think you are better to go with the gamble of sending a bomber to London, but if I had to choose I would say drop it on Paris. Even if you do not catch the high command of the Allied forces, you are going to get a lot of big wig commanders, and even more allied troops not to mention the amount of supplies that was kept at Paris. All of the Allied troops in Europe would have to stop their advance, and wait for supplies to catch up. Then Germany could launch the Bulge attack, and catch a lot of Allied troops with no supplies. This could have won the war for them.

All of the Allied Nations where near Bankrupt by the end of 1944, and so a blow of that sort, would almost certainly force their hand, and make them at least consider offering peace.

DJ:

Do you understand the logistics? The supplies aren't in Paris, they in the ports. Why do you think they fought so hard to get Antwerp? Paris was too far from the front lines for it to be a major supply point. The heavy stuff comes in from the sea! I'm sorry to be blunt but this is nonsense. You really think that Gemany wasn't in dire financial straits in 1944? C'mon. You made similar arguments with DC falling in the Civil War, and it doesn't hold water, not with the US still safely out of range of this kind of attack and forget that nonsense about a sub attack, please. I'm not convinced you could even fit the weapon in a U-boat.

[Ed Rotondaro]

What about the BV-238 flying boat. Range of 4474 miles, with refueling at sea from a Milch Cow sub. It had a gross weight of 111,000 lbs. It should be able to fly to New York with the bomb, and return with refueling.

See enclosed video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVIaOSQBFAE

Dennis:

That is an interesting proposition, but I wonder if these planes were operating anywhere near mid-Atlantic after 1943. Seems like it would be too easy to detect it. But hey what do I know?

[old_pop2000]

DJ:

Do you understand the logistics? The supplies aren't in Paris, they in the ports. Why do you think they fought so hard to get Antwerp? Paris was too far from the front lines for it to be a major supply point. The heavy stuff comes in from the sea! I'm sorry to be blunt but this is nonsense. You really think that Gemany wasn't in dire financial straits in 1944? C'mon. You made similar arguments with DC falling in the Civil War, and it doesn't hold water, not with the US still safely out of range of this kind of attack and forget that nonsense about a sub attack, please. I'm not convinced you could even fit the weapon in a U-boat.
One major issue with the U-boat idea. If you explode the device underwater, all you are going to get are strong underwater shock waves and a big geyser of water. The bomb must be exploded in an air burst, about 2000 feet to get a good blast effect on the surround area. That is going to require an barometric firing mechanism.

At Bikini, the air burst, Test Able, was punishing to the superstructure's of the ships, but did little damage to the hulls. Test Baker, the underwater explosion, crushed the hulls with strong pressure waves.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

Do you understand the logistics? The supplies aren't in Paris, they in the ports. Why do you think they fought so hard to get Antwerp? Paris was too far from the front lines for it to be a major supply point. The heavy stuff comes in from the sea! I'm sorry to be blunt but this is nonsense. You really think that Gemany wasn't in dire financial straits in 1944? C'mon. You made similar arguments with DC falling in the Civil War, and it doesn't hold water, not with the US still safely out of range of this kind of attack and forget that nonsense about a sub attack, please. I'm not convinced you could even fit the weapon in a U-boat.



Your still burnt about the whole DC thing, come on that is old. And do you read all of the post? I did not come up with the whole U Boat thing, I just commented on it. I am only making suggestions, but I think you get into this stuff too deep. You actually get lost in these ideas, as if they are actually going to happen.

Yes Germany was in just as bad of financial crisis as the Allies, but they had been in that situation since the begining of the War. They managed to deal with it. They lost because their armies could not stop the allied advance. My post simply implied that such a blow might have forced the Allies into a real pickle. If they could not continue their advance, then would they have been able to beat Germany. Germany would not have won, but would they have all considered peace? And when dealing with Paris, you still get alot of soilders, alot of big wig commanders, and what about radioactive dust and fall out.

They did not know a whole lot about that back then, but do you really think supplies would be completly unefected by such a blow?

[old_pop2000]

One major issue with the U-boat idea. If you explode the device underwater, all you are going to get are strong underwater shock waves and a big geyser of water. The bomb must be exploded in an air burst, about 2000 feet to get a good blast effect on the surround area. That is going to require an barometric firing mechanism.

At Bikini, the air burst, Test Able, was punishing to the superstructure's of the ships, but did little damage to the hulls. Test Baker, the underwater explosion, crushed the hulls with strong pressure waves.
I don't know, but it might have been possible to fly south, then west over Spain and refuel near the Azores, then fly north to New York or Washington.

If you flew southwest over Switzerland from Bavaria, over the Balearic Sea, turned west and flew over Spain till you hit the Atlantic, then turn Northwest, that trip would work, but there would have to be two refueling stops. One going in and then one going back out, then fly south to Argentina. Peron would probably give them asylum and keep the plane.

[old_pop2000]

Your still burnt about the whole DC thing, come on that is old. And do you read all of the post? I did not come up with the whole U Boat thing, I just commented on it. I am only making suggestions, but I think you get into this stuff too deep. You actually get lost in these ideas, as if they are actually going to happen.

Yes Germany was in just as bad of financial crisis as the Allies, but they had been in that situation since the begining of the War. They managed to deal with it. They lost because their armies could not stop the allied advance. My post simply implied that such a blow might have forced the Allies into a real pickle. If they could not continue their advance, then would they have been able to beat Germany. Germany would not have won, but would they have all considered peace? And when dealing with Paris, you still get alot of soilders, alot of big wig commanders, and what about radioactive dust and fall out.

They did not know a whole lot about that back then, but do you really think supplies would be completly unefected by such a blow?
The U-boat idea is workable if the bomb is carried on a Type XX1 Walther boat in a sealed canister on the deck. It could be off loaded, at night, on to a waiting fishing boat and sailed up the Potomac River next Washington, then detonated. That maybe the best and easiest way to accomplish this.

[old_pop2000]

The simplest way to perform a nuclear attack would be to put radioactive uranium into a warhead of an A4 and detonate it over London, spreading the radioactivity all over. A couple of missiles fired in one barrage, could leave London uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years, depending on the half life of Uranium. This could be done to Paris, Moscow and a host of other large cities and capitals. That would certainly get in the Allied world's attention. Radiation sickness was an unknown quantity at that time.

Diabolical, I think. Yogurt the Wise strikes again.

[Warship NWS]

If the Germans had nukes London, Paris, Antwerp, New York, and Normandy could all be possible targets.. some for political reasons others for military reasons. I will note we never needed to take Paris after landing in Normandy but the political implications of freeing the French capital did have a major role to play with allies.

The reverse question would be.. what would the retaliation be?

I will note.. far more people were lost to fire bombing then to atomic weapons which took quite a while to build in the mid 1940s in comparison.

Also, Dennis makes a point that transporting a bomb could be done using various methods of delivery.. just depends on the accessibility of your target.

In the end run.. we could create more damage in a single on target incendiary raid then an atomic raid which was costly due to the development time and cost of such weapons at that time so at that point atomic weapons were simply not that cost effective but they were definitely attention getters and it is hard to defend against one lonely military platfrom deploying the weapon without a very good defense network of weapons and sensors.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

If the Germans had nukes London, Paris, Antwerp, New York, and Normandy could all be possible targets.. some for political reasons others for military reasons. I will note we never needed to take Paris after landing in Normandy but the political implications of freeing the French capital did have a major role to play with allies.

The reverse question would be.. what would the retaliation be?

I will note.. far more people were lost to fire bombing then to atomic weapons which took quite a while to build in the mid 1940s in comparison.

Also, Dennis makes a point that transporting a bomb could be done using various methods of delivery.. just depends on the accessibility of your target.

In the end run.. we could create more damage in a single on target incendiary raid then an atomic raid which was costly due to the development time and cost of such weapons at that time so at that point atomic weapons were simply not that cost effective but they were definitely attention getters and it is hard to defend against one lonely military platfrom deploying the weapon without a very good defense network of weapons and sensors.

Thanks.
Actually, if you were to load up A4 missiles with Zyklon B or Hydroncyanic Acid, and simply exploded a canister of this all over the city, it would be over very quickly. Zyklon B was very active when it contacted air. Nasty stuff.

[Ed Rotondaro]

One major issue with the U-boat idea. If you explode the device underwater, all you are going to get are strong underwater shock waves and a big geyser of water. The bomb must be exploded in an air burst, about 2000 feet to get a good blast effect on the surround area. That is going to require an barometric firing mechanism.

At Bikini, the air burst, Test Able, was punishing to the superstructure's of the ships, but did little damage to the hulls. Test Baker, the underwater explosion, crushed the hulls with strong pressure waves.

Dennis:

Yes, I was wondering about that. Even exploding it on the surface won't be as good as an airburst, but its better than nothing.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Your still burnt about the whole DC thing, come on that is old. And do you read all of the post? I did not come up with the whole U Boat thing, I just commented on it. I am only making suggestions, but I think you get into this stuff too deep. You actually get lost in these ideas, as if they are actually going to happen.

Yes Germany was in just as bad of financial crisis as the Allies, but they had been in that situation since the begining of the War. They managed to deal with it. They lost because their armies could not stop the allied advance. My post simply implied that such a blow might have forced the Allies into a real pickle. If they could not continue their advance, then would they have been able to beat Germany. Germany would not have won, but would they have all considered peace? And when dealing with Paris, you still get alot of soilders, alot of big wig commanders, and what about radioactive dust and fall out.

They did not know a whole lot about that back then, but do you really think supplies would be completly unefected by such a blow?

DJ:

I "get lost" in these ideas as you say because:

A. I take alternative history with a grain of salt and find it an exercise in dissecting the foolish underpinnings that too many people think history is based on.

B. If someone initiates a debate on one of these topics I feel that it is important to follow it to the conclusion and if that conclusion is that the basic premise is nonsense, then that needs to be brought out.

Final point on the effect of a German nuclear device on WWII. It would have far greater effect on a nation like Russia which didn't have an orderly structure for the transference of power rather than a democracy. Blow up Washington and perhaps you get FDR and a good chunk of the Congress. Would it be a setback for the war effort? Certainly. Would the US collapse? No. Whoever takes power, be it the VP, the speaker of the house or whoever is the line of succession, the first thing they get briefed on is the progress of the Allies nuclear program which would have been further along than Germany's. Then that person orders an immediate nuclear strike on Berlin which could be carried out with existing Allied heavy bombers. Nuke Berlin and Germany will be in much worse shape than the US as the surviving Nazis scramble to see who is in charge and how to respond. As Dennis has pointed out, destroying London would be fair more useful to the immediate German strategic situation than destroying Paris, or NYC or DC.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The simplest way to perform a nuclear attack would be to put radioactive uranium into a warhead of an A4 and detonate it over London, spreading the radioactivity all over. A couple of missiles fired in one barrage, could leave London uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years, depending on the half life of Uranium. This could be done to Paris, Moscow and a host of other large cities and capitals. That would certainly get in the Allied world's attention. Radiation sickness was an unknown quantity at that time.

Diabolical, I think. Yogurt the Wise strikes again.

Dennis:

Plutonium would have even been worse as it is both radioactive and toxic as well and has a longer half life. Trouble is I don't think you would have knowledge about it until you at least had detonated a test nuclear weapon. It was theorized in 1940 and first created at Berkely, but its knowledge was kept secret because of the war.

[keschofield]

I think completion of the "Amerika" bomber was far more likely than a German A-bomb. Heisenberg was working to delay the A-bomb project as much as he dared.

The best option available to the 3rd Reich would have been to complete both of the above and hit NY.

However, getting back to the real world, Germany NEVER thought on a "grand strategic" level during the period 1939-1945. The whole concept was ignored by Hitler and the General Staff. The Nazi governmental system with its duplication, inefficiency, and internecine struggle wasn't up to the challenge.

I personally believe that the only member of the Allies that might have considered quitting the coalition early was the the USSR. But, as others here have shown, without a reliable, accurate long range delivery system, by 1944 the necessary targets were too far away from Germany and Stalin was winning on the ground. IMO the only way Stalin quits is if he is stalemated on the ground and THEN loses Moscow AND Leningrad.

[Kyle Holgate]

I think completion of the "Amerika" bomber was far more likely than a German A-bomb. Heisenberg was working to delay the A-bomb project as much as he dared.

The best option available to the 3rd Reich would have been to complete both of the above and hit NY.

However, getting back to the real world, Germany NEVER thought on a "grand strategic" level during the period 1939-1945. The whole concept was ignored by Hitler and the General Staff. The Nazi governmental system with its duplication, inefficiency, and internecine struggle wasn't up to the challenge.

I personally believe that the only member of the Allies that might have considered quitting the coalition early was the the USSR. But, as others here have shown, without a reliable, accurate long range delivery system, by 1944 the necessary targets were too far away from Germany and Stalin was winning on the ground. IMO the only way Stalin quits is if he is stalemated on the ground and THEN loses Moscow AND Leningrad.

It's difficult to guess the psychological impact of a nuclear weapon being used by Germany in WW2 even if it didn't do much material damage. My personal assesment of Stalin is that he was a bit of a coward, and Germany with "the bomb" would rattle him badly. Obviously we don't know though. As for bombing Moscow, I have little doubt that the Germans could find an aircrew willing to die in the attack if they could be convinced that it would mean saving Germany (perhaps if only from the Soviets). This is "iffier though, as the Germans were not inclined to think in terms of suicide attacks like their Pacific allies.
It is true that firebombings with thousands of bombers did more than a nuke - though never on any western city. London during the BOB had to be hit many times to be equivelant of one really heavy raid circa 1944 on a German city.
Hmm, actually that would be an interesting factoid to dig up - average bombs dropped on London in a single raid during the Blitz compared to those dropped in a single raid on Berlin in a late war night raid (or day for that matter).

Germany supposidly had a considerable amount of Uranium that could have been used to make a so-called dirty bomb. No one thought to use it or anyone that did thought better of using it that way though. The Gas idea - I have often wondered why it was never used. I find it hard to believe that Hitler wouldn't order it used. Retaliation would be horrible of course, but he never showed that he gave a damn about that sort of thing. I'm certainly glad it wasn't used - but it does make me wonder why.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

I "get lost" in these ideas as you say because:

A. I take alternative history with a grain of salt and find it an exercise in dissecting the foolish underpinnings that too many people think history is based on.

B. If someone initiates a debate on one of these topics I feel that it is important to follow it to the conclusion and if that conclusion is that the basic premise is nonsense, then that needs to be brought out.

Final point on the effect of a German nuclear device on WWII. It would have far greater effect on a nation like Russia which didn't have an orderly structure for the transference of power rather than a democracy. Blow up Washington and perhaps you get FDR and a good chunk of the Congress. Would it be a setback for the war effort? Certainly. Would the US collapse? No. Whoever takes power, be it the VP, the speaker of the house or whoever is the line of succession, the first thing they get briefed on is the progress of the Allies nuclear program which would have been further along than Germany's. Then that person orders an immediate nuclear strike on Berlin which could be carried out with existing Allied heavy bombers. Nuke Berlin and Germany will be in much worse shape than the US as the surviving Nazis scramble to see who is in charge and how to respond. As Dennis has pointed out, destroying London would be fair more useful to the immediate German strategic situation than destroying Paris, or NYC or DC.



I never said the U.S. would collapse. I did not say launch on the U.S. at all. I said launch on the advancing armies. You say Paris was not a supply hub at all. I agree that Paris was not the main supply hub, but it had a fair amount of supplies in it, not to mention a good portion of the hospitals where in Paris. A lot of wounded troops where sent their for medical attention. It also had a lot of troops and commanders. I think an attempt to launch on a far away target like a U.S. City is to out of reach just like the U.S.S.R. was. I think that London is to risky. That is why I say use it close to home and scare the hell out of the armies that are making the killing blow. Take away a good chunk of their suply, their high command, and add that to the loss of morale from knowing how many troops just died. Even launching on Paris, or another French City might be enough to scare the Hell out of Stalin enough to make him pull his troops back, because if they launch one, then who knows how manny more they have and if they will use them or not.

All of this is just theory of course, because it never happened, and so no one knows how the Allies would have reacted. You can of course say sure the Allies would retaliate and make Berlin dissapear beneath a Mushroom cloud, but would they have? I do not know if they would have sued for peace in the event of such a thing. If Stalin pulls out, and even worse, if the bomb does manage to catch the British Command after they have placed their flag in Paris, do the remaining commanders have the balls to keep the war going? I do not know if they would, so that is why I implied that they may just call it quits and hope Germany plays along. It may have started the Cold War quicker by making everyone build their own nukes just to say do not mess with me.

[keschofield]

... It is true that firebombings with thousands of bombers did more than a nuke - though never on any western city. ....


Hi Kyle,

I think you forgot Hamburg and Dresden. Both were firebombed by the British to the extent that firestorms were created. The British then deliberately "stoked" the fires by additional bombing designed to increase the size of the firestorms.

[Ed Rotondaro]

It's difficult to guess the psychological impact of a nuclear weapon being used by Germany in WW2 even if it didn't do much material damage. My personal assesment of Stalin is that he was a bit of a coward, and Germany with "the bomb" would rattle him badly. Obviously we don't know though. As for bombing Moscow, I have little doubt that the Germans could find an aircrew willing to die in the attack if they could be convinced that it would mean saving Germany (perhaps if only from the Soviets). This is "iffier though, as the Germans were not inclined to think in terms of suicide attacks like their Pacific allies.
It is true that firebombings with thousands of bombers did more than a nuke - though never on any western city. London during the BOB had to be hit many times to be equivelant of one really heavy raid circa 1944 on a German city.
Hmm, actually that would be an interesting factoid to dig up - average bombs dropped on London in a single raid during the Blitz compared to those dropped in a single raid on Berlin in a late war night raid (or day for that matter).

Germany supposidly had a considerable amount of Uranium that could have been used to make a so-called dirty bomb. No one thought to use it or anyone that did thought better of using it that way though. The Gas idea - I have often wondered why it was never used. I find it hard to believe that Hitler wouldn't order it used. Retaliation would be horrible of course, but he never showed that he gave a damn about that sort of thing. I'm certainly glad it wasn't used - but it does make me wonder why.

Kyle:

Even with modern nerve gasses and delivery systems, chemical warfare is a dicey prospect. I don't think you would get anywhere near the casualties that fire bombing would give you. Weather is always a factor with chemical warfare.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Kyle,

I think you forgot Hamburg and Dresden. Both were firebombed by the British to the extent that firestorms were created. The British then deliberately "stoked" the fires by additional bombing designed to increase the size of the firestorms.

Kurt:

Not to downplay the horrors of firebombing, but there recently have been some serious revisions to the statistics of the Dresden raid that put casualties well under the 100,000 that Goebbels trumpeted to the world. The firebombings of Japanese cities were far more destructive in terms of loss of life and damage to the cities. Indeed the firebombings killed far more people than both nuclear weapons combined. Ghastly way to wage war.

[keschofield]

Kurt:

Not to downplay the horrors of firebombing, but there recently have been some serious revisions to the statistics of the Dresden raid that put casualties well under the 100,000 that Goebbels trumpeted to the world. The firebombings of Japanese cities were far more destructive in terms of loss of life and damage to the cities. Indeed the firebombings killed far more people than both nuclear weapons combined. Ghastly way to wage war.

Hi Ed,

While I am no admirer of Goebbels (the poisen dwarf), I would be interested in seeing the studies that revised Dresden's casualties downward - especially what their methodology was and probably most important, who did them.

Take care.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

While I am no admirer of Goebbels (the poisen dwarf), I would be interested in seeing the studies that revised Dresden's casualties downward - especially what their methodology was and probably most important, who did them.

Take care.

Kurt:

I know that there is a recent book on it, but I have not read it other than the jacket notes and the captions on the various pictures. It is possible that the author may have had an agenda, but the main thrust appears to be how casualties were counted. Even with the revised numbers, it was still a horrific act of war.

[john964]

The fire bombing of Hamburg was a USAAF an RAF effort the Brits by nite the Yanks by day. IIRC they kept it going for nearly a week and the last of the fires did not go out untill almost a week after the bombing stopped.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Kyle,

I think you forgot Hamburg and Dresden. Both were firebombed by the British to the extent that firestorms were created. The British then deliberately "stoked" the fires by additional bombing designed to increase the size of the firestorms.

My bad, I meant to say Allied city, you are of course correct Hamburg and Dresden.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

Even with modern nerve gasses and delivery systems, chemical warfare is a dicey prospect. I don't think you would get anywhere near the casualties that fire bombing would give you. Weather is always a factor with chemical warfare.

I agree, but then again I'm also thinking of the psychological impacts. It doesn't take very long in a study of warfare to find situations where the psychological impact of warfare on a population or country is far different than the realities of it.
In any case the Nazi's were loosing badly, no chance to win - desperate measures were required even to have any faint hope.

[john964]

I have been rereading some of the ideas on how to get an A-bomb into a US city, and to say it would be next to immpossable is a defenet possability. Lets look at possable targets cities from North to South.
Boston MA
Provedence RI
New York NY
Philadelphia PA
Baltimore MD
Washington DC
Norfolk VA
Charleston SC
Savanna GA
Miami FL

All are ligitament targets for an attack by air, but high on the target list are New York and Wasington DC with Boston and Philadelphia as secondary targets due to proximity and historical significance.

Now for the A-bomb built into a submarine and sent into city by remote control. All of these cities will be behind huge mine fields and ASW patrols. The way I would make the attack is take two subs one with the bomb and a skeloton crew and the other to take off the crew of the bomb sub, detonate the bomb and possably report on the effects. The attack would not be sending the sub into a harbor ie sending the sub into NYC through the Narrows to Battery Park and watching it go boom. But hitting either an outlaying area or if the city is close enough the city its self. The 2 subs would surface 20-30 miles out, the crew taken off, the bomb set, and the sub sent on the surface at max speed to run itself aground on the beach close to the target.

Miami Fl practacaly right on the ocean
Boston MA same as Miami but harder to get around the Cape Cod defenses
New York NY not the city itself but Newark NJ Brooklyn and Staten Island are close by.
Savanna GA fairly close to the ocean
Norfolk/Virgina Beach again fairly close to the ocean.

As to the attack by smuggling the bomb into a by a fishing boat, a possability but not likely as most fishing boats were escorted by ASW forces, not closely but still escorted. This was done to prevent the germans form harrassing the fishermen.

[old_pop2000]

There are some other ways to accomplish this:

1. Capture an Allied merchant ship, transfer the parts of the bomb to this ship and technical personnel. Sail it to New York harbor, assembling while underway, then explode the bomb in the docks. Diabolical, isn't it.

2. Rebuild a Lancaster bomber from pieces or capture one, load the bomb on to it, and fly it over London and drop it.

3. Send the bomb parts via submarine to the Irish Republic with technical agents. Assemble the bomb and sail an Irish ship across to Liverpool and explode the bomb.

Man, I gotta million of them!!

[Ed Rotondaro]

There are some other ways to accomplish this:

1. Capture an Allied merchant ship, transfer the parts of the bomb to this ship and technical personnel. Sail it to New York harbor, assembling while underway, then explode the bomb in the docks. Diabolical, isn't it.

2. Rebuild a Lancaster bomber from pieces or capture one, load the bomb on to it, and fly it over London and drop it.

3. Send the bomb parts via submarine to the Irish Republic with technical agents. Assemble the bomb and sail an Irish ship across to Liverpool and explode the bomb.

Man, I gotta million of them!!

Dennis:

All possible, most totally implausible. Anybody consider that Allied signit might tumble onto this? That's far more likely than anything I've seen so far.;)

[djcyclone]

There are some other ways to accomplish this:

1. Capture an Allied merchant ship, transfer the parts of the bomb to this ship and technical personnel. Sail it to New York harbor, assembling while underway, then explode the bomb in the docks. Diabolical, isn't it.

2. Rebuild a Lancaster bomber from pieces or capture one, load the bomb on to it, and fly it over London and drop it.

3. Send the bomb parts via submarine to the Irish Republic with technical agents. Assemble the bomb and sail an Irish ship across to Liverpool and explode the bomb.

Man, I gotta million of them!!



All of them are great ideas, but all of them are too complicated. If you did this you would want it to be quick and simple. U.S. and British inteligence was vary good at this time. We had spies all over Germany, by are biggest help was the French Resistance. If the plan is too complicated, there is too much chance that information will leak. Then you have the Allies scrambling to intercept.

If a plan was ever put into place, then it would have to be vary quick and vary simple to avoid attention. Hell maybe they did try something, and we just never heard about it because it failed. Just a thought.

[Kyle Holgate]

Just hand the project to Otto Skorzeny and tell him to get it done - London is the target.

Best way I have seen is probably the air raid, but even that is going to likely be spotted by Allied spooks. Even if they don't know about the bomb, they'll wonder what put the bug up the Luftwaffe's behind. Stage a series of big raids perhaps in series over a night to keep the British and American night fighters busy and guessing, then send the bomber in with one of the raids. You could have German night fighter escorts or better yet have them on intruder missions AND escorting.
I think this is by far the most plausable way to get the implausable bomb to the target.

[old_pop2000]

Just hand the project to Otto Skorzeny and tell him to get it done - London is the target.

Best way I have seen is probably the air raid, but even that is going to likely be spotted by Allied spooks. Even if they don't know about the bomb, they'll wonder what put the bug up the Luftwaffe's behind. Stage a series of big raids perhaps in series over a night to keep the British and American night fighters busy and guessing, then send the bomber in with one of the raids. You could have German night fighter escorts or better yet have them on intruder missions AND escorting.
I think this is by far the most plausable way to get the implausable bomb to the target.
I agree that the air raid scenario, is the most plausible and easiest to plan and execute. The key is that all of these scenario's would have to be of concern to the Allies, if they received intel of a German bomb. They would prioritize these scenario's and focus resources on those high priority targets and methods. But, it would still require assets and resources.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

All possible, most totally implausible. Anybody consider that Allied signit might tumble onto this? That's far more likely than anything I've seen so far.;)


Hi Dennis,

That might be iffy, as the Germans retreated into the homeland much less traffic went over the air. Hiterl was able to muster and launch the Battle of the bulge and the Luftwaffe New Year's offensive with little or no traffic that could have warned the Allies. A small elite air unit could launch with little or no need for radio traffic.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Just hand the project to Otto Skorzeny and tell him to get it done - London is the target.

Best way I have seen is probably the air raid, but even that is going to likely be spotted by Allied spooks. Even if they don't know about the bomb, they'll wonder what put the bug up the Luftwaffe's behind. Stage a series of big raids perhaps in series over a night to keep the British and American night fighters busy and guessing, then send the bomber in with one of the raids. You could have German night fighter escorts or better yet have them on intruder missions AND escorting.
I think this is by far the most plausable way to get the implausable bomb to the target.

HI Kyle,

I wonder if the HE 177 could carry that kind of load over short distance. The forces defending London were impressive with dqy fighters, night fighters, and a belt of radar directed 3.7" and 90mm guns that had been very successful against the V-1s in the summer and fall of 1944. Any attacking plane would face intense ressistance even with supporting efforts by the Luftwaffe. If you only have one bomb, you can't afford to miss or get shot down.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

That might be iffy, as the Germans retreated into the homeland much less traffic went over the air. Hiterl was able to muster and launch the Battle of the bulge and the Luftwaffe New Year's offensive with little or no traffic that could have warned the Allies. A small elite air unit could launch with little or no need for radio traffic.

Mike:

I agree, but was that due to the shorter lines of communication, or a deliberate attempt to keep the operation a secret? Most of what I've read states that the lack of radio traffic before the Ardennes offensive was intentional, with land lines and messengers used to maintain security. Just a thought.

[Kyle Holgate]

HI Kyle,

I wonder if the HE 177 could carry that kind of load over short distance. The forces defending London were impressive with dqy fighters, night fighters, and a belt of radar directed 3.7" and 90mm guns that had been very successful against the V-1s in the summer and fall of 1944. Any attacking plane would face intense ressistance even with supporting efforts by the Luftwaffe. If you only have one bomb, you can't afford to miss or get shot down.

The HE-177 could carry the bomb - we've established that (assumption being it's the size of Little boy). The HE-177 could fly above the typical altitude of flak guns - and remember the buzz bombs flew much lower than bombers typically did. The "good" thing (from the German perspective of course) is that aiming isn't going to be super critical - so a very high altitude drop may be an option. It could end up being a real clash between Luftwaffe night fighters and allied ones - we may have the Black Widow vs Uhu battle that never happened.
I would think that confusing the RAF air defenses would be quite possible - multiple aircraft going all over the place with little apparent rhyme or reason. I would think the RAF would get really confused as to what the Luftwaffe was doing. Finally - Is there any reason the Germans couldn't use "window" (chaff)? They obviously knew about it and knew how it worked by mid 1944.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

That might be iffy, as the Germans retreated into the homeland much less traffic went over the air. Hiterl was able to muster and launch the Battle of the bulge and the Luftwaffe New Year's offensive with little or no traffic that could have warned the Allies. A small elite air unit could launch with little or no need for radio traffic.

Trust me, Mike, this whole thread is iffy. If the German's had been capable of developing and testing this device, delivering it would be a piece of cake to solve. The development of this bomb entailed; science, engineering and production. First, the scientist have to develop the scientific design for the bomb and translate that into a workable engineering problem. The engineers have to take that problem and develop the engineering for the building of the bomb. Then production engineers have to develop the production equipment and processes to build the bomb. Then someone has to test the bomb. When you have finished this, using the bomb is easy .;)

[Kyle Holgate]

Trust me, Mike, this whole thread is iffy. If the German's had been capable of developing and testing this device, delivering it would be a piece of cake to solve. The development of this bomb entailed; science, engineering and production. First, the scientist have to develop the scientific design for the bomb and translate that into a workable engineering problem. The engineers have to take that problem and develop the engineering for the building of the bomb. Then production engineers have to develop the production equipment and processes to build the bomb. Then someone has to test the bomb. When you have finished this, using the bomb is easy .;)

But the Japanese tested one in what is now North Korea in Aug. 1945! If they could do it the Germans could.
Interesting how there is no evidence. The centrofuges were destroyed in bombing or prior to the occupation the bomb test site isn't accessable, etc. There are a few eye witnesses and designers that swear they made it though. I remain skeptical (to put it mildly).
The Germans even if left alone and funded were a long way from building a working bomb, so yes I know - this is a "what if" with a lot of S-t-r-e-t-c-hing!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Trust me, Mike, this whole thread is iffy. If the German's had been capable of developing and testing this device, delivering it would be a piece of cake to solve. The development of this bomb entailed; science, engineering and production. First, the scientist have to develop the scientific design for the bomb and translate that into a workable engineering problem. The engineers have to take that problem and develop the engineering for the building of the bomb. Then production engineers have to develop the production equipment and processes to build the bomb. Then someone has to test the bomb. When you have finished this, using the bomb is easy .;)

Dennis:

That's one fly in the ointment that has been overlooked, testing the weapon. Where exactly is Germany going to test this thing without everybody knowing about it? The US was lucky enough to far away from its opponents and have thousands of square miles of isolated desert to shield its first detonation. Where would Germany test, since we can assume she is no longer in North Africa. Somewhere in Norway perhaps?

[Ed Rotondaro]

But the Japanese tested one in what is now North Korea in Aug. 1945! If they could do it the Germans could.
Interesting how there is no evidence. The centrofuges were destroyed in bombing or prior to the occupation the bomb test site isn't accessable, etc. There are a few eye witnesses and designers that swear they made it though. I remain skeptical (to put it mildly).
The Germans even if left alone and funded were a long way from building a working bomb, so yes I know - this is a "what if" with a lot of S-t-r-e-t-c-hing!

Kyle:

I assume you're pulling my leg here? Japan tested a nuke? Where's this conspiracy theory coming from?

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

I assume you're pulling my leg here? Japan tested a nuke? Where's this conspiracy theory coming from?

Nope, not this time. There was a quite serious program either on Discovery or the Military channel talking to designers, the people who made the centrofuges (sp?) and people that saw the test. It was not tongue in cheek at all. The actual test site is North Korea, and of course no one in the west that could go there and corroborate the testemony found out until after the country was closed up.

[asnrobert]

Nope, not this time. There was a quite serious program either on Discovery or the Military channel talking to designers, the people who made the centrofuges (sp?) and people that saw the test. It was not tongue in cheek at all. The actual test site is North Korea, and of course no one in the west that could go there and corroborate the testemony found out until after the country was closed up.

I recall reading about this in World War 2 magazine years ago.

[old_pop2000]

Nope, not this time. There was a quite serious program either on Discovery or the Military channel talking to designers, the people who made the centrofuges (sp?) and people that saw the test. It was not tongue in cheek at all. The actual test site is North Korea, and of course no one in the west that could go there and corroborate the testemony found out until after the country was closed up.
Ahem!! The story of the Japanese Atomic Test in Manchuria came from a book by Robert Wilcox in 1985.


Journalist Wilcox' book describes the Japanese wartime atomic energy projects. This is a laudable, in that it illuminates a little-known episode; nevertheless, the work is marred by Wilcox' seeming eagerness to show that Japan created an atomic bomb. Tales of Japanese atomic explosions, one a fictional attack on Los Angeles, the other an unsubstantiated account of a post-Hiroshima test, begin the book. (Wilcox accepts the test story because the author [Snell], "was a distinguished journalist"). The tales, combined with Wilcox' failure to discuss the difficulty of translating scientific theory into a workable bomb, obscure the actual story of the Japanese effort: uncoordinated laboratory-scale projects which took paths least likely to produce a bomb.


Here is a link to an article in Japan Times that states the US library of Congress found two notebooks full of notes on the failed IJN project to build a nuclear weapon.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060804a2.html

Realistically, does anyone really believe that a country that could not build a decent command set for their aircraft or a decent RADAR, could develop an Atomic Bomb which requires an infinitely more complicated set of scientific principles, engineering techniques and production capacity to overcome the problems, not to mention the drain on their already taxed scientific and engineering capability. The story of Japanese A-bomb test was a convenient smoke screen to justify the US use of the bomb. Not that we needed any justification. But, in some circles, it was felt that we did.

[djcyclone]

I heard that the Japanese knew about the concept of a nuclear bomb, but chose instead to focus research on a microwave emitter. The idea was to use a large radar like dish to transmit a microwave beam at oncomming troops and tanks. It would cause extream pain to soilders, and could melt the armor of advancing tanks. It was all theory of course, and they never completed the weapon.

We have a device on our ships today that resembles this threory. It has been tested on U.S. pilots with limited amounts of energy and accoring to accounts from pilots that have been tested on, they reported feeling as though their skin was on fire, and recieving sever headaches.

The divice was only used at minimal settings against friendly planes for test, but if set to full power could easily kill a pilot in an approaching jet.

[Kyle Holgate]

Ahem!! The story of the Japanese Atomic Test in Manchuria came from a book by Robert Wilcox in 1985.



Here is a link to an article in Japan Times that states the US library of Congress found two notebooks full of notes on the failed IJN project to build a nuclear weapon.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060804a2.html

Realistically, does anyone really believe that a country that could not build a decent command set for their aircraft or a decent RADAR, could develop an Atomic Bomb which requires an infinitely more complicated set of scientific principles, engineering techniques and production capacity to overcome the problems, not to mention the drain on their already taxed scientific and engineering capability. The story of Japanese A-bomb test was a convenient smoke screen to justify the US use of the bomb. Not that we needed any justification. But, in some circles, it was felt that we did.

Hard to prove a negative - but as I said, I'm very skeptical as well - but it would be nice to get to the bottom of the reports and eye witness accounts and what not before they all die of old age (or lingering radiation as the case may be). It would just take a short while at the test site with a geiger counter to be sure - I think - 68 years... not up on my radiation half lives.

[john964]

There are some other ways to accomplish this:

1. Capture an Allied merchant ship, transfer the parts of the bomb to this ship and technical personnel. Sail it to New York harbor, assembling while underway, then explode the bomb in the docks. Diabolical, isn't it.

2. Rebuild a Lancaster bomber from pieces or capture one, load the bomb on to it, and fly it over London and drop it.

3. Send the bomb parts via submarine to the Irish Republic with technical agents. Assemble the bomb and sail an Irish ship across to Liverpool and explode the bomb.

Man, I gotta million of them!!

1) All most all merchants sailed in convoys the only ones that didn't were from neutral nations.
2) The Germans already had a unit made up of recoverd B-17's and B-24's that crash landed they used them to develope tactics.
3) This one is possable but the British had agent all over the republic keeping tabs on the PIRA.

[bridav58]

Germany definately didn't want to go down that road . The US had the most capable Biological & Chemical warfare industry in the world. The facility in TerreHaute, Indiana was larger then all other BC facilities in the world combined and it wasn't our only facility. Germany did have Tabun & Sarin but they couldn't make the leap from laboratory to production in the matter of Sarin while Tabun couldn't possibly have been put into production till late '43 so hard it ws to handle & produce. Now the US true only had older type chemicals like Lewisite,Mustard gas and Phosgene but they and the UK had an immense delivery system to get them there the Germans didn't. In biological warfare the main agent was Anthrax with the US being able to procude something like 10,000 + Anthrax bombs a month the bombs were even small enough for single engined fighters to carry.
So this is something to think about even if the Germans had the A-Bomb and we didn't.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Nope, not this time. There was a quite serious program either on Discovery or the Military channel talking to designers, the people who made the centrofuges (sp?) and people that saw the test. It was not tongue in cheek at all. The actual test site is North Korea, and of course no one in the west that could go there and corroborate the testemony found out until after the country was closed up.

Hi Guys,

North korea is a convenient plot device because of it's inaccessibility, but we were all over North korea in the Korean war. I would imagine someone might have noticed the crater or the crater glass ala Trinity.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Guys,

North korea is a convenient plot device because of it's inaccessibility, but we were all over North korea in the Korean war. I would imagine someone might have noticed the crater or the crater glass ala Trinity.

I totally agree. My only lingering doubts spring from my dislike of labeling the witnesses and such outright liars. I suppose they probably are or were fooled by seeing something different than what they thought they saw. I generally give the benefit of the doubt, but there is a whole $#itload of doubt in this case!!!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ahem!! The story of the Japanese Atomic Test in Manchuria came from a book by Robert Wilcox in 1985.



Here is a link to an article in Japan Times that states the US library of Congress found two notebooks full of notes on the failed IJN project to build a nuclear weapon.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060804a2.html

Realistically, does anyone really believe that a country that could not build a decent command set for their aircraft or a decent RADAR, could develop an Atomic Bomb which requires an infinitely more complicated set of scientific principles, engineering techniques and production capacity to overcome the problems, not to mention the drain on their already taxed scientific and engineering capability. The story of Japanese A-bomb test was a convenient smoke screen to justify the US use of the bomb. Not that we needed any justification. But, in some circles, it was felt that we did.


Dennis:

I agree, that checks with everything I've read on their nuclear program. It was even further behind Germany's. I don't believe for minute that they ever produced and tested a bomb. I do know that they did lots of research and even had some German uranium shipped by sub to them for experiments, but that's as far as it went.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I heard that the Japanese knew about the concept of a nuclear bomb, but chose instead to focus research on a microwave emitter. The idea was to use a large radar like dish to transmit a microwave beam at oncomming troops and tanks. It would cause extream pain to soilders, and could melt the armor of advancing tanks. It was all theory of course, and they never completed the weapon.

We have a device on our ships today that resembles this threory. It has been tested on U.S. pilots with limited amounts of energy and accoring to accounts from pilots that have been tested on, they reported feeling as though their skin was on fire, and recieving sever headaches.

The divice was only used at minimal settings against friendly planes for test, but if set to full power could easily kill a pilot in an approaching jet.

DJ:

Won't a really powerful radar set, say like is found in an AWACS plane do the same thing? I know that there are warnings against being close to large radars that are actively working. Microwaves and radar are pretty much the same thing wave length wise.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Germany definately didn't want to go down that road . The US had the most capable Biological & Chemical warfare industry in the world. The facility in TerreHaute, Indiana was larger then all other BC facilities in the world combined and it wasn't our only facility. Germany did have Tabun & Sarin but they couldn't make the leap from laboratory to production in the matter of Sarin while Tabun couldn't possibly have been put into production till late '43 so hard it ws to handle & produce. Now the US true only had older type chemicals like Lewisite,Mustard gas and Phosgene but they and the UK had an immense delivery system to get them there the Germans didn't. In biological warfare the main agent was Anthrax with the US being able to procude something like 10,000 + Anthrax bombs a month the bombs were even small enough for single engined fighters to carry.
So this is something to think about even if the Germans had the A-Bomb and we didn't.

Brian:

I'm certainly glad we avoided the use of chemical and biological warfare in WWII, although there are isolated instances of Japan using bio weapons in China. The precedent of using these weapons would have made future wars just that more horrific.

[old_pop2000]

DJ:

Won't a really powerful radar set, say like is found in an AWACS plane do the same thing? I know that there are warnings against being close to large radars that are actively working. Microwaves and radar are pretty much the same thing wave length wise.
Our fun thing was to throw flashcubes into the beam of the height finder and watch them flash. Great fun.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Our fun thing was to throw flashcubes into the beam of the height finder and watch them flash. Great fun.

Dennis:

I guess when you are stationed at a remote mountaintop radar site, you have to make your own fun:D

I know that early radars had fairly long wave lengths and that by WWII's end, centrimetric radar was in full use. if it is not classified, what is common wavelength for modern radars? Is it millimeter length? If so, how would it compare to the wave lengths from a microwave oven?

[Mike Malanaphy]

Brian:

I'm certainly glad we avoided the use of chemical and biological warfare in WWII, although there are isolated instances of Japan using bio weapons in China. The precedent of using these weapons would have made future wars just that more horrific.

Hi Guys,

Yes, but despite their physical limitations, chemical weapons carry a psychological edge most other weapons don't. The Germans had significant stocks of Sarin nerve gas to use against which the Allies would be vulnerable. Fortunately Hitler was concerned the Allies might have it too. I'm sure the Germans were aware the Allies was serius as an air raid on Bari, Italy sank a merchant carrying several hundred tons of mustard gas which killed several hundred people. SO the Allies were prepared as well.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Guys,

Yes, but despite their physical limitations, chemical weapons carry a psychological edge most other weapons don't. The Germans had significant stocks of Sarin nerve gas to use against which the Allies would be vulnerable. Fortunately Hitler was concerned the Allies might have it too. I'm sure the Germans were aware the Allies was serius as an air raid on Bari, Italy sank a merchant carrying several hundred tons of mustard gas which killed several hundred people. SO the Allies were prepared as well.

Mike:

I recently read about that incident in Rick Atkinson's book "The Day of Battle", the sequel to "An Army at Dawn". To make matters worse, the high command hushed up the incident to not let the Germans know that we had stockpiled mustard gas. As a result, the civilians and soldiers exposed were not treated properly (the first thing with mustard gas is to get the contaminated clothes off of the gas victim. Many casualties suffered in agony and died because no one would let on that gas had been spilled.) Ironically the Germans already figured it out from what they could see. If you haven't read either of these books I recommend them highly.

[john964]

Brian:

I'm certainly glad we avoided the use of chemical and biological warfare in WWII, although there are isolated instances of Japan using bio weapons in China. The precedent of using these weapons would have made future wars just that more horrific.
Ed, Isolated my foot. The IJA tested everything they had samples for,it is easier to say what didnt they use the what they did use, chem and bio victims at 200,000 to 300.000 including allied POW's. Look up Unit 100 Unit 731 unit 773 unit 516 and several others. They tested on Men woman and children, there is one incedent were they lacedcandy with anthrax and handed them out to local chilren with the usuall results. And the really appauing thing is that almost all escaped justice.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, Isolated my foot. The IJA tested everything they had samples for,it is easier to say what didnt they use the what they did use, chem and bio victims at 200,000 to 300.000 including allied POW's. Look up Unit 100 Unit 731 unit 773 unit 516 and several others. They tested on Men woman and children, there is one incedent were they lacedcandy with anthrax and handed them out to local chilren with the usuall results. And the really appauing thing is that almost all escaped justice.

John:

I had heard about an unit that performed those tests, I was not aware of the extent of them. Yes, too many war criminals escaped justice in this life. Well we'll see how they fare in the afterlife.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

Won't a really powerful radar set, say like is found in an AWACS plane do the same thing? I know that there are warnings against being close to large radars that are actively working. Microwaves and radar are pretty much the same thing wave length wise.



It is different, but I am not an expert on just how different. I know that a radar set could easily mess a person up if they are too close, but I do not know how bad. This paticular weapon was, and is today focused. The Navy can actually point this weapon at an incomming plane and determine just how much energy they want to emitt from this thing. A Radar can be locked onto a target where it stops rotating and just focuses on one target, but it does not have the same effect. If you where right next to the target, then it would have adverse affects, but this device is aimed at protecting a ship from a distance.

Again I do not know a lot of details on it, but I have seen document on the History Channel about the Japanese attempt to make it, and I remember talking with people on my ship about the weapon that I described earlier.

[Warship NWS]

Whatever you do.. do not stand next to an active phased array radar like AEGIS..;)

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I recently read about that incident in Rick Atkinson's book "The Day of Battle", the sequel to "An Army at Dawn". To make matters worse, the high command hushed up the incident to not let the Germans know that we had stockpiled mustard gas. As a result, the civilians and soldiers exposed were not treated properly (the first thing with mustard gas is to get the contaminated clothes off of the gas victim. Many casualties suffered in agony and died because no one would let on that gas had been spilled.) Ironically the Germans already figured it out from what they could see. If you haven't read either of these books I recommend them highly.

Hi Ed,

Read his first volume two years ago. Wasn't all that impressed with the first hundred pages, but ended up really enjoying it. Looking ofrward to reading the new one....volume 2 of his Liberation trilogy.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Whatever you do.. do not stand next to an active phased array radar like AEGIS..;)

Chris:

I was wondering about that since the AEGIS radars seem to be mounted on the superstructure of the ships. I guess standard operating procedure is no one on deck when the radars are active?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Read his first volume two years ago. Wasn't all that impressed with the first hundred pages, but ended up really enjoying it. Looking ofrward to reading the new one....volume 2 of his Liberation trilogy.

Mike:

I think he actually gets off to a better start in the second volume. I never realized just how awful the weather was in Italy during the campaign. It was either balzing hot in the late spring thru early fall, or else cold, rainy and muddy (even snowy if you were at the right elevation). Also there were parts of Italy that had extensive swamps, so malaria was major problem just like in the Pacific. If there was ever a country designed for defensive warfare it has to be Italy (and Switzerland) since the mountain ranges run all the way down the middle of the land. No place to fight a war in my opinion.

[old_pop2000]

Chris:

I was wondering about that since the AEGIS radars seem to be mounted on the superstructure of the ships. I guess standard operating procedure is no one on deck when the radars are active?
Ed:
There are certain safety precautions, I would suspect, in force at times. In port, I would bet there would be restrictions on high power, also elevation requirements probably in the range of 75 degrees. They probably have to check with port authorities before going to low power. Looking at the bridge wings, there could be radiation issues there. There are probably radiation level parameters for humans and frequent tests of all personnel. When operating in high power, there will be restrictions against directing the beam at certain areas of a ship. Just a few ideas. I am certain there is a standard navy document covering all aspects of the safe operation of this radar.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

I was wondering about that since the AEGIS radars seem to be mounted on the superstructure of the ships. I guess standard operating procedure is no one on deck when the radars are active?

It has been awhile since I have talked to guys that did maintenance on the radars but they did make it quite clear.. you did not stand next to one if it was operating -- bad news. Lots of nasty 4 mega-watt juice. ;)

[old_pop2000]

It has been awhile since I have talked to guys that did maintenance on the radars but they did make it quite clear.. you did not stand next to one if it was operating -- bad news. Lots of nasty 4 mega-watt juice. ;)
I'll bet there are some other restrictions including chaff dispensers, Harpoon missiles, phalanx gun systems 5 inch mounts, hf communications etc. All work on electrical impulse, and a phased array or any radar can induce a high electrical current when a wire is crossed by a beam. I am certain they have some sort of software blanker that can be set to blank the radar at particular azimuths.

[Warship NWS]

I'll bet there are some other restrictions including chaff dispensers, Harpoon missiles, phalanx gun systems 5 inch mounts, hf communications etc. All work on electrical impulse, and a phased array or any radar can induce a high electrical current when a wire is crossed by a beam. I am certain they have some sort of software blanker that can be set to blank the radar at particular azimuths.

I do not personaly know of how many, or how restricted, the allowances are for using the AEGIS during various operational cycles on the ship but I would not doubt they have to keep strict controls over how the radar is operated.

Thanks.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I think he actually gets off to a better start in the second volume. I never realized just how awful the weather was in Italy during the campaign. It was either balzing hot in the late spring thru early fall, or else cold, rainy and muddy (even snowy if you were at the right elevation). Also there were parts of Italy that had extensive swamps, so malaria was major problem just like in the Pacific. If there was ever a country designed for defensive warfare it has to be Italy (and Switzerland) since the mountain ranges run all the way down the middle of the land. No place to fight a war in my opinion.

Hi Ed,

Yes, a forgotten front where there was tremendous losses to US and allied units for little result. The terrain favored the defense and the Germans skillfully exploited it. I'll have to buy a copy soon. Dennis's recommendation of Lundstrom' two volumes about the First Team lea me to get them. It's a shame such important references are only available new in paperback, but I know the economics of publishing. : ( Being kind of picky about books, I would much have them in hardback and found good used copies reasonably priced.

Now, if I could only absorb as much as Dennis. : ).

[old_pop2000]

Hi Ed,

Yes, a forgotten front where there was tremendous losses to US and allied units for little result. The terrain favored the defense and the Germans skillfully exploited it. I'll have to buy a copy soon. Dennis's recommendation of Lundstrom' two volumes about the First Team lea me to get them. It's a shame such important references are only available new in paperback, but I know the economics of publishing. : ( Being kind of picky about books, I would much have them in hardback and found good used copies reasonably priced.

Now, if I could only absorb as much as Dennis. : ).
Mike:
Hope you enjoy those two books. If you have any difficulties, let me know and I will attempt to explain. I suspect that you won't.

As a note. I am starting to accumulate the flight manuals for aircraft in that period. My SBD-6 manual is in the mail. I am going to buy a CD from Zeno's that has the F4F,F6F and TBF manuals on them. Eventually, I will have a complete set of flight manuals and manuals to radios etc. to use for research. I am also going to buy the SBD-3,-4,-5 manuals also. Hopefully, when questions come up, I can provide better and more detailed answers. I am also perusing and investigating good books on the principles of dive bombing.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed:
There are certain safety precautions, I would suspect, in force at times. In port, I would bet there would be restrictions on high power, also elevation requirements probably in the range of 75 degrees. They probably have to check with port authorities before going to low power. Looking at the bridge wings, there could be radiation issues there. There are probably radiation level parameters for humans and frequent tests of all personnel. When operating in high power, there will be restrictions against directing the beam at certain areas of a ship. Just a few ideas. I am certain there is a standard navy document covering all aspects of the safe operation of this radar.

Dennis:

I wasn't aware that the radars could be elevated, but it makes sense. After all, they are meant primarily to track airborne threats. What is the advantage of the fixed array phase type radar?

[Ed Rotondaro]

It has been awhile since I have talked to guys that did maintenance on the radars but they did make it quite clear.. you did not stand next to one if it was operating -- bad news. Lots of nasty 4 mega-watt juice. ;)


Chris:

Thanks for the insights into AEGIS radars. There is just so much to try and grasp with modern naval combat.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Yes, a forgotten front where there was tremendous losses to US and allied units for little result. The terrain favored the defense and the Germans skillfully exploited it. I'll have to buy a copy soon. Dennis's recommendation of Lundstrom' two volumes about the First Team lea me to get them. It's a shame such important references are only available new in paperback, but I know the economics of publishing. : ( Being kind of picky about books, I would much have them in hardback and found good used copies reasonably priced.

Now, if I could only absorb as much as Dennis. : ).

Mike:

I agree about the costs of publishing and the desire for hard copy books. Both of my Lundstrom's are paperbacks, so I intend to read them carefully so they will last. One thing I do try to avoid is book club editions of books because they are usually printed on cheap paper with crummy bindings. I have Clay Blair's "Silent Victory" in two rather cheap book club hard covers and I am tempted to sell them and buy a new paperback copy.

I wouldn't worry about absorbing as much as Dennis, he's retired and has lots of spare time to research:) You certainly hold your own and bring a lot of real world military experience to these forums. Not to mention good firearms knowledge.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Mike:
Hope you enjoy those two books. If you have any difficulties, let me know and I will attempt to explain. I suspect that you won't.

As a note. I am starting to accumulate the flight manuals for aircraft in that period. My SBD-6 manual is in the mail. I am going to buy a CD from Zeno's that has the F4F,F6F and TBF manuals on them. Eventually, I will have a complete set of flight manuals and manuals to radios etc. to use for research. I am also going to buy the SBD-3,-4,-5 manuals also. Hopefully, when questions come up, I can provide better and more detailed answers. I am also perusing and investigating good books on the principles of dive bombing.


Dennis:

You are probably familiar with this title so I apologize if you already know about it. The book is "Destined For Glory: Dive Bombing, Midway and the Evolution of Carrier Airpower" by Thomas Wildenberg, Naval Institute Press 1998. If not, it might be worth a read.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I wasn't aware that the radars could be elevated, but it makes sense. After all, they are meant primarily to track airborne threats. What is the advantage of the fixed array phase type radar?
Electronically scanned antennas have fewer moving parts and can scan in more descrete increments making them more accurate. It also has the advantage of software programmability with regards to scanning areas etc. The antenna consists of individually active arrays of transmitters and dipoles, which can be turned on and off like a light switch. They can scan in azimuth and elevation simultaneously. They can also be time shared to provide missile control through CW transmissions and search, acquisition and tracking functions. There is more, but that is what this old brain can conger up. Maybe someone can illuminate us more.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

You are probably familiar with this title so I apologize if you already know about it. The book is "Destined For Glory: Dive Bombing, Midway and the Evolution of Carrier Airpower" by Thomas Wildenberg, Naval Institute Press 1998. If not, it might be worth a read.
I am not, but I will research and purchase. Thanks for the help.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am not, but I will research and purchase. Thanks for the help.


Dennis:

My pleasure. Chris can probably get it for you at a good price since it is a naval institute publication. Many times before I buy a book, I check around too see if any readers have reviewed it. Now in some cases I've found that certain readers were either expecting too much or whatever and gave a book a poor review that turned out to be very useful in my opinion. Sea of Thunder is a classic example of this. Did you ever test fire the Walther?

[Warship NWS]

Dennis:

I wasn't aware that the radars could be elevated, but it makes sense. After all, they are meant primarily to track airborne threats. What is the advantage of the fixed array phase type radar?

Here is a good starter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I agree about the costs of publishing and the desire for hard copy books. Both of my Lundstrom's are paperbacks, so I intend to read them carefully so they will last. One thing I do try to avoid is book club editions of books because they are usually printed on cheap paper with crummy bindings. I have Clay Blair's "Silent Victory" in two rather cheap book club hard covers and I am tempted to sell them and buy a new paperback copy.

I wouldn't worry about absorbing as much as Dennis, he's retired and has lots of spare time to research:) You certainly hold your own and bring a lot of real world military experience to these forums. Not to mention good firearms knowledge.

Hi Ed,

Another one of my pet peeves is reading paperback books. I am always careful not to bend the binding too far. I have several boxes of my favorite paperbacks in boxes that look brand new, like my early 60's copy of Japanese Destroyer Captain, even though read dozens of times. But for larger reference type books, I always prefer hard bindings. I ordered a set of Roskill's official history of WW II for the RN back in the 70s and got three of the volumes hardback and the fourth in paper. I had that one bound to match the others at a modest cost. I was able to obtain two near fine copies of Lundstrom's books via the internet for only a couple of dollars more than the paperback version.

Atkins book next month. : )

[djcyclone]

From what I remember about the Aeigis Radar, I can only say that the areas where roped off. The ropes where easy to go around, but if you intend to kill yourself, then just walk off the side of the ship and play with the propellers for a second or two. Much quicker in my opinion. Anyway the two fixtures at the front of the ship where elevated enough that there was no risk of someone getting in front of the beam.

Being a Quartermaster I was always on the bridge wings doing weather charts and such, as well as being a lookout for local trafic while underway. I do not ever recall being told that we where not be go on the bridge wings because the Aeigis was being used. I do not think it effected that part of the ship. They always told us to never go past the ropes for the side fixtures unless we had gotten all of the proper people too check off on our list, but that is understandable, and the only people who needed to go past the ropes where the radar maintance crews. I do not remember if we operated the radar in port, or not.

A question I have always wondered, does a submarine ever use their radar on the surface? If so, is it safe to be on conning tower, while the Radar is in use? Would that effect the watch crew, or is it safe?

[asnrobert]

Being a Quartermaster I was always on the bridge wings doing weather charts and such, as well as being a lookout for local trafic while underway. I do not ever recall being told that we where not be go on the bridge wings because the Aeigis was being used. I do not think it effected that part of the ship. They always told us to never go past the ropes for the side fixtures unless we had gotten all of the proper people too check off on our list, but that is understandable, and the only people who needed to go past the ropes where the radar maintance crews. I do not remember if we operated the radar in port, or not.

A question I have always wondered, does a submarine ever use their radar on the surface? If so, is it safe to be on conning tower, while the Radar is in use? Would that effect the watch crew, or is it safe?

I was a quartermaster myself. Yes, submarines use their radar on the surface, mainly for navigational purposes. When the radar mast is raised, it is high enough so that the watchstanders on the bridge on the fairwater or sail (they don't call them conning towers anymore) are safe.

[asnrobert]

Hi Ed,

Another one of my pet peeves is reading paperback books. I am always careful not to bend the binding too far. I have several boxes of my favorite paperbacks in boxes that look brand new, like my early 60's copy of Japanese Destroyer Captain, even though read dozens of times. But for larger reference type books, I always prefer hard bindings. I ordered a set of Roskill's official history of WW II for the RN back in the 70s and got three of the volumes hardback and the fourth in paper. I had that one bound to match the others at a modest cost. I was able to obtain two near fine copies of Lundstrom's books via the internet for only a couple of dollars more than the paperback version.

Atkins book next month. : )

I was at the National Museum of the Pacific War last month, and in their bookstore I picked up hardback editions of Japanese Destroyer Captain and Lundstrom's Black Shoe Carrier Admiral.

[old_pop2000]

From what I remember about the Aeigis Radar, I can only say that the areas where roped off. The ropes where easy to go around, but if you intend to kill yourself, then just walk off the side of the ship and play with the propellers for a second or two. Much quicker in my opinion. Anyway the two fixtures at the front of the ship where elevated enough that there was no risk of someone getting in front of the beam.

Being a Quartermaster I was always on the bridge wings doing weather charts and such, as well as being a lookout for local trafic while underway. I do not ever recall being told that we where not be go on the bridge wings because the Aeigis was being used. I do not think it effected that part of the ship. They always told us to never go past the ropes for the side fixtures unless we had gotten all of the proper people too check off on our list, but that is understandable, and the only people who needed to go past the ropes where the radar maintance crews. I do not remember if we operated the radar in port, or not.

A question I have always wondered, does a submarine ever use their radar on the surface? If so, is it safe to be on conning tower, while the Radar is in use? Would that effect the watch crew, or is it safe?
Well, I can't argue because I have never been on an Aegis cruiser, but do have experience with Phased Array Radar. The information was from a CG 47 Advisory and Aegis program manager's office advisory and I believe it refers to in port operations with other ships nearby. But the advisory is ten years old, and things might have changed.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/CG_04-97.htm

[djcyclone]

I was a quartermaster myself. Yes, submarines use their radar on the surface, mainly for navigational purposes. When the radar mast is raised, it is high enough so that the watchstanders on the bridge on the fairwater or sail (they don't call them conning towers anymore) are safe.



Ha,ha,ha,ha. I was trying to come up with the right name, but I had a brain fart at that exact moment, and could not think of it. I have been running around the last couple of days like a chicken with my head cut off trying to get things done. Conning tower just sounded right at that paticular moment.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is a good starter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

Chris:

Thanks, that will get me up to speed on the subject. Take your nephew to see Ironman if you haven't already, it rocks!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Another one of my pet peeves is reading paperback books. I am always careful not to bend the binding too far. I have several boxes of my favorite paperbacks in boxes that look brand new, like my early 60's copy of Japanese Destroyer Captain, even though read dozens of times. But for larger reference type books, I always prefer hard bindings. I ordered a set of Roskill's official history of WW II for the RN back in the 70s and got three of the volumes hardback and the fourth in paper. I had that one bound to match the others at a modest cost. I was able to obtain two near fine copies of Lundstrom's books via the internet for only a couple of dollars more than the paperback version.

Atkins book next month. : )

Mike:

Sounds like we're of the same mind when it comes to serious reference books. Due to some serious reorganizing in my house, my wife freed up a five shelf book case and put it right next to our PC. It is packed with my primary naval reference books for handiness when posting on the forums.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was a quartermaster myself. Yes, submarines use their radar on the surface, mainly for navigational purposes. When the radar mast is raised, it is high enough so that the watchstanders on the bridge on the fairwater or sail (they don't call them conning towers anymore) are safe.


Robert:

I got a sub question for you. When running on the surface, are subs smoother sailing than say a conventional warship if there is any sort of heavy seas? Would a sub even be surfaced in heavy seas? If there is a storm and you are running submerged, can you feel it? Does the sub get pushed around the way a surface would be? Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was at the National Museum of the Pacific War last month, and in their bookstore I picked up hardback editions of Japanese Destroyer Captain and Lundstrom's Black Shoe Carrier Admiral.

Robert:

Yes I saw that the Naval Institute was re-printing Japanese Destroyer Captain. I have a fairly good paperback copy that cost me as much as hardcover would have since it was out of print at the time. I think you will enjoy it. I still have to get Black Shoe Carrier Admiral.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ha,ha,ha,ha. I was trying to come up with the right name, but I had a brain fart at that exact moment, and could not think of it. I have been running around the last couple of days like a chicken with my head cut off trying to get things done. Conning tower just sounded right at that paticular moment.

DJ:

Try hosting a birthday party for six boys ages 9-10 followed by a sleep over. Through in soda, cake and candy and you have a lunatic asylum i.e. my house last night.;)

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Sounds like we're of the same mind when it comes to serious reference books. Due to some serious reorganizing in my house, my wife freed up a five shelf book case and put it right next to our PC. It is packed with my primary naval reference books for handiness when posting on the forums.

Hi Ed,

That was nice of her. Problem with most good references are they are heavy, so mine are in the next room on my cinder block and 1" plank 20 year old home made set. Would love to have a nice little office with room for them all. Freifman, Dulinm and Garzke, Whitley, Raven and Roberts, et all overwhelm your standard book shelf. : )

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

That was nice of her. Problem with most good references are they are heavy, so mine are in the next room on my cinder block and 1" plank 20 year old home made set. Would love to have a nice little office with room for them all. Freifman, Dulinm and Garzke, Whitley, Raven and Roberts, et all overwhelm your standard book shelf. : )

Mike:

Ahh yes, the classics. I have my Conways, Friedmans and D&Gs in another room nearby. Amazingly the bulk of the collection has been acquired since 2003 when I joined the NWS team. My wife blames Chris for all this.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

Try hosting a birthday party for six boys ages 9-10 followed by a sleep over. Through in soda, cake and candy and you have a lunatic asylum i.e. my house last night.;)



Yea right. I cannot even handle one kid, let alone 6. I had a kid that really looked up to me not too long ago (I am not the father, but was only standing in and babysitting). That kid nearly drove me crazy. I knew he looked up to me, and so I tried to be the best father figure I could, but I was about to pull my hair out by the time it was all over. I will pass on the six kids idea.