WI: Atomic Bombing on German cities?

[Polish Eagle]

Out of curiosity, could you drop an A-bomb from a Lancaster?

IIRC, from other times this has been discussed, the answer tends to be "Yes, but it would have a hard time escaping the blast."

(EDIT: Though I wonder if you could address that problem by putting a parachute on the bomb itself, as was done for the Tsar Bomba test, to delay the blast and let the plane escape)

 

[Dan]

Out of curiosity, could you drop an A-bomb from a Lancaster?

Yes, but...

It wouldn't have the altitude or speed to get away, it would essentially be a suicide attack.

 

[Dan]

An opinion:

Handwave all the development issues.
Let's assume that 13 February 1945, the RAF drop a number of incendiary bombs on Dresden. Flying through the night, a few hours before dawn, a trio of B-29s fly across Germany towards Dresden.

At dawn, using the fires started by the RAF as a marker, the Enola Gay, (because if I'm making shit up, let's go the whole hog), drops the first atomic weapon used in anger.

A 15kt blast in a brick and concrete city will* give a roughly 200m fire ball.
Buildings in a 400m radius will be totally demolished.
There will be a pulse of radiation in about a 1200m radius of the blast will kill around 15% of people of radiation poisoning.
The thermal blast will stretch around 2km giving up to 3rd degree burns.
Windows and roof tiles will be broken and damaged up to 5km away.

It won't appear nearly as devastating as the OTL strike on Hiroshima. Basically, it will just seem like a bigger bomb. Not war ending, and would kill fewer people than the OTL Dresden raid. It certainly wouldn't cause the Nazis to surrender.
And, again, my opinion, first generation atomic weapons would just be seen as giant bombs. No deterrence effect.

*Estimations taken from https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

 

[Garrison]

As Hitler was already issuing orders for everything to be destroyed in the spring of 1945 I doubt the bombs would affect Hitler in the slightest, they would fit right in with his vision of Gotterdammerung.
The difference with Japan was that in the summer of 1945 their strategy rested on the idea of making an invasion so bloody that the Americans would recoil and offer terms. The A-bomb attacks made it crystal clear that the American could lay waste to Japan in short order with risking sending even one solider ashore, of course the Japanese didn't know how few A-bombs the Americans actually had.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not sure if this will add clarity or opacity to the target conversation.

Back when I was paid to think about these things we worked with a target priority list/s. They varied but generally looked like this:

1. HQ, command communications centers.

2. Chemical and Nuclear weapons

3. Supply depots, logistics centers.

4. Artillery. rocket launchers & others fire support weapons

5. Maneuver units. The Infantry and tank formations actually fighting.


What was actually attacked depended on if it was positively identified, or at least suspected. We hardly every were able to locate a enemy HQ in our training exercises, ditto for the nuclear and chemical weapons. Usually we had good information of at least part of the enemy maneuver units and they got the love. But, if a higher priority target was identified, other attacks would be reduced or terminated to allow the priority attack. Items might change in priority depending on circumstances. #3 & 4 might switch places. Or #2 might jump to the top if there was information indicating a pending use of the enemy weapons.

So, taking that as a general guide; #1 could be Hitler, or any major army or army group HQ. The German army was flexible and had good subordinate initiative, but there are more than a few examples of a army or larger formation paralyzed for hours or a day without any attack on its HQ/CP. One good example is the confusion among the Germans, both at OKW, and at Runsteadts OB West HQ over if the invasion was actually starting, and where. If the Allies are sitting on the West Wall or the Rhine River in August 1945 ready to attack Germany it self. A major HW could be a useful target. If more than one can be hit its even better. eliminating both a army and a army group HQ along the main axis of attack would likely paralyze the reserves and other support for the front line corps for a minimum of 24 hours. More likely 48 to 72 hours.

German chemical weapons were fairly well hid and dispersed. Unless they are concentrating them for a attack its unlikely the nukes would be of any use.

Every German city of any size had become a supply depot in 1945. This was in part because the transportation system was breaking down and it was becoming difficult to move any thing in any quantity. If a cluster of important supplies is located it might be worth consideration.

In 1945 the quality of the German artillery at the division level was fading. They were following the Red Army solution of 1942 in many cases. That is command and control taken up by the corps or army ARKO, creating a system very dependent on centralized control. In the worst cases they had to concentrate the cannon batteries to exercise the necessary control. In the first case a possible HQ type target is created, in the second case the preiphrial effects, out to five kilometers can neutralize a dense artillery concentration. Temporaty eye damage, hearing loss, concussion, minor radiation sickness, and the general psychological effect would neutralize multiple artillery battalions central to a corps defense sector. There would be similar effects on the rest of the defenders, but the artillery is the higher value target. Deprived of their artillery support and aware of the terrible weapon used a few kilometers to their rear could lead to the infantry battalions collapsing in a few hours or less. Having the ground zero well behind the forward battle zone mitigates the effects on the attackers as well.

The pros and cons of attacking the actual defense zone. the infantry, AT guns, mortars, and tanks, have been discussed here already.

 

[Normal for Norfolk]

An opinion:

Handwave all the development issues.
Let's assume that 13 February 1945, the RAF drop a number of incendiary bombs on Dresden. Flying through the night, a few hours before dawn, a trio of B-29s fly across Germany towards Dresden.

At dawn, using the fires started by the RAF as a marker, the Enola Gay, (because if I'm making shit up, let's go the whole hog), drops the first atomic weapon used in anger.

A 15kt blast in a brick and concrete city will* give a roughly 200m fire ball.
Buildings in a 400m radius will be totally demolished.
There will be a pulse of radiation in about a 1200m radius of the blast will kill around 15% of people of radiation poisoning.
The thermal blast will stretch around 2km giving up to 3rd degree burns.
Windows and roof tiles will be broken and damaged up to 5km away.

It won't appear nearly as devastating as the OTL strike on Hiroshima. Basically, it will just seem like a bigger bomb. Not war ending, and would kill fewer people than the OTL Dresden raid. It certainly wouldn't cause the Nazis to surrender.
And, again, my opinion, first generation atomic weapons would just be seen as giant bombs. No deterrence effect.

*Estimations taken from https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

I've just used Nukemap on present day Dresden City Centre with a 15kt airburst which gives 39,510 estimated fatalities. I'm a little sceptical that the same thing replicated in 1945 would result in fewer people killed than the estimated just over 20,000 fatalities caused by the multiple conventional bombing raids.

 

[CalBear]

Out of curiosity, could you drop an A-bomb from a Lancaster?

Sure. Max bomb load was 14,000 pounds

Survive it?

Not a chance in Hell.

The Lancaster capped out at 282mph with an 8,000 pound Bomb Load, at 13,000 feet. Little Boy was 9,700 pounds while Fat Man weighed in at

Max altitude for the aircraft was was ~21,500 feet with same bomb load.

B-29 Silverplate stats: Max Speed 364mph at 25,000 feet, max altitude with 10,000 pound bomb load 31,300 feet.

Most important single set of figures: Time for 10,000 pound bomb to drop 18,000 feet 33.45 seconds. At 282mph an aircraft will travel ~2.62 miles. Time for the same object to drop 29,000 feet is ~42.5 seconds. at 364mph an aircraft will travel 4.3 miles*. Actual distance travels prior to detonation at 2,000 feet would be greater than the basic data as given, but the percentages are reasonably accurate.

Using the well established stats it is apparent that a Lancaster would be 39% closer to Ground Zero than the B-29. At Hiroshima, Enola Gay was 10 miles (18 kilometers) from the IP when the weapon detonated. The Lancaster would be less than six miles away. Based on USAAF studies leading up to the strike, the British aircraft would be knocked out of the sky like being hit by the world's biggest flyswatter.

*These numbers are approximates since the aircraft would use some sort of "break away" maneuver to trade some altitude for speed, with that sort of diving allowing for more of speed increase in the higher, thinner air found at 31,000 feed compared to 21,000. The bomb was also retarded in it's decent by a parachute to allow the aircraft enough time to reach minimum safe distance

 

[Hammerbolt]

When the soviets dropped the "Tsar Bomb" from a Tu-95, the bomb was rigged with a parachute, so as to give enough time for the bomber to escape. Don't see why this couldn't be done to a bomb dropped from a Lancaster (or a Lincoln, depending on how late this goes). I'd say more relevant is: why would the US supply the UK with nukes?

 

[CalBear]

I've just used Nukemap on present day Dresden City Centre with a 15kt airburst which gives 39,510 estimated fatalities. I'm a little sceptical that the same thing replicated in 1945 would result in fewer people killed than the estimated just over 20,000 fatalities caused by the multiple conventional bombing raids.

Population of Dresden was vastly higher in 1945 than today since it was, in addition to a major supply center for the Wehrmacht forces trying to hold off the Red Army. In addition to the approx.360,000 permanent residents of the city there were estimated to be roughly 800,000 refugees in the metro area.

No one really knows the real death toll from the three days of bombing on February 13-15, 1945 simply because no one knows who was actually there (same holds true for the toll from Operation Meetinghouse against Tokyo, on the night of March 9/10 1945, for the same reasons)

 

[CalBear]

When the soviets dropped the "Tsar Bomb" from a Tu-95, the bomb was rigged with a parachute, so as to give enough time for the bomber to escape. Don't see why this couldn't be done to a bomb dropped from a Lancaster (or a Lincoln, depending on how late this goes). I'd say more relevant is: why would the US supply the UK with nukes?

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

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

 

[Mildtryth]

I've just used Nukemap on present day Dresden City Centre with a 15kt airburst which gives 39,510 estimated fatalities. I'm a little sceptical that the same thing replicated in 1945 would result in fewer people killed than the estimated just over 20,000 fatalities caused by the multiple conventional bombing raids.

I don't claim to have much knowdledge on this, but this seems like a awfully low estimate.

 

[Normal for Norfolk]

Population of Dresden was vastly higher in 1945 than today since it was, in addition to a major supply center for the Wehrmacht forces trying to hold off the Red Army. In addition to the approx.360,000 permanent residents of the city there were estimated to be roughly 800,000 refugees in the metro area.

No one really knows the real death toll from the three days of bombing on February 13-15, 1945 simply because no one knows who was actually there (same holds true for the toll from Operation Meetinghouse against Tokyo, on the night of March 9/10 1945, for the same reasons)

I don't claim to have much knowdledge on this, but this seems like a awfully low estimate.

Well we do know that the chief of police established the confirmed dead at a bit over 18,000. We also know that the holocaust denier David Irving added an extra digit to the figure he used & admitted to the error. We also know that the Soviets deliberately overinflated the death toll throughout the Cold War for propaganda purposes.
So we can say that the death toll was highly likely after allowing for those refugees for which no remains were found to be in the low 20,000's. The Wikipedia article gives a maximum of 25,000 dead sourcing the following from historians;
"Casualty figures have varied mainly due to false information spread by Nazi German and Soviet propaganda. Some figures from historians include: 18,000+ (but less than 25,000) from Antony Beevor in "The Second World War"; 20,000 from Anthony Roberts in "The Storm of War"; 25,000 from Ian Kershaw in "The End"; 25,000–30,000 from Michael Burleigh in "Moral Combat"; 35,000 from Richard J. Evans in "The Third Reich at War: 1939–1945".[5]"
So we can go with a range based on the best available primacy evidence backed up by reputable historians or we can believe Nazi's & Communists with an axe to grind to make the West look bad. Which do you find more credible?

 

[Mildtryth]

Well we do know that the chief of police established the confirmed dead at a bit over 18,000. We also know that the holocaust denier David Irving added an extra digit to the figure he used & admitted to the error. We also know that the Soviets deliberately overinflated the death toll throughout the Cold War for propaganda purposes.
So we can say that the death toll was highly likely after allowing for those refugees for which no remains were found to be in the low 20,000's. The Wikipedia article gives a maximum of 25,000 dead sourcing the following from historians;
"Casualty figures have varied mainly due to false information spread by Nazi German and Soviet propaganda. Some figures from historians include: 18,000+ (but less than 25,000) from Antony Beevor in "The Second World War"; 20,000 from Anthony Roberts in "The Storm of War"; 25,000 from Ian Kershaw in "The End"; 25,000–30,000 from Michael Burleigh in "Moral Combat"; 35,000 from Richard J. Evans in "The Third Reich at War: 1939–1945".[5]"
So we can go with a range based on the best available primacy evidence backed up by reputable historians or we can believe Nazi's & Communists with an axe to grind to make the West look bad. Which do you find more credible?

I'm talking about the estimated atomic fatalities.

 

[Zisheng_Zhang]

i could see this happening in scenarios like Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck of the East where Germany performs better. don’t know what cities would be nuked though.

 

[Normal for Norfolk]

I'm talking about the estimated atomic fatalities.

My apologies, as I said in the original post I used the Nukemap website. For wont of a better description I've played around with it the past & found it's given to me believable numbers & haven't seen it's methodology criticised anywhere. For comparison a 15kt airburst on central New York gives estimated fatalities of 263,560, central London 76,470 & Hiroshima 97,730.

 

[CalBear]

Well we do know that the chief of police established the confirmed dead at a bit over 18,000. We also know that the holocaust denier David Irving added an extra digit to the figure he used & admitted to the error. We also know that the Soviets deliberately overinflated the death toll throughout the Cold War for propaganda purposes.
So we can say that the death toll was highly likely after allowing for those refugees for which no remains were found to be in the low 20,000's. The Wikipedia article gives a maximum of 25,000 dead sourcing the following from historians;
"Casualty figures have varied mainly due to false information spread by Nazi German and Soviet propaganda. Some figures from historians include: 18,000+ (but less than 25,000) from Antony Beevor in "The Second World War"; 20,000 from Anthony Roberts in "The Storm of War"; 25,000 from Ian Kershaw in "The End"; 25,000–30,000 from Michael Burleigh in "Moral Combat"; 35,000 from Richard J. Evans in "The Third Reich at War: 1939–1945".[5]"
So we can go with a range based on the best available primacy evidence backed up by reputable historians or we can believe Nazi's & Communists with an axe to grind to make the West look bad. Which do you find more credible?

Oh, I never bought Gobbel’s BS (he was the first one to rollout the 200k figure shortly after the attacks). The simple truth remains that no one really knows, with absolute certainty, how many deaths actually occurred. Too many variables. No one knows who was actually there (if someone died and no one knew they were supposed to be in the city, how would they be counted). No one knows if all the bodies were ever counted, since the intensity of the fires and their duration was sufficient to completely obliterate bodies.

It is much like the 72,491 U.S. MIA from WW II. They are almost certainly dead, probably died in most cases on the day they went MIA, but it is impossible to be entirely certain.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

This had nothing to do with racism. It had everything to do with getting sucker punched at Pearl Harbor. I guarantee you that had Italy been the one who sneak attacked Pearl, the crackdown on Italian Americans would have been terrible to behold.

Actually, the mass internment of Japanese-Americans in spring 1942 was almost entirely motivated by racism and greed. I emphasize the date, because the 5,000-8,000 J-As who were actual security risks were all interned in December 1941-January 1942. The internment of all J-As in the entire western US came three months later, well after the post-Pearl Harbor panic had ebbed. It was ginned up by crooked local officials and their cronies so they could seize the property of J-As who were prevented from paying real estate taxes or mortgages.

These same vultures also tried to have all resident alien Italians on the West Coast interned, so they could seize the valuable docking rights held by Italian-American fishermen. This scam was thwarted when it was revealed that one of those who would be interned and lose his rights was Joe DiMaggio's father.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

But for a third -- it just seems like white Americans at the time were more ready to dehumanise Japanese people than German people.

By the end of WW II, the American attitude toward Germans was quite "dehumanizing". Many people had come to believe that the two world wars showed that Germans were incorrigibly warlike and destructive. One can find proposals for defeated Germany that include quarantine for decades and even "population controls".

And US leaders were completely indifferent to the fate of Germans living in areas to be occupied by the USSR. The border changes agreed to at Yalta implied the forcible expulsion of millions of Germans from Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia. Nor did the US show any concern for the millions of "ethnic Germans" expelled from Hungary, Czechia, and pre-war Poland.

The US used every weapon it had against Germany - until Germany surrendered. If the atomic bomb had been available in early 1945 - IMO it would have been used. (And also IMO, it would have ended the war and saved lives.)

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Good point. As long as Hitler is alive, Germany won't surrender. In Japan the emperor could make a final decision, In Germany only Hitler could.

Hitler died on 30 April, but Germany did not surrender until 7 May.

However - German units surrendered as early as 14 September 1939 (the crew of U-39), and as the war proceeded very large German units surrendered, e.g. V Panzer Army in Tunisia in May 1943, regardless of Hitler's orders.

But no Japanese unit surrendered until the Emperor's declaration on 14 August. (With one sort-of exception: 39 men from the carrier Hiryu. They had been trapped in the engine room, and got to the deck after all other survivors had been taken off and the fleet had sailed away. They got in a ship's boat and headed for Japan, but were spotted by a US patrol plane and picked up by a USN ship. They asked that this not be reported to the Red Cross, as it was shameful to be captured.) Pretty much all the Japanese captured during the war were wounded or unconscious. (For instance, the pilot of one of the midget subs that attacked Pearl Harbor. It ran hard aground, so he climbed out and passed out on the beach.)

Allied planners recognized this factor. US bombers attacking Japan were under strict orders to avoid endangering the Emperor, because it was clear that only the Emperor could get Japanese troops to surrender.

 

[Dan]

I've just used Nukemap on present day Dresden City Centre with a 15kt airburst which gives 39,510 estimated fatalities. I'm a little sceptical that the same thing replicated in 1945 would result in fewer people killed than the estimated just over 20,000 fatalities caused by the multiple conventional bombing raids.

My point didn't mention casualties for the same reason Cal-Bear and yourself allude to later, there's too much variation in the figures.

What I looked at was the amount of physical damage a 15kt airburst would cause in a city built of concrete, steel, brick and stone. Instead of the 6.5km² damaged OTL you're looking at up to around 8.7km² using the Hiroshima bomb, and it wouldn't look too different to OTL. If you took images from the hypothetical atomic bombing of Dresden and compared it to the images of Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt or any other German city after a visit from the RAF or USAAF and it's not going to look too different.

Hiroshima provided images of an entire city flattened by a single bomb and the resulting firestorm. As propaganda, along with the narrative "they won the war", a mythology was built around the effectiveness of atomic weapons being city killers that doesn't appear to have lived up to the hype until the advent of Thermo-Nuclear weapons.

I would argue that you couldn't build the same propaganda around the use of atomic weapons if you used them on Germany, and they'd end up being viewed as just "big bombs".