Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:15 am

July 8th, 2018, 2:07 pm #31

yamsi12 wrote: Germany wouldn’t have been nuked. We don’t nuke white people.
There already existed a list for potential targets. If I remember correctly Manheim was no. 1 target.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2010, 6:20 pm

July 8th, 2018, 11:08 pm #32

ede144 wrote:
yamsi12 wrote: Germany wouldn’t have been nuked. We don’t nuke white people.
There already existed a list for potential targets. If I remember correctly Manheim was no. 1 target.
Wasn't Hiroshima chosen since it had yet to be visited by the USAAF?
Mannheim was hit by some 150 raids 40-45, including a full scale event by Bomber Command in 1943.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

July 8th, 2018, 11:33 pm #33

I always suspected Dresden might have been under consideration.  It wasn't heavily attacked until 1945.

It simply may just be though, that no specific target for the first use against Germany had been seriously considered.  They hadn't got to that stage in planning when they realized it was pointless.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2008, 10:19 pm

July 9th, 2018, 1:00 pm #34

If it was Mannheim it shows how thoroughly the bomber offensive had trashed all the cities considered too damaged to be worth a nuclear strike.
Dresden was at the limits of range and an awfully long time at risk from the defences until the ground advance removed a lot of those; by then it had also become important for German logistics in the East.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:15 am

July 10th, 2018, 7:56 am #35

edgeworthy wrote:
ede144 wrote:
yamsi12 wrote: Germany wouldn’t have been nuked. We don’t nuke white people.
There already existed a list for potential targets. If I remember correctly Manheim was no. 1 target.
Wasn't Hiroshima chosen since it had yet to be visited by the USAAF?
Mannheim was hit by some 150 raids 40-45, including a full scale event by Bomber Command in 1943.
An atomic bomb on Mannheim might shut down BASF permanantly, which doesn't happen with Bomber Command Raids, which targetted civilian populated areas only. Even 8. USAAF had full success in 1944.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2015, 2:58 am

July 10th, 2018, 12:46 pm #36

edgeworthy wrote:
ede144 wrote:
yamsi12 wrote: Germany wouldn’t have been nuked. We don’t nuke white people.
There already existed a list for potential targets. If I remember correctly Manheim was no. 1 target.
Wasn't Hiroshima chosen since it had yet to be visited by the USAAF?
Mannheim was hit by some 150 raids 40-45, including a full scale event by Bomber Command in 1943.
Hiroshima was on the list of targets because it had a important army depot, in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target for bombers to navigate with, and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. The city was not a good target for firebombing, so it was left untouched by USAAF bombers conducting their firebombing campaign.

Another target that was mentioned in 1943 as a potential target was Truk; the harbour of Truk was mentioned causally in a meeting in May 1943 policy meeting, and it was mentioned because it was a key Japanese Navy base. Truk's lagoon was deep enough so that if the bomb failed to go off, it would fall in water that would prevent easy salvage, and the Japanese would be less likely to learn anything about the bomb than say if the bomb fell and landed in Germany as a dud.

By the time an actual target list was drawn up in May 1945, the war in Europe was effectively over; the planners were no longer looking at Germany as a target as it was clear that the Germans didn't have a nuclear bomb ready, and that Germany's defeat as imminent.

Another problem that was noted was the lack of a delivery platform for a nuclear bomb on Germany; it was either allocate B-29's in large numbers to Europe or ask the British to see if they could modify their Lancaster bombers to carry the weapon.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 10th, 2012, 10:31 pm

July 20th, 2018, 9:25 pm #37

ThePointblank wrote: Another problem that was noted was the lack of a delivery platform for a nuclear bomb on Germany; it was either allocate B-29's in large numbers to Europe or ask the British to see if they could modify their Lancaster bombers to carry the weapon.
Actually the Lancaster could have carried the bomb as the design requirement was that it could be carried by a bomber in service with each country, and our choice was the Lancaster.  In fact the USAAF couldn't get their release mechanism to work, so Enola Gay had to use the release bar from a Lancaster!

SRJ.
The Seaslug website: www.littlewars.org.uk/Seaslug/seaslug03.html
The Malacia papers: www.littlewars.org.uk/malacia.html
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

July 21st, 2018, 6:26 am #38

ThePointblank wrote: Another problem that was noted was the lack of a delivery platform for a nuclear bomb on Germany; it was either allocate B-29's in large numbers to Europe or ask the British to see if they could modify their Lancaster bombers to carry the weapon.
I doubt deploying B-29s to the UK would have been a serious issue.  If they could operate them from China or Pacific islands, then England or Norther Ireland shouldn't prove to be a problem.  They did send one to NI for a tour.  There was no point doing so until after the War, though, as the smaller bombers in there had sufficient range and bomb-load for the job and the war was ending before the B-29/nuclear weapon combo was needed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 8th, 2015, 8:26 am

July 24th, 2018, 2:58 am #39

Does the hypothetical 1943 Type XXI get lots and lots of acoustic homing torpedoes?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 3rd, 2014, 2:39 am

July 24th, 2018, 3:14 am #40

Phoenix04 wrote:
US Nuke wrote: Truman would not have bombed Germany. Nowhere have I ever seen in any official capacity that Germany was ever a target.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sorry for being trivial Phoenix but this is a real pet peeve of mine---right up there with "anything is possible."   Absence of evidence most certainly IS evidence of absence.   It is not PROOF of absence.   A lot of laypeople seem to conflate the related, but distinct, concepts of "evidence" and "proof."  And human beings cannot fly by simply flapping their arms with no mechanical aids (to name just one of billions of examples   so obviously, no, it is not true that "anything is possible."  
It ain't THAT far to Tipperary....
Quote
Like
Share