"Nazis 'tested nuclear bomb' " Topic

An interesting little article…

link

'Documents unearthed in an American archive suggest that Nazi Germany may have tested an operational nuclear bomb before the end of World War Two '

'It concurs that Hitler's boffins failed in the quest to achieve a breakthrough in nuclear technology – BUT that a documented test may have taken place of a rudimentary warhead in 1944.

The statement of the German test pilot Hans Zinsser in the file is considered evidence. The missile expert says he observed in 1944 a mushroom cloud in the sky during a test flight near Ludwigslust.'

It must be remembered a sufficiently large conventional explosion can cause a mushroom cloud, and the EMP from a real Nuclear explosion would have caused more than a bit of wireless disruption.
Also, 'small' Tactical size warheads were not the first thing a nuclear programme would develop, it would have been…rather larger!

Fascinating , more here link

Mushroom clouds are not confined to nuclear explosions. Any sufficiently powerful explosion can manifest one.

The article seems to suggest that another pilot saw the same thing an hour later. Sorry, but winds would have dissipated the cloud by then, as well as the other phenomena.

Ludwigslust is located about 115 miles NW of Berlin, a bit to the upper left of center of a triangle formed by Hamburg, Schwerin, and Berlin.

This ain't the wastelands of the Nevada or New Mexico deserts.

It is rather hard to believe that there is any way a nuclear bomb could be detonated in this area, and only FOUR witnesses observed it.

It's also rather hard to believe that the Germans might have successfully detonated a fission bomb in October of 1944, and then done nothing with that development for the rest of the war.

More than hard to believe. More like silly, actually.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

1) Early nukes were in the ~20kt range because that's easy to engineer. No super-fancy extreme implosion to get supercritical density out of subcritical masses, just shove two individually-subcritical masses of uranium together and BOOM.

2) There would also still be measurable radiation at the detonation site if that was the case.

3) There would also be a cleared blast zone about 5 miles wide at the time of the boom.

4) Mushroom clouds do not indicate the presence of a nuclear explosion, any sufficiently-hot boom will generate one. I've seen a baby mushroom cloud about 12" in diameter from a pie-plate's worth of chemicals, and I've seen conventional explosions that make mushroom clouds.

I second Mark's BSmeter.

I'm sure they took the A-bombs to Antarctica by flying saucer until the Lunar Base was ready.

Any sufficiently powerful explosion can manifest one.

Speaking from personal observation, rather than any detailed education in thermodynamics, but I believe that a more complete statement would be that any sufficiently LARGE explosion will manifest one.

But it is not so much a question of size or power, but rather of the relationship between rate of expansion of gasses vs. rate of heating and heat dissipation of gasses. Any explosion which is large enough, due to the ratio of expansion of cubic volume vs. radius, will wind up with a large volume of heated gasses within the overpressure zone. Those gasses, once expansion slows, will rise. The rising ball of gasses will draw cooler gasses in from the bottom as it rises, giving us the phenomenon we call a mushroom cloud.

I've created them quite easily with un-constrained flash powder. Put a match to a small pile of black powder (archaic gunpowder), or the flash powder from a peeled firecracker. It won't explode if it is not constrained (you'll get a conflagration, but not an explosion). This in fact mimics how a very large explosion behaves. The expansion of the shock wave through the atmosphere is constant (the speed of sound). As you scale up the explosion, in scale this is slower and slower, until it matches a conflagration in smaller scale. (An explosion has a shock wave moving at the speed of sound, a conflagration does not.)

A bleve (boiling-liquid expanding vapor explosion) is similar in behavior. These occur when you have liquids under high pressure that release and ignite. They are, again, usually conflagrations rather than true explosions.

In the cases of a sufficiently large explosion, a smaller conflagration of fast-burning flash powder, or a bleve, you will almost always get a mushroom cloud.

Or so I have observed. Could be off on the hows and whys.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Would be more convincing if I could actually find the document in the National Archive : but perhaps they haven't scanned it onto the online electronic catalogue?

Not just explosions, either. Sufficiently large forest fires create mushroom clouds. It's a matter of the very hot updraft reacting with the cool upper atmosphere.

In the 70's during my NBC training at Fort Riley Kansas, they simulated nuclear bombs and mushroom clouds by setting of pyro in a 50 gallon drum. So even small detonations can create the effect

It's also rather hard to believe that the Germans might have successfully detonated a fission bomb in October of 1944, and then done nothing with that development for the rest of the war.

In fact they wound up shipping their fissionable material to Japan. However the submarine carrying it, as well as a disassembled ME 262 and an HS293 glide bomb as well as a couple of German experimental torpedoes, two scientists, some other German Naval officers and a couple of Japanese Naval officers returning to Japan surrendered to the Americans after receiving Doenitz's order for all U-Boats to surrender. Neither of the German Scientists (one was an expert on Radar and Countermeasures, the other on the ME262) were physicists. One would assume that, if the Germans had successfully tested an A-Bomb, and since they were sending off all their material, they would have included some people from the project. After all, they had earlier sent the plans for the ME262 to the Japanese but they couldn't get the engines to work correctly, in fact a Japanese jet prototype flew a few days before VJ Day but it maxed out at a little over 300 MPH.

Trinity site, in the New Mexico Desert where the first A-Bomb was tested is still radioactive today (although low level). The desert sand surrounding the immediate site had been turned to glass by the heat of the explosion. People as far away as El Paso TX felt and heard the explosion (the cover story was that an ammo dump blew up). I too, like others here, find it difficult to believe that an atomic explosion could have been set off in Germany and only 4 people would report it. I also find it difficult to believe that, with Hitler's plans for the total destruction of Germany in the waning days of the war, he wouldn't have used it, either on London or Paris or Moscow or even on Berlin.

More like a munitions factory blowing up or a tall boy attack.

How about a small, airburst weapon? Most of the radiation issues come from irradiated ground debris so that might minimise the fall out and exlain the lack of fused sand and other after effects.

You'd still get EMP but not as many folks would notice in the late war period (less electronics in general and that which did exist would all be more robust (valves in metal boxes take EMP better than transistors in plastic boxes).

No, I still don't think it very likely (and I have a shelf full of books on the subject) but I don't think it's completely impossible.

Just pretty unlikely.

John T

Interestingly enough, the US made several non-nuclear tests in the 1 kiloton range just using huge balls of TNT blocks – thousands of individual bricks stuck together and very cleverly fused so it all detonated rather than just a bit going ka-blooee and the rest scattering around turning everything yellow.

or the fact that while the top German scientists were under "containment" after VE day and having there conversations monitored, upon hearing that the allies had dropped a nuke on Japan stated that "some American dilettante, was just trying to sound clever"
so yes Mark one I think the BS meter is sounding well.

Unconvinced. As mentioned above, it is tested near Berlin. Only 3 people seemed to have seen it. Quite possibly, it was propaganda to throw the allies into panic. If they were to find the test site, there would be conclusive evidence that the test occurred (or didn't) based on the radioactive levels there. If the test site were, say, in Norway where their is vast swaths of uninhabited land, it might be more believable.

There's a thread on Axis History Forum from over a decade ago that runs to in excess of 700 posts on the subject.

I'm not a nuclear scientist, but one of my drinking chums is.
He reckons they were a long way off making a nuke.

Did I miss something, cause to me the article is pretty clear. The test was a failure.

"It concurs that Hitler's boffins failed in the quest to achieve a breakthrough in nuclear technology – BUT that a documented test may have taken place of a rudimentary warhead in 1944."

The report was prepared by "countless American and British intelligence officers and also includes the testimony of four German experts – two chemical physicists, a chemist and a missile expert."

The article then quotes three or four people who might have observed the failed test from a distance. I didn't read anything in the article that implied a successful atomic test was done.

Its on the internet…it must be true!

What Utter, utter NONSENSE!
Garbage like this should not even be entertained for a second but ridiculed and exposed for the populist, attention-seeking, book/news-selling purient fodder for the weak-minded, conspiracy convinced, MORONS who lap this sort of twaddle up

'The testimony of the four German scientists in the declassified American report mentions a top secret meeting held in Berlin in 1943 at which armaments minister and Hitler favourite Albert Speer was present for the discussion called a "nuclear summit."

In the end the report states that the Allies believe the Germans fell short of triggering the nuclear chain reaction necessary to trigger a nuclear blast – but none could come up with an explanation for what occurred in the skies over Ludwigslust in 1944.'

The observers saw something and described it. The American report said they hadn't come up with an explanation – I would assume that all the possibilities mentioned here had been discussed? Re reproducing it – if it was a nuclear explosion, who says it was intentional? May have been a nuclear accident.

No, I don't believe that Germany had achieved a working nuclear device – don't want to use the word bomb for this – but on a wargamnes site… it gives a good source for a 'what if' scenario.

(Re garbage/morons – were you there, what is your particular qualification/experience that enables you to make that kind of comment? Lots of things have happened in the past we haven't been told about, especially regarding military events, – why shouldn't this be one of them?)

It is a possibility but we can't know for sure.

Because its sensationalist foolishness, far more likely to be explained by more prosaic causes,that magically is revealed after after 70 years, based on dead mens testimony. Who exactly were these "scientists"? who would be staking their professional reputation on some unsubstantiated absurdity?
4 people saw it? a nuclear event???…ITS RUBBISH!
and frankly, if you even half belief any of it..then…well..lets just say I'm laughing….a lot..

Ahh ! It was aliens ! Where do you think the Nazis got those flying saucers ?

In the 70's during my NBC training at Fort Riley Kansas, they simulated nuclear bombs and mushroom clouds by setting of pyro in a 50 gallon drum. So even small detonations can create the effect

Yes, I remember the same in the early '80s as well. At other military locations, etc.

Even in the ROK, '84-'85. A Mobile Kitchen Trailer's MOGAS burners accidently exploded one night. It looked like a fiery little mushroom cloud. Fortunately no one was injured or killed. The MKT was a write off though … not surprisingly …

Since many of Germany's top scientists were Jewish and either dead or fled because of Adolf's insane racial theories, the prospect is ludicrous in the extreme. But then the artice was printed in the Deadly Mirror so you takes your choice.

Here is 'proof' we nuked Dong Ha, South Vietnam in the 60's

Who knew !?!?!?

GarrisonMiniatures, Based on the posts above its clear majority of them did not even read the article. Their posts are based on the title, not the details in the article. ahahahahaha. So you are trying to explain details to people who did not read any of the details. lol

"if you even half belief any of it..then…well..lets just say I'm laughing….a lot.."

(insert eye roll) AS are those of us who read the article. hahahaa

Of course I read the article. I read the identical SAME syndicated article in the Mirror, the Mail and Der Bild.All low-brow tabloid papers.
Interesting that I DIDN'T find it in The Finanicial Times, The Independant or The New York Times.
I didn't look in the National Enquirer, but its bound to be there.
Its garbage.
If you don't realise that there is no hope for you.
Now trot along and pore over some faked moon-landing site, or how Princess Di was murdered by flesh-eating reptile aliens who have infiltrated the royal family.

It's rather insulting to assume that those who poo-pooed the article didn't read it.
It's rather obvious that *I* did.
And others too.

If you want to believe it, that's fine. But you lose credibility when you make insulting statements like that.

Harrumph.

That seems to be the norm for some here WS … I have no problem with the article. As it is just another story that may or may not be true. Like so many other things one reads on the net, sees on TV, etc., …

I did see a couple of TV programs on the History and Travel Channels, IIRC that made similar comments/claims about Nazis & Nucs. [and even flying saucers !] True or not … it was entertaining. But as I found on some of the What-if threads. Some believe there is no need to talk about anything that didn't actually happen because many books, etc., say it did or didn't.

Again as I saw on some of the What-if threads. Some think you are out of your mind, etc. Because you dare to think out of "their" box. But still don't get … It's a What-if. As this topic very well could be. But to even entertain such ideas seriously or not makes you "nutz" !

How about a small, airburst weapon? Most of the radiation issues come from irradiated ground debris so that might minimise the fall out and exlain the lack of fused sand and other after effects.

Again, a primitive successful atomic device is going to run about 15-25kt just due to math, physics, and engineering constraints.

The 16kt bomb at Hiroshima detonated at 1900ft above ground level, and left an area of total destruction two miles in diameter. The Nagasaki bomb detonated at 1650ft AGL, but due to terrain had a relatively smaller blast circle. Both cities are still detectably radioactive today, though not so much as to be hazardous to life.

Because of the lack of blast zone and lingering radioactivity, there is no chance the Germans had a successful bomb test.

Even if the test was a subcritical "fizzle", the neutron flux and fissionable materials contaminating the area would still be detectable today.

Because of the lack of lingering radioactivity, there is no chance that the Germans had a subcritical "fizzle" for ~100tons of TNT equivalent, either.

Interesting, took me about ten minutes and I found a few reputable sources discussing this topic. The Nazi's reactor test failed and all indications to a weapons test also failed. So telling people your laughing at them and how dumb they are probably worked well for you on the playground when you were nine. But for us adults, its laughable.

link

Here is a well researched book on the subject.
link

Here is a good documentary on the subject.
link

Here is an article that covers a book on the subject. Again, its pretty clear if a test was done, it failed.
link

Did you read the synopsis of the book you link?
As I understand it, the point is that the Nazi bomb was never going to happen because of Nazi policies.

The Jerry "reactor" was basically a few pieces of nuclear material dangling in water.
Not even a viable reactor.

Making a bomb was shelved in 1942. That meant no support from the Nazi leadership.
Which meant no funding, no nuthin basically because that's the way the Nazis worked.
Read up on what went into Manhattan.

What was the source of the fissile material this must have used and what happened to the enrichment facilities that produced it?

There was a Heavy Water plant in Norway. But we know that in the long run it did not "work out" for the Nazis … Fortunately … link

Of course! there were TWO tests! silly me..one in Thuringia, and one in Ludwigslust…
I should have known that..
but I'm not a "reliable source"
and I'm not a historian desperately trying to sell a book..
and yes, if someone adheres to a hypothesis that is derisory, foolish and laughable (such as this), which flies in the face of all credible eveidence, proven science, bases its assumptions on half=truths, incomplete, and unsubstantiated testimony then I will most certainly laugh at them for doing so.

but I'm not a "reliable source"

Well … let us all admit. Almost all on TMP are not a "reliable source", save for a few and on a few subjects. In many cases posts here are a much opinion as fact(?) at times … For every article you find on the net, etc., … they may be another that disputes it, etc., …
Save for e.g. "the Moon is made of green cheese" … Where everybody knows it's Swiss. Just look at all the holes …

link

" How close were the Nazis to a nuclear weapon of their own?…S…S

The answer is they werenˇ¦t very close at all. According to an investigation published this month in the journal Angewandte Chemie, 1940s uranium samples from Germany donˇ¦t show evidence of a self-sustained nuclear chain reactionˇX the chemical underpinnings of an atomic bomb. The study adds scientific support to historical accounts that the Germans didnˇ¦t succeed in their wartime nuclear aspirations.
"
link

No enriched uranium means no possibility of a bomb.
That's none. As in zero, nada, zip, no chance.

They didn't have the material to make a bomb.
They didn't have the science necessary.
They didn't commit the resources necessary.

There isn't a snowball's chance they had a nuclear bomb to test.

All of which is a bit dull.
My mate told me about something pretty weird.

There' such a thing as a naturally occurring nuclear reactor.
link

Maybe it's not totally natural. Maybe those cunning Jerries set a device off which sent Hitler back through time and space 2 billion years to Oklo…. Where he created an underground nuclear reactor through vigorous hand waving.
He's there underground, him and his alien space bats with their flying saucers.
Awaiting discovery by the History channel.
You read it here first.

Heisenberg was the leading German nuclear scientist. He made a mistake in calculating the critical mass necessary and thought tons of material would be necessary.
His reaction to the news of the allied bombs was secretly recorded. He didn't believe it because he was convinced it was impossible.