What if Hitler had taken over Stalingrad?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:30 PM by SLAYER69
Originally posted by redled

No link, seen lots of stuff. But it's not exactly today's news.




Not different material, rather different blends of material.


Not blends of stuff they are plutonium & uranium
Source
Little Boy and Fat Man
In essence, the Little Boy design consisted of a gun that fired one mass of uranium 235 at another mass of uranium 235, thus creating a supercritical mass. A crucial requirement was that the pieces be brought together in a time shorter than the time between spontaneous fissions. Once the two pieces of uranium are brought together, the initiator introduces a burst of neutrons and the chain reaction begins, continuing until the energy released becomes so great that the bomb simply blows itself apart.

The initial design for the plutonium bomb was also based on using a simple gun design (known as the "Thin Man") like the uranium bomb. As the plutonium was produced in the nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington, it was discovered that the plutonium was not as pure as the initial samples from Lawrence's Radiation Laboratory. The plutonium contained amounts of plutonium 240, an isotope with a rapid spontaneous fission rate. This necessitated that a different type of bomb be designed. A gun-type bomb would not be fast enough to work. Before the bomb could be assembled, a few stray neutrons would have been emitted from the spontaneous fissions, and these would start a premature chain reaction, leading to a great reduction in the energy released.





[edit on 27-12-2008 by SLAYER69]


reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:34 PM by redled
reply to post by SLAYER69



Look it's pretty obvious in physics that if you bring critical masses of either uranium or plutonium, they will blow up. You can have bombs with both like. Once the hammer of radiation is thrust into the bed of radiation it is all tits up. You can't worry about if it's one type or the other, both are very dangerous.


reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 07:47 PM by redled
reply to post by SLAYER69



Try he was a nutter; He needed the caucuses, and put many troops on one city. Stalin later on offfered peace, but Hitler 'felt it in his blood that he had to destry Slavs.' If he had used his Blitzreigh without prejudice, I would not have been born.


reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 08:02 PM by SLAYER69
reply to post by redled



Here a great little video that talks about nothing more than the lend lease and the battle of Stalingrad the sound is a little off but very informative




reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 11:23 PM by pteridine
Originally posted by redled
reply to
post by SLAYER69



Look it's pretty obvious in physics that if you bring critical masses of either uranium or plutonium, they will blow up. You can have bombs with both like. Once the hammer of radiation is thrust into the bed of radiation it is all tits up. You can't worry about if it's one type or the other, both are very dangerous.


But fissionable materials for the bombs did not come from Germany, as you stated earlier. Hanford made the Plutonium and Oak Ridge separated the Uranium isotopes. The first nuclear explosion, Trinity, was a Plutonium bomb.


reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 01:11 AM by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Telos



not nesseceraly .

yes - the battle of stalingrad was seen as the turninng point - but if the germans had taken stalingrad - it would not ave meant they would have prevailed

ok - lets asume stalingrad falls - and the nazis now control both banks of the volga - and key bidges etc

so what next - the oil feilds ?? just getting to them extends the germans alteady over extended supply lines still further - and do you really think they can exploit them in the face of russian partisans ?

taking the caucus oil feilds is another big leap - that would be contested bitterly - the USSR was in no danger of running out of men or equipment

winning at stalingrad will just extend the pit into which germsny is pouring itself

it will not free up troops - as stalingrad - and every inch of occupied terretory will now need garrisoning

and the new extended front line will still be fought over



reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 05:41 AM by Wally Conley
reply to post by Peruvianmonk


What you point out here is something that I feel would have been the case had Hitler won at either Moscow and/or Stalingrad. Hitler would have transferred the bulk of his forces West to France while leaving enough in the occupied parts of the USSR on occupation duty to force the Soviet Union to keep up its part of any peace treaty that would have been signed. So thanks for having pointed this out.


reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 06:10 AM by Freedom ERP
I do not think that Germany would have won the war in the way the allies did, but the takeover of Stalingard would have changed one of the tipping points of the war.

Once Stalingard was secure, Hilter would have been in a better position to secure the oil fields in the region. I question have many troops Hilter would have been able to release for other campaigns, as there was a strong resistance in Russia and with the lose of the city named after the leader, you can imagine the order that would have come from Stalin. "Get my city back"

Germnay would have had to keep lost numbers of troops in country, and then as has been posted, what about the rest of Russia. By this time, factories were beeing shipped to the other side of the Urals, and away from any serious threat from Germany. Hilter would have had to think about his next actions. I see only a couple of options:

Move on into Russia or go South and with a push from the Rommel, link up in the Arabian oil fields.

I suspect Hilter generals would have wanted to go South but Hitler's hate of the Slavs would have driven him to continue east in to Russia, stretching supply lines even further. If Hilter takes the expansion eastward, the war would have ended with an Allies victory but a couple of years later.

With the move South, that changes things. If Hitler would have taken the Arabian oil fields, I think that many of the Arabs in the region would have at worst been neutral to Germany, or at best, attacked British and French interests in the region.

With the Arabian oil fields secure, Hitler would have been able to fuel his and Japan's military and take a major headarch away from their military planners and the British with some help from the French, would have been forced to starting planning a campaign to retake the Arabian oil fields rather than focus on the invasion of mainland Europe.

With the South option taken and held for 12 months, I see the allies wanting a truce or a significant peace treaty.


reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 06:45 AM by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Freedom ERP



go South and with a push from the Rommel, link up in the Arabian oil fields.


do WHAT ?????????????

you do realise that by the time of the battle of stalingrad - Rommell`s position is untenable , dont you ?

he faces montgomerys 8th army from the east and a combined allied army from the west [ landed by op. torch ]

rommel is hardly in a position to make a " push " of over 3000km

and as paullus couldnt even take staligrad with what he had - i dont know how you expect him , or anyone else to advance another 1000 miles still further south

where are the troops , tanks , aircraft etc going to come from ?????????
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^