Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What were the various "super weapons programs" of World War II???

Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by DiegoMaxwell, Jan 18, 2020.

  1. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    An a-bomb or B-29s with heavy delayed-action bombs would be the only way one could reasonably be sure of getting Hirohito. I'm sure that Dolittle understood that the bombs his planes carried probably wouldn't have gotten the job done and they did little enough as it was. However, by early summer of '45 our command of the air was so complete that we could have had a a squadron or group of B-29s fly low enough to be sure of hitting the palace and grounds with heavy d/a bombs. However, no order to do so was ever issued so there had to be a command decision to leave the palace alone.
     
  2. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Personally I believe that just as the Dolittle strike was more of a propaganda victory than military one, taking the God status away from Hirohito was a massive blow to the Japanese. If he had died as God would Japan have surrendered? His speech after the A-bombs destroyed the Japanese morale and was more valuable to the Allied than killing him during the war, I think.

    Just as the 1,000 plane bombing of Germany was a massive propaganda blow showing the Germans they were not safe anymore anywhere.
     
    Carronade likes this.
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Obunko was not completed until July, 1942. So, Doolittle's Raid, a surprise raid, would have had the best chance of getting him. Obunko was further strengthened just after the fire raids began in 1945, so only a very narrow window early in 1945 for a Tall Boy or Grand Slam strike. Atomics, would need a direct hit, but they were not that accurate.

    Yes, there was a command decision made not to hit the Emperor's Place, but it was made early in 1942 - not later in 1945.
     
  4. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,332
    Likes Received:
    5,696
    An atomic bomb would not have destroyed Obunko. To wit:

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I was thinking less of destruction...more of airborne radioactive contamination(were there gas filters, and if so, would they prevent airborne radioactive particles from getting in) & would the nuclear fireball of a direct strike consume all the oxygen to asphyxiate those inside.

    The first may or may not kill the Emperor in a timely fashion, but the second, if possible, would. But, neither would result in the destruction of the structure itself.
     
  6. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,332
    Likes Received:
    5,696
    We didn't understand "fallout" very well back then. We have pictures of Groves and Oppenheimer standing at Ground Zero of the Trinity Test the day after the explosion. Fallout wasn't a force multiplier back then.
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I'm not talking about fallout, but the radiation from the initial blast.

    The photos of Oppie & Groves at ground zero were taken September 9 - 11, 1945, when they had the press tout the site.

    Fallout was not considered a problem, because they thought dispersion would mitigate it. However, as the date for the test came closer, the scientists became more cautious.
    Manhattan Project: Safety and the Trinity Test, July 1945
    So, the effects of fallout were better known after, then before.
     
    Kai-Petri likes this.
  8. Riter

    Riter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2020
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    255
    The humble proximity fuse gets my vote.
    Not a weapon but the wood pallet we take for granted today sure helped in loading/unloading ships.
    Higher octane fuel for better fighter performance.
    Organization of industry for optimal distribution of resources and output.
     
  9. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    "The dirty bomb" would be almost as effective as an A-bomb, I think. Making the area unable to live for years even today would make a massive propaganda effect.Think of Chernobyl.
     
  10. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,555
    Likes Received:
    3,060
    Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are lived in today...my mail says they couldn’t move the soil anywhere, Japan being so small...so they dug down two meters and simply flipped the soil...not sure how effective that would be but both sites are habitable...
     
  11. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,134
    Likes Received:
    900
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The wood pallet was invented in 1925 but seen at that time as only useful with forklifts, so it is unlikely it would have seen wide use as most materials handling was still being done by manpower.
    The History of a Wooden Pallet - P&A Pallets and Packing Cases (pandapallets.com)

    The modern shipping container wasn't invented until 1952, but it too requires a good degree of mechanization in materials handling to utilize.

    How Was The Shipping Container Invented? (pentalvercontainerconversions.com)

    So, without far more mechanization in materials handling--eg., forklifts, cranes, etc.--these inventions don't have much useful effect. In the 40's only the US could have really made use of these, and even then only in locations where the sort of mechanization necessary was available.
     
  12. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,134
    Likes Received:
    900
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    As for bombing the snot out of some fortified location, like the bunker the Emperor might hide in, the US could have managed that easily enough.

    [​IMG]
    Imagine say 30 to 50 of those unloading on the target...
     
    Carronade likes this.
  13. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    The real "super weapon" in war is the infantryman, tanker, etc. that gets out of their hole, or in their tank, moves forward and takes the fight to the enemy even though he's got a pretty good idea that sooner or later such actions will end badly for him personally. Without them, wars can't be won.
     
  14. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    846
    Normal maximum bombload was 20,000lb, so I assume this would require reduced fuel load/range. Perhaps they would have operated from Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

    Note that this aircraft has its full complement of defensive weapons.
     
  15. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,134
    Likes Received:
    900
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The biggest reduction in performance was altitude. With two Grand Slams the B-29 could only manage about 20,000 feet altitude. I'm sure there were range and speed restrictions too, but the biggest issue was altitude. One Tallboy or Grand Slam on the other hand was easily managed on a B-29 with a modified bomb bay.

    [​IMG]
     
    Carronade likes this.
  16. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    If we are defining 'super weapon' as something advanced that had a real impact, I'd suggest the proximity fuse.
     
    Carronade and Otto like this.
  17. Otto

    Otto Spambot Nemesis Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,781
    Likes Received:
    1,818
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Agreed! The proximity fuse might be the most unknown, overlooked, and underappreciated technology of WWII. It easily classifies as superweapon.
     
  18. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,134
    Likes Received:
    900
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Radar was probably the most successful 'wonder weapon' of the war. It quite literally changed everything. Let's start that it forms the basis for the proximity fuze. Beyond that, it completely invalidated the ideas of theorists on air power like Douhet, Mitchell, and Seversky. It made coordinated air defense possible. Radar took away most of the advantages of night and made bombing through smoke and clouds as accurate as optical means did. It brought the demise of the surface raider in naval warfare. The submarine could no longer use night and a small silhouette to attack on the surface. Variants allowed for accurate navigation by ships and aircraft. It could be used for counterbattery fire by tracking the flight of enemy shells back to their firing position. Missiles could now be guided to their targets using it.

    It was revolutionary and heralded in a completely new era of warfare using electronics like nothing else did.
     
    Biak, Ricky and Otto like this.

Share This Page