It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

premise : did atomic weapons R&D actually prolong WWII ?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape



if your argument is - " the engineering expertise wasted on the german atom bomb project could have produced a jumo jet engine with 200 hours service intervals " i shall respond


If you are talking about the nuclear powered bomber that never left the drawing board then I await your response.

The germans had many ridiculous aerial prototypes in WWII which at first appearance could've been mistaken for a Wile E Coyote contraption. The Spitfires, the mustangs, the zeros...They were simple and effective and while Nazi's greatest minds twiddled their thumbs and devised gauno crazy designs they could've assigned their greatest minds to a something far greater-but then the war ended, the US stole their greatest minds as spoils of war and the rest is history.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Atomic weapons removed atomic technology from the free market.

Atomic weapons made the cold war and made the world safe for mega socialism.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I think the problem here is that you are assuming that a scientist is a scientist is a scientist. To put it another way, if those nuclear physicists had been 're-purposed', COULD THEY have designed a better diesel engine or an improved rifle or whatever else was needed?

Next question is would they have been asked to? The military mindset is always that more of the kit you have is better than something in a year that may work better. All the improvements to planes, tanks, etc were ncremental. It wsnt until right at the end and immediately after the war that major changes came in.

I suspect that those scientists skills weren't instantly transferable so that is a moot point.

So the other question is, would re-allocating all the skilled labour elsewhere have had a significant result. This is a bit trickier, but since the Manhattan project employed 120,000 people at its peak, I suspect there was no real shortage of skilled labour, otherwise the project would never have got off the ground. Also, all the history I have read suggests that shortage of trained men ie pilots was always more of a problem than shortage of materials ie planes. So unless there was a huge shortage of skilled labour in a specific and essential field, I don't think cancelling the Manhattan project would have had any significant effect on the timescale of the war in any theatre.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
Firstly the Japanese question. For a start I have never heard or read any definite development by the Japanese to acquire nuclear weapons. They were however more interested in chemical and biological weaponry. So really it's a moot point on the USA trying to beat Japan to develop a working atomic bomb. In my oppinion no amount of re-directed funds would not have any shortening effect in the Pacific campaign. The bombs were dropped for one specific reason only and that was to shock Japan into surrendering before in became necessary to invade their home islands causing horrific losses to the US forces. One must remember in war the enemies deaths and casualties do not even enter the equation.
As for Germany, I think that their nuclear program was vastly over-rated and they were not as near to producing a viable weapon as even now the allied countries want you to accept.
If you ever listen to the documentaries from the German men themselves the war was lost from late 1943 on (though Hitler and his close minnions did not want to recognise that fact) and from then they were fighting a rear guard action to delay the inevitable and even the Bulge offensive was not to win the war but to try and force the allies to the negotiation table for a constructed peace. So the deployment of a nuclear weapon in Europe (as far as I have read) was never an option at all.
This also answers your question as being the Germans knew well in advance that they were going to lose. The allies would not have any noticable benefit from re-directed funds from the Manhattan project as the "tools" they had were quite adequate to finish the job.


What? Years ago I watched an entire History Channel show on the Japanese Atomic Bomb. Development was well underway, but they had a lack of Uranium. Towards the end of the war when Germanys defeat was imminent hitler ordered all the uranium that had loaded up on a U-Boat and sent to Japan, the boat didn't make it.

The Fire bombing of Tokyo put the breaks on the program. From memory of the show I watched years ago.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

The American juggernaut, tee hee hee

Do you forget the eastern front and the Russians streaming into Berlin


I am more inclined to believe the a bomb ended the war sooner, Japan surrendered, don't think anything but anhialation would have happened if they were not bombed into submission



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crayzeed

The Japanese actually had two independent programs to develop the bomb. One was tasked to the Navy and one to the army.

Nothing as massive as the Manhattan Project. Japanese actually achieve a partial detonation somewhere in what is now N.K..

There was a full documentary on it on A&E's history channel. It even showed a headline from a newspaper announcing the flash of the detonation. It was a couple of days after Hiroshima.



There is absolutely no proof for a Japanese - or come to that a German - nuclear test anywhere whatsoever. No. Total honk. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Then give the history channel a dingle. I watched it. I saw the copy of the headline page that described the explosion.

Now that I think of it, they also said those scientists at the N.K. site were the reason the Soviets wanted the split of Korea. To get their hands on those scientists. Makes sense.

Again, it was assumed to be only a partial detonation, a semi fizzle?

Until I see otherwise, I have to give credence to that show over your objections...sorry.

Addition, I now recall an incident where apparently Germany had sent either one or two U-Boats to Japan with shipments of fissionable uranium. One was captured by the Canadian navy near the end of the war and the U.S. basically confiscated it not wanting Canada to have that material. Ironic in that Canada played a part in the Manhattan Project via Chalk River....
edit on 27-1-2016 by nwtrucker because: addition



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
and interesting question that occured to me yesterday and i sounded off a couple of mates last night

so - did atomic weapons R&D actually prolong WWII ?

as far as ` the war in europe ` is concerned - it is my opinion that allied R&D did indeed prolong the war .

my reasoning - nothing produced by either the " tube alloys " project , or the manhattan project was actually used in the defeat of germany or italy ,

and if the massive resources expended on these projects had been redirected to conventional weapons and other war research - then they may have produced quicker allied victories .

the role of nazi atom bomb R&D is of course tricker - as they to acheived zero tangible results for massive expediture - and the same argument applies - would the nazis have prolonged the war - if they had redirected all recorces of atomic R&D into other programs ???

of course if the nazis abandoned thier atom bomb program - and the allies maintained thiers - its likley that at least germany would have been a target of a nuclear attack

but what if both sides abandoned them ? - this in my opinion is simpler - it would have made little difference - with no atom bomb - germany would have either faced an allied nuclear strike - or the amercican juggernaut would have just moved more slowly

now onto the war against the empire of japan :

i do not believe that japanese programs significantly impacted thier war-fighting capabilities - nor had they any chance of developing thier own weapon in the period after august 6th 1945 . the allied build up and capacity to destroy the home islands from the air and invade on multiple fronts renders any lack of an allied atom bomb moot .

so what if the allies had abandoned all thier programs - in this case the war against japan would have dragged on into the autum of 1945 - with carnage and casualty figures that would have made hiroshima // nagasaki seem insignificant

by the end of july 1945 - the USN had an almost total sea blocade - and the RN RCN and free french navies were all set to supply additional seapower - in adition to the USN atlantic fleet being redeployed

further the RAF and USAAF were set to redeploy all sutible planes - lastly ground forces in europe were recieving training at allow reserves to bolster US effors - and of course the soviets were redeploying in massive numbers

japan was doomed - and it was going to be messy .

there ends my case - what says you ATS ?

i know ATS rules do not allow me to " ban " people from participation in my thread , but - nor do i have to reply to revisionist fantasies either

by this i mean vril spaceships and other such idiocy

if your argument is - " the engineering expertise wasted on the german atom bomb project could have produced a jumo jet engine with 200 hours service intervals " i shall respond

if you want to talk about nazi saucers - you will get silence

thats all folks



This is an interesting question, but it falls foul of a large number of problems. The Nazi's never really had an atomic programme on anything like even the Tube Alloys programme. For one thing either by mistake or by deliberate miscalculation Werner Heisenberg thought that an atomic bomb would take more uranium than was actually the case.
As for the end of the war in Europe this is something that has a large number of problems. Operation Overlord depended on shipping, air superiority and the presence of a practical plan. I know that Montgomery is derided by many, but his strategy paid off extremely well. The Battle of Normandy in 1944 was Monty's plan and it worked.
Now, I can see people probably wondering why not invade earlier. 1942? Nope. Not enough shipping and any attack would have had to have been with mostly British troops on the Cotentin peninsular. The troops for Torch would not have been a good idea as most of them - and especially the US forces - were greener than grass. I do not mean t disparage the US forces, but they had no experience (other than some older NCOs and officers) of fighting the Germans. Please look up the Battle of Kasserine Pass. After that the US forces in North Africa improved a huge amount very quickly, but you get the point.
1943? No. The Luftwaffe was still in the process of being ground down and again the shipping just wasn't available - it was either in Italy or it was still being built. Churchill was perpetually annoyed as to why there never seemed to be enough LSTs in the eyes of the planners. That's because there were never enough.
1944 was the logical year. More than enough experienced troops, total air and sea superiority (the Kriegsmarine was a collection of pitiful hulks by that point) the Heer was being smashed to pieces on the Eastern Front and there was above all a plan.
There was no realistic possibility of the Western Allies being in Berlin in Christmas 1944. None. The Battle of Normandy worked bloody well in that it destroyed the German 7th Army and most of the 15th Army, as well as the panzer reserves in France, but after that the Germans were falling back on their lines of supplies and communications, not to mention the River Rhine, which was a huge obstacle.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Then give the history channel a dingle. I watched it. I saw the copy of the headline page that described the explosion.

Now that I think of it, they also said those scientists at the N.K. site were the reason the Soviets wanted the split of Korea. To get their hands on those scientists. Makes sense.

Again, it was assumed to be only a partial detonation, a semi fizzle?

Until I see otherwise, I have to give credence to that show over your objections...sorry.



Sorry, but that's been debunked. The History Channel (which is a shadow of its old self, with various crap programmes about pseudohistory) is not above mentioning unproven allegations. The mythical Japanese test has one source - a 1946 in the Atlanta Constitution by a guy called David Snell. There is still no proof whatsoever. Sorry - it's a nice sounding theory, but for one thing where did the Japanese get the amount of uranium they would have needed?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The Germans apparently sent two U-boats with shipments. This is a far older story than the History Channel's, it was either one or two boats. One was caught by the Canadian navy and taken over by the U.S..

I had added that recollection to my last post.

I'd need to see a recant by the history channel to accept your premise.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

here's a link to the U-boat story:

www.h-net.org...

There's others over the years. This one claims a U.S. surrender, yet how was the Canadian Corvette involved. Some conflicting/incomplete information....


edit on 27-1-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

here's a link to the U-boat story:

www.h-net.org...

There's others over the years. This one claims a U.S. surrender, yet how was the Canadian Corvette involved. Some conflicting/incomplete information....



Yes, but a) your source says this:

Among the three hundred ton cargo was three complete Messerschmitt aircraft, a Henschel HS-293 glider-bomb, extra Junkers jet engines, and ten canisters containing 560 kg (1,235 lbs.) of uranium oxide (U235).The uranium oxide was to be used by the Japanese as a catalyst for the production of synthetic methanol used for aviation fuel.
and b) the U234 never made it to Japan.
There's never been any proof that the Japanese had enough U235 to make a viable bomb. And I'd be very cautious about the History Channel at times. Listen carefully to the language they use. Some programmes use weasel words like 'It is alleged that' and then claim something ridiculous, like Hitler being seen on a banana plantation in Brazil after the war, or similar rubbish. Hell, they had a programme on the Bismark the other day that tried to claim it was a super-ship, or something. It had 15-inch guns and was crippled by a biplane. Another one kept mentioning the 'German battleship Scharnhorst'. Piffle. It was an under-gunned battlecruiser.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

There seems to be conflicting information to be sure. I suspect some sanitizing along the way. There's another site that suggests that material was used at Oak Ridge, as well.(I've been to Oak Ridge, by the way, they STILL give a full dress down search on entry by trucks...)

There was an interview with a Japanese scientist, I recall. This goes a few years back and the memory suffers.

Again, by the way, the Bismark was a 'super ship'. The torpedo fluked-hit the rudder while in a hard turn thereby leaving it running in circles. An Amazing amount of ordnance was fired into her before she finally went down.

The Scharnhorst was a Graf Spey class Pocket Battleship. Similar to the heavy cruiser of the U.S.. The Admiral Scheer, of the same class, wreaked havoc for years in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Both the Tirpitz and the Scheer were sunk in home ports by aircraft and never even touched by naval units.

Under-gunned is a bit unfair. It could out-gun anything that could catch it and outrun anything with bigger guns.

edit on 27-1-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

The war in Europe was over before the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, largely because of advances by Russian forces (IMHO the decision to attack Russia was strategically stupid).

Japan was also on the brink of surrender, having being pushed back across the Pacific. The battlefields had moved to Japan itself, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Manchuria and South Sakhalin island.

This had already been achieved with conventional weapons.

Conventional weapons continued to be manufactured at the maximum rate possible, by both sides, during the conflict. I doubt that the money released, if atomic weapons had been abandoned, would have made any difference to production rates.

The economies of both sides were essentially closed systems. As the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic indicates, currency does not always equate with productivity and it is upon weapons productivity that your argument stands or falls.


edit on 27/1/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

There seems to be conflicting information to be sure. I suspect some sanitizing along the way. There's another site that suggests that material was used at Oak Ridge, as well.(I've been to Oak Ridge, by the way, they STILL give a full dress down search on entry by trucks...)

There was an interview with a Japanese scientist, I recall. This goes a few years back and the memory suffers.

Again, by the way, the Bismark was a 'super ship'. The torpedo fluked-hit the rudder while in a hard turn thereby leaving it running in circles. An Amazing amount of ordnance was fired into her before she finally went down.

The Scharnhorst was a Graf Spey class Pocket Battleship. Similar to the heavy cruiser of the U.S.. The Admiral Scheer, of the same class, wreaked havoc for years in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Both the Tirpitz and the Scheer were sunk in home ports by aircraft and never even touched by naval units.

Under-gunned is a bit unfair. It could out-gun anything that could catch it and outrun anything with bigger guns.


Sorry, but I have to call you on your claim that the Scharnhorst was a Graf Spee class pocket battleship. She wasn't, she was larger than that. Here's the Wikipedia article - here. As for Tirpitz and Scheer, yes they were sunk by airpower. That still doesn't invalidate my point, that the KM was shattered by 1944.
As for the Bismark's last ride I agree that the torpedo to the stern was a bit of a fluke. That said, she was still pummelled to scrap in no short order. The fact that the RN ships were in too close range to use plunging fire was a mistake.
ANYWAY - can we please get back on topic?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Last comment. They had to call in torpedo bombers to sink her. The admiralty had pumped fifteen inch shell in her and she wouldn't go down.

Back to topic, you started it mate...LOL.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Last comment. They had to call in torpedo bombers to sink her. The admiralty had pumped fifteen inch shell in her and she wouldn't go down.

Back to topic, you started it mate...LOL.





????????????????????????????
No Swordfish were there at the end when Bismark went down. And at the end she had KGV (14 inch guns) and HMS Rodney (16 inch guns) both blowing chunks off her. HMS Dorsetshire ended up torpedoing her. The question has always been was she sinking at the time or was she finished off by her own crew scuttling her. Seems to be a combination of the two.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ah, that's right. Sigh, old age... I hadn't heard of scuttling though. One would have thought the crew was a tad busy at the time...



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

my point is - not just money - but skilled technicians locked into a project - they could increase production on another project



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: lawman27

the feild of nuclear weapoms technology - was created " on the go " between 1939 and 1945 .

the actually number of nuclear physicists was really only a fraction of the manpower of the manhatten project

entire subsets - such as uranioum enrichment - were not really nuclear physics problems - but engineering

so - yes - everyone involved would have made a valuable contrubution to other programs



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join