Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

Nazi Atomic bomb used in 1943


  • Please log in to reply
301 replies to this topic

#76    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:51 AM

A hand thrown nuke? Seriously? and weighing only 5 Kilos? Again seriously? Since a simple shaped charge is all that was required them and now to stop a tank then a nuclear hand grenade seems a little too much like over kill to me. Not to mention, I seriously doubt you have much luck getting more than a couple guys to knowingly die from being the launching device for such a grenade. "Frizt! Congratulations! You have been chosen to throw out the first nuclear hand grenade in history. Zieg Hile!" Those would rapidly become the most dreaded words in the Wehrmarcht.


#77    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,274 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 March 2013 - 05:08 AM

A hand thrown nuke.... gee, what's wrong with that picture.

Posted Image

#78    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:17 AM

View PostStardrive, on 14 March 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

A hand thrown nuke.... gee, what's wrong with that picture.

Other than the mushroom shaped cloud of 10,000° F gas enveloping your ass? Nothing.


#79    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,836 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 15 March 2013 - 02:46 AM

I don't think it said Hand Thrown, but how are you supposed to deliver that 5 kg bomb? So that it wipes out hundreds of soldiers down to a man. They had panzershrikes, which is something like a bazooka, so maybe they used that??

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#80    williamjpellas

williamjpellas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2013

Posted 26 October 2013 - 08:08 PM

Tazjet has much, much more information than he has shared in this thread.  :tu:   I don't have time today, unfortunately, to summarize what he has posted elsewhere on the web, but would like to add a couple of bullet points to this discussion.

First, the MAGIC intercept is real and genuine.  I saw it, touched it, and photographed it personally at the US National Archives in Suitland, MD, in 2012.  In the photos you will see the prefix "SRA" on the cover of the file in which the MAGIC intercept is located.  "SRA" refers to intercepts of Japanese Army communications.  "SRN" refers to Navy communications.  This was explained to me by one of the Archive workers.

Second, I am wondering if Tazjet can post any documentation for his claim (which I can well believe) that German nuclear scientist Kurt Diebner instructed US weapons scientists regarding third generation or "boosted fission" atomic weapons in the years immediately after the war.  Tazjet is 100% correct to point out that nearly all atomic and thermonuclear weapons that have been produced by nearly every nation since the late 1940s do not require a "critical mass" in the WWII American sense of the term to detonate.  The US weapons relied on creating what might be termed an "organic" or "nominal" critical mass.  That is, the size and shape of a fissile substance or "bomb fuel" necessary to make that substance detonate using fissioning neutrons from its own mass.  Boosted fission is an excellent solution to the problem of detonation because it relies on other substances besides the "bomb fuel" itself to provide massive numbers of additional, fissioning neutrons, neutrons which are added to those from the bomb fuel---thus creating via other means the same or superior supercritical state as that found in the WWII American bombs.

Edited by williamjpellas, 26 October 2013 - 08:10 PM.


#81    williamjpellas

williamjpellas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2013

Posted 26 October 2013 - 08:18 PM

View PostPersonFromPorlock, on 29 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

The German surrender was unconditional, which means (among other things) that they lost all control of their own records. It beggars the imagination that we would not have come across documents describing the development and use of an atomic weapon, even if it was only a 'dirty bomb'. What we do have is a clear paper trail that shows their atomic effort was - like many of their research efforts - fragmented, desultory and unsuccessful.

Incidentally, while I won't guarantee the accuracy of my memory, I'm pretty sure we had one more atomic bomb in reserve at the end or WW2.

At the time of the second atomic mission, which originally targeted Kokura but diverted to the secondary target of Nagasaki, the third plutonium bomb was already "in the pipeline" and its various parts and components were making their way through the Manhattan Project and US Army Air Corps logistics stream for delivery to the 509th Composite Group on Tinian Island in the Marianas.  According to a report from General Leslie Groves to Joint Chiefs Chairman General George Marshall, the Manhattan Project would have had as many as 9 or perhaps 12 or 13 fission bombs ready for use by 1 November 1945---the start date for Operation OLYMPIC, the invasion of the Japanese Home Island of Kyushu.  I don't recall whether the exact figure just now and don't have time to double check my sources, sorry.  But the breakdown would have been: 9 or 12 "Fat Man" plutonium bombs and perhaps one more "Little Boy" uranium bomb.  The production capacity of the Oak Ridge, TN, U-235 bomb works was between 2 and 4 bombs per year, but the Hanford, WA plutonium bomb works was capable of far greater production.  One reference I can give you for now is the book Working on the Bomb by S. L. Sanger.

Edited by williamjpellas, 26 October 2013 - 08:18 PM.


#82    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Pooseycat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,763 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:10 PM

Thanks for the information.


#83    Ravinoff

Ravinoff

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2012

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:31 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 15 March 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

I don't think it said Hand Thrown, but how are you supposed to deliver that 5 kg bomb? So that it wipes out hundreds of soldiers down to a man. They had panzershrikes, which is something like a bazooka, so maybe they used that??
Panzerschreck isn't likely, you'd run into the same issue the Americans did with the Davy Crockett: not enough range to keep the firers out of the blast. A 5-kilo device is also very small, even for wartime Germany to be using. They'd clearly be much better served by lumping that uranium together for use as a larger bomb. In fact, I'm not even sure it's possible to build a functioning nuclear device that small, the lightest devices I'm aware of are the American nuclear artillery shells and the W54 warhead, all of which weighed more like 25kg. Speaking of artillery, however, that would likely have been the most useful deployment system for any German nuke 1943-1945. The Germans had plenty of artillery weapons that could be used to throw a variety of sizes of warheads for different uses:
  • anti-tank guns like the PaK 44
  • a variety of indirect-fire howitzers firing shells from 25-250 pounds, the most likely candidates being the 150mm "100-pounder" guns
  • in theory, they could even use nuclear shells in anti-air guns to disrupt the heavy bombing raids from the Allies
But there's one category where the use of nuclear artillery in Nazi hands would have been most interesting: in the various superheavy and siege artillery platforms fielded by Germany. Shells for these could weigh 300-500 pounds, with several absurdly huge ones more than doubling that (the Schwerer Gustav K-E gun fired a shell 31 inches across and weighing an astounding 16,000 pounds). These generally turned out to be enormous wastes of resources, as they were essentially designed for another war like WWI, which of course didn't happen. But there are several occasions where a well-placed nuclear blast could have significantly disrupted Allied operations, especially from the west. The Soviets were more or less unstoppable after Kursk, their numbers were just too large for even a nuke to interfere. The one that jumps to mind immediately is stopping the Americans at Remagen, where the Karl-Gerät siege mortar with a nuclear payload could've prevented the 1st Army from crossing the Rhine.


#84    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 28 October 2013 - 01:43 PM

View PostRavinoff, on 28 October 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

...But there's one category where the use of nuclear artillery in Nazi hands would have been most interesting: in the various superheavy and siege artillery platforms fielded by Germany. Shells for these could weigh 300-500 pounds, with several absurdly huge ones more than doubling that (the Schwerer Gustav K-E gun fired a shell 31 inches across and weighing an astounding 16,000 pounds). These generally turned out to be enormous wastes of resources, as they were essentially designed for another war like WWI, which of course didn't happen. But there are several occasions where a well-placed nuclear blast could have significantly disrupted Allied operations, especially from the west. The Soviets were more or less unstoppable after Kursk, their numbers were just too large for even a nuke to interfere. The one that jumps to mind immediately is stopping the Americans at Remagen, where the Karl-Gerät siege mortar with a nuclear payload could've prevented the 1st Army from crossing the Rhine.
Obviously the effect would depend on the number of shells available, however I'd suggest that preventing the crossing at Remagen would have had little effect on the Western Allied crossing of the Rhine. Keep in mind that only three weeks after Allied forces captured the Remagen bridge, the Allies crossed the Rhine in force in two places - the British just north of the Ruhr, and the Americans near Mainz. Both crossings were complete successes and German resistance quickly collapsed. Within a month of those crossings, Allied armies had reached the Elbe, and were in a position to attack Berlin if Eisenhower had ordered it.

According to http://en.wikipedia....sion_of_Germany the forces involved in the British crossing of the Rhine were on a similar scale to those employed on D-Day. The number of nuclear artillery shells needed to disrupt that force would have been massive. Then they would have had to find the resources to stop Patton and his troops at Mainz...

The problem for the Germans in March 1945 wasn't that they didn't have enough artillery shells to defend the Rhine, it was that they didn't have enough soldiers to defend the Rhine.


#85    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 7,568 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:07 PM

I think it far more likely that Hitler would have used a nuke (if he had them) on targets like London, or Moscow, and hope to shock/terrify the enemy into surrender or at least a cease fire...He had the perfect deliver system - the V2 which was
basically unstoppable once launched... Blasting enemy units would not have been effective as the enemy had a massive advantage in numbers, and could afford to fill any gaps (particularly the Russians, who didn't seem to mind the massive
casualties as much as the other countries)...

of course Hitler was pretty much bat-spit crazy by then so....


#86    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:59 PM

View PostTaun, on 28 October 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I think it far more likely that Hitler would have used a nuke (if he had them) on targets like London, or Moscow, and hope to shock/terrify the enemy into surrender or at least a cease fire...He had the perfect deliver system - the V2 which was
basically unstoppable once launched... Blasting enemy units would not have been effective as the enemy had a massive advantage in numbers, and could afford to fill any gaps (particularly the Russians, who didn't seem to mind the massive
casualties as much as the other countries)...

of course Hitler was pretty much bat-spit crazy by then so....
One problem with this idea was how big any hypothetical German bombs would be. The V-2's warhead was 1000 kilograms. The atomic bombs used by the USA at the end of the war weighed 4-5 times as much. Another was range - at 320 kilometres, Moscow was out of range by the beginning of 1944, and London by early 1945.

But, yes, I agree that they would've been of fairly limited tactical use. If nothing else, once used this way once, generals would know to disperse their troops as much as practical.

An alternative I saw in a novel (which I didn't buy) involved the Germans loading what they theorised was a viable atomic bomb onto a captured B-17 bomber and flying that across the Atlantic to bomb New York.


#87    williamjpellas

williamjpellas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2013

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:39 AM

View PostPeter B, on 28 October 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

One problem with this idea was how big any hypothetical German bombs would be. The V-2's warhead was 1000 kilograms. The atomic bombs used by the USA at the end of the war weighed 4-5 times as much. Another was range - at 320 kilometres, Moscow was out of range by the beginning of 1944, and London by early 1945.

But, yes, I agree that they would've been of fairly limited tactical use. If nothing else, once used this way once, generals would know to disperse their troops as much as practical.

An alternative I saw in a novel (which I didn't buy) involved the Germans loading what they theorised was a viable atomic bomb onto a captured B-17 bomber and flying that across the Atlantic to bomb New York.


Here again, tazjet has information to the effect that the Germans in WWII may have been working on what later became known as "third generation, boosted fission weapons".  The key advantage of such weapons being that even with the state of the engineering art in WWII and even allowing for the absence of various, lighter-in-weight substances that would be developed later (such as composite materials used in fighter and civilian jets and also in spacecraft)---even with all of this, a boosted fission weapon, if one was present in the WWII German arsenal, would have been much smaller and lighter than its American cousins.  This hypothetical German bomb would also almost certainly have had a much smaller yield than the US weapons did, probably along the lines of 1 kiloton or so, but their weight would have been well within the limits of the V-2 payload.


As for why this weapon, assuming for the moment that at least one existed, wasn't used, I submit that there is a logical explanation that fits perfectly within the framework of the established history of the War.  Namely, that Churchill and Great Britain deterred Hitler from using it by threatening Germany with genocide or the next thing to it.  How?  With England's own Doomsday Weapon, its massive stockpile of weaponized anthrax.  In simplest terms, Hitler did not have enough bombs with enough firepower to gamble that he could nuke his opponents---or, at minimum, England, if not the United States---into oblivion while also guaranteeing that Germany would not, itself, be destroyed in turn by Churchill's bioweapon.

Edited by williamjpellas, 29 October 2013 - 12:40 AM.


#88    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Pooseycat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,763 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:28 AM

Just a note that nuking the enemy's capital isn't a favored first-strike tactic in nuclear war planning because it risks leaving no one alive with the authority to order a surrender.


#89    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 15,174 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:42 AM

View PostPersonFromPorlock, on 29 October 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

Just a note that nuking the enemy's capital isn't a favored first-strike tactic in nuclear war planning because it risks leaving no one alive with the authority to order a surrender.
Carpet bombing cities was considered poor form as well, but both sides did that.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

You may think you're cool, but you'll never be as cool as Peter Capaldi with an electric guitar, on a tank, playing the Doctor Who theme.

#90    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:05 PM

View Postwilliamjpellas, on 26 October 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Tazjet has much, much more information than he has shared in this thread.  :tu:   I don't have time today, unfortunately, to summarize what he has posted elsewhere on the web, but would like to add a couple of bullet points to this discussion.

First, the MAGIC intercept is real and genuine.  I saw it, touched it, and photographed it personally at the US National Archives in Suitland, MD, in 2012.  In the photos you will see the prefix "SRA" on the cover of the file in which the MAGIC intercept is located.  "SRA" refers to intercepts of Japanese Army communications.  "SRN" refers to Navy communications.  This was explained to me by one of the Archive workers.

Second, I am wondering if Tazjet can post any documentation for his claim (which I can well believe) that German nuclear scientist Kurt Diebner instructed US weapons scientists regarding third generation or "boosted fission" atomic weapons in the years immediately after the war.  Tazjet is 100% correct to point out that nearly all atomic and thermonuclear weapons that have been produced by nearly every nation since the late 1940s do not require a "critical mass" in the WWII American sense of the term to detonate.  The US weapons relied on creating what might be termed an "organic" or "nominal" critical mass.  That is, the size and shape of a fissile substance or "bomb fuel" necessary to make that substance detonate using fissioning neutrons from its own mass.  Boosted fission is an excellent solution to the problem of detonation because it relies on other substances besides the "bomb fuel" itself to provide massive numbers of additional, fissioning neutrons, neutrons which are added to those from the bomb fuel---thus creating via other means the same or superior supercritical state as that found in the WWII American bombs.

There are enough errors and inconsistencies in the report to invalidate it and show it as a fake.  Some can be found here in a previous post in this thread  http://www.unexplain...45#entry4696212

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users