Subject: A-bomb what if Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:20:11 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if What if The Americans had developed the A-Bomb 5 years earlier? I was watching a documentory on WWII yesterday and one of the historians made mention of the original Trinity tests. he postulated that atomic weapons coule have been made available towards the end of WWII. What effect would it have made if the bomb was available in the 40's? Certainly the disasterous invasion of the Japanese home islands wouldnt have happened. Im prety sure the German side would have gone as otl but maybe there would not have been the division of Germany as otl with a few bombs dropped. What would the borders be like in a world where the Americans had the bomb at the time of the division of Germany? Would the Soviet Union have been more generous? As it is in otl the bomb was never used in hostality, only as a deterrent. The Florida keys detonation during the sixties was an example to Cuba. Would the use of the bomb, and the foreknowledge of the destruction have made the invasion of Cuba less likely? If they knew what it was capable of? Plus if the bomb was in use before the security was properly in place would the other then world powers have gotten their own version of the bomb? -- --- It's a sig Tom, not Tolstoy. Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:36:17 -0500 From: Carlos Th Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Allan Mac Donald wrote: > > What if The Americans had developed the A-Bomb 5 years earlier? > > I was watching a documentory on WWII yesterday and one of the historians > made mention of the original Trinity tests. he postulated that atomic > weapons coule have been made available towards the end of WWII. What effect > would it have made if the bomb was available in the 40's? Certainly the > disasterous invasion of the Japanese home islands wouldnt have happened. > Im prety sure the German side would have gone as otl but maybe there would > not have been the division of Germany as otl with a few bombs dropped. What > would the borders be like in a world where the Americans had the bomb at the > time of the division of Germany? Would the Soviet Union have been more > generous? As it is in otl the bomb was never used in hostality, only as a > deterrent. The Florida keys detonation during the sixties was an example to > Cuba. Would the use of the bomb, and the foreknowledge of the destruction > have made the invasion of Cuba less likely? If they knew what it was > capable of? Plus if the bomb was in use before the security was properly in > place would the other then world powers have gotten their own version of the > bomb? The big problem here would have been delivering the bomb. Given the state of the technology in the 1940's any reasonable A-bomb would weight more than 15 tons. The better way to deliver it in a war situation would be with a rocket, the next best way would be flying there on enemy sky, drop the bomb, and flying away, but there was no plane able to do that. It is not like the Florida cays detonation when you can transport the bomb on a boat, place it on the island, arm it, go away and detonate it by remote. Unless you use it as deterrent in the war. Say you blow out some atoll and be sure the Japanese look at it, and then promise to deliver one in Tokyo... say in a submarine. Had USA such a big submarine back then? -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: 30 Apr 2001 18:06:10 -0700 From: iburrell@accesscom.com (Ian Burrell) Organization: Access Internet Communications, Inc. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <3AEDCCC1.A91C3366@my-deja.com>, Carlos Th wrote: > >The big problem here would have been delivering the bomb. Given the >state of the technology in the 1940's any reasonable A-bomb would >weight more than 15 tons. The better way to deliver it in a war >situation would be with a rocket, the next best way would be flying >there on enemy sky, drop the bomb, and flying away, but there was no >plane able to do that. It is not like the Florida cays detonation when >you can transport the bomb on a boat, place it on the island, arm it, go >away and detonate it by remote. > Fat Man was 10,300 lb, Little Boy was 8,900 lb. This was within the payload of heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The B-29 could carry more and have much longer range. The B-17 or B-24 would probably have to be modified to carry an early nuclear weapon. - Ian -- iburrell@stanfordalumni.org http://www.homestead.com/iburrell/ Anything that begins well ends badly. Anything that begins badly ends worse. Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 02:18:24 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Ian Burrell" wrote in message news:9cl262$sr0$1@shell.accesscom.com... > In article <3AEDCCC1.A91C3366@my-deja.com>, > Carlos Th wrote: > > > >The big problem here would have been delivering the bomb. Given the > >state of the technology in the 1940's any reasonable A-bomb would > >weight more than 15 tons. The better way to deliver it in a war > >situation would be with a rocket, the next best way would be flying > >there on enemy sky, drop the bomb, and flying away, but there was no > >plane able to do that. It is not like the Florida cays detonation when > >you can transport the bomb on a boat, place it on the island, arm it, go > >away and detonate it by remote. > > > > Fat Man was 10,300 lb, Little Boy was 8,900 lb. This was within > the payload of heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The B-29 could > carry more and have much longer range. The B-17 or B-24 would probably > have to be modified to carry an early nuclear weapon. > > - Ian Are you sure that with the modifications the planes could have made it? Imsure they would have wanted to put at least two in germany and maybe one in Japan? -- --- It's a sig Tom, not Tolstoy. Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 04:18:45 GMT From: nospam@jumpgate.net (mike ) Organization: JumpGate Networks - Mason City Iowa Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 30 Apr 2001 18:06:10 -0700, iburrell@accesscom.com (Ian Burrell) wrote: >Fat Man was 10,300 lb, Little Boy was 8,900 lb. This was within >the payload of heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The B-29 could >carry more and have much longer range. The B-17 or B-24 would probably >have to be modified to carry an early nuclear weapon. B-17 had a good sized wingspar running thru the bombbay, limiting the size of a singe bomb, say volume wise. B-24 didn't have that problem with its wing mounted at the top of the fuselage, for a sort of a Lancaster underslung Tallboy setup, but had terrible problems with gas leaking from tanks, with most crews flying with the bombbay doors slightly opened to reduce fume buildup. not the place for a bomb filled with all sorts of electronics, relays and that sort. AFAIK, that fault never was fixed with the 24. OTOH, with all the problems that the B-29 had a first, I'd guess a silverplate B-24 could be done, or use its slightly larger cousin, the Navy PB4Y-2 Privateer to do the job with more powerfull engines. ** mike ** Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 04:40:48 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "mike " wrote in message news:3af73618.245885194@news2.jumpgate.net... > On 30 Apr 2001 18:06:10 -0700, iburrell@accesscom.com (Ian Burrell) > wrote: > > >Fat Man was 10,300 lb, Little Boy was 8,900 lb. This was within > >the payload of heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The B-29 could > >carry more and have much longer range. The B-17 or B-24 would probably > >have to be modified to carry an early nuclear weapon. > > B-17 had a good sized wingspar running thru the bombbay, limiting the > size of a singe bomb, say volume wise. > > B-24 didn't have that problem with its wing mounted at the top of the > fuselage, for a sort of a Lancaster underslung Tallboy setup, but had > terrible problems with gas leaking from tanks, with most crews flying > with the bombbay doors slightly opened to reduce fume buildup. > > not the place for a bomb filled with all sorts of electronics, relays > and that sort. AFAIK, that fault never was fixed with the 24. OTOH, > with all the problems that the B-29 had a first, I'd guess a > silverplate B-24 could be done, or use its slightly larger cousin, > the Navy PB4Y-2 Privateer to do the job with more powerfull engines. > > ** > mike > ** Were the planes of the time fast enough to outrun a blast? Or would it be a suicide mission? -- --- It's a sig Tom, not Tolstoy. Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 05:01:51 GMT From: nospam@jumpgate.net (mike ) Organization: JumpGate Networks - Mason City Iowa Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 On Tue, 01 May 2001 04:40:48 GMT, "Allan Mac Donald" wrote: > >Were the planes of the time fast enough to outrun a blast? Or would it be a >suicide mission? yes, if a drag chute was used on the bomb ** mike ** Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 04:49:00 GMT From: nospam@jumpgate.net (mike ) Organization: JumpGate Networks - Mason City Iowa Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:36:17 -0500, Carlos Th wrote: > >Unless you use it as deterrent in the war. Say you blow out some atoll >and be sure the Japanese look at it, and then promise to deliver one in >Tokyo... say in a submarine. Had USA such a big submarine back then? yep, three. Argonaut, Nahwal and Nautilus. Launched in the late twenties, they were huge, displacing just a bit less than the French Surcouf or Japanese subs with aircraft hangers, just under 3000 tons, with 18,000nm crusing range. OTL used for landing raiding parties. ** mike ** Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 06:55:08 GMT From: rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:20:11 GMT, "Allan Mac Donald" wrote: >What if The Americans had developed the A-Bomb 5 years earlier? > >I was watching a documentory on WWII yesterday and one of the historians >made mention of the original Trinity tests. he postulated that atomic >weapons coule have been made available towards the end of WWII. What effect >would it have made if the bomb was available in the 40's? Certainly the >disasterous invasion of the Japanese home islands wouldnt have happened. >Im prety sure the German side would have gone as otl but maybe there would >not have been the division of Germany as otl with a few bombs dropped. What >would the borders be like in a world where the Americans had the bomb at the >time of the division of Germany? Would the Soviet Union have been more >generous? As it is in otl the bomb was never used in hostality, only as a Absurd. I'm all for playing along with DBWIs, but if the bomb hadn't been used in WW II, it would have been used in the Korean War. It was one of those things that is impossible to appreciate until after you've used it and seen the results. Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:10:09 -0700 From: pyotr filipivich Organization: Fortesque Labs Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In soc.history.what-if on Tue, 01 May 2001 06:55:08 GMT , rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) was inspired to write: >On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:20:11 GMT, "Allan Mac Donald" > wrote: > >>What if The Americans had developed the A-Bomb 5 years earlier? >> >>I was watching a documentory on WWII yesterday and one of the historians >>made mention of the original Trinity tests. he postulated that atomic >>weapons coule have been made available towards the end of WWII. What effect >>would it have made if the bomb was available in the 40's? Certainly the >>disasterous invasion of the Japanese home islands wouldnt have happened. >>Im prety sure the German side would have gone as otl but maybe there would >>not have been the division of Germany as otl with a few bombs dropped. What >>would the borders be like in a world where the Americans had the bomb at the >>time of the division of Germany? Would the Soviet Union have been more >>generous? As it is in otl the bomb was never used in hostality, only as a > >Absurd. I'm all for playing along with DBWIs, but if the bomb hadn't >been used in WW II, it would have been used in the Korean War. What "Korean War"? As you should remember from even grade school social studies classes, Stalin's Red Army took the entire Korean peninsula by the end of September, establish Km Il Sung as the head of the People's Republic of Korea. Meanwhile the forces in Manchuria spread out and pretty well rolled up the paper tiger that was the Japanese Army in the puppet state. Maybe if the war in China ever settles down ... who knows. >It was one of those things that is impossible to appreciate until after >you've used it and seen the results. pyotr filipivich Ah - the good old days, when might made right, and the victors got the spoils - at knife point. One thing about knives, swords & axes - they don't run out of ammo, and they don't misfire. Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 15:46:37 +0200 From: "crazy_dane" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Sometimes the frost makes them stick though? Lars Ubermensen Prepare to be conquered Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:25:46 -0700 From: rosignol Organization: very little Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 [leaving the horrible mess of attributions as I found it] In article <3af99e3f_1@batman.vip-za.com>, "crazy_dane" wrote: > Sometimes the frost makes them stick though? > Lars Ubermensen > Prepare to be conquered > pyotr filipivich wrote in message > news:kfn1ftc7aogapl4e6a60rpr16bhnsvs3mo@4ax.com... > > In soc.history.what-if on Tue, 01 May 2001 06:55:08 GMT , > > rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) was inspired to write: > > >On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:20:11 GMT, "Allan Mac Donald" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > pyotr filipivich > > Ah - the good old days, when might made right, and the victors got the > > spoils - at knife point. One thing about knives, swords & axes - they > > don't run out of ammo, and they don't misfire. That's _two_ things. ;-) Subject: Re: A-bomb what if Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 22:47:55 -0700 From: pyotr filipivich Organization: Fortesque Labs Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 In soc.history.what-if on Wed, 09 May 2001 13:25:46 -0700 , rosignol was inspired to write: > pyotr filipivich wrote in message > > Ah - the good old days, when might made right, and the victors got the > > spoils - at knife point. One thing about knives, swords & axes - they > > don't run out of ammo, and they don't misfire. > >That's _two_ things. ;-) Okay, two things about knives, swords & axes are they done't run out of ammo, and they don't misfire. Plus they are silent when used. The three attributes of knives swords & axes are they don't run out of ammo, they don't misfire and they are silent when used. And have a great psychological impact on one's opponents. Oh, damn.... I'll come in again. tschus pyotr pyotr filipivich Next Months Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.