Germany had to try and find some experimental uberweapon to save the day against the B-17s and Lancasters the Allies were producing by the hundred. The German economy was too small to give any hope of matching the Allies directly. Even if Germany had defeated Russia, they probably wouldn't have been able to integrate its resources well enough to expand production enough. So they had to search for new whizz-bangs and hope that one would work. The Allies had the luxury of not needing to do that, they had enough production capacity to defeat Germany with proven and evolutionary designs, if the Manhattan Project wouldn't end the war first.

German physicists presented the idea of an atom bomb to the armaments leaders in 1942, including Albert Speer. They were impressed, but turned the project down as it would take too long to complete.

Your point being? What did you expect? One single country winning against the whole world?

The manhattan project, amongst some others, was a shame for the military as it was mainly aimed at the slaughter of civillians. Being German myself I'm glad that Hitler didn't invest too much in the research of atomic or chemical weapons, unlike the allieds. Can you imagine V1's being used to propel atomic or chemical weapons? I would rather not imagine that. These "weapons" are no weapons, they are tools of plain murder, like the concentration camps were.

Further no one said that the experimental planes performed extremely well. Some products did perform exeptionally well, especially tanks (king tiger etc.) and also a number of planes. The problem was, like you mentioned, production rate and at the later phase of the war also material quality as well as lack of soldiers skilled and fit enough to put them to use.

But then again, some weird experiments existed, some of these with low success. I don't think it'd be bad to include them in the game but I think the developers should not invest a lot of time into that. I guess it'd be better to have good modding tools so that the community can up with planes on it's own.

No, you are wrong. The atomic bomb was not aimed at killing civilians. The Manhattan project was aimed directly at ending the war in Europe. The bombs weren't to kill civilians just for for fun and vengeance, they were to slap Hitler into surrendering and ending the wider loss of life that he had sole responsibility for starting.

I've said it before, but it was not noticed. The bombs are not like the concentration camps. Bombing is a weapon of war, a tragic and terrible one, but with the purpose of crippling the enemy state until it can't fight. The purpose is not to kill civilians, but that is an unavoidable consequence of bombing the places where they live and work. The concentration camps were built with the purpose of killing civilians. Some were siphoned off and used as expendable labour, but only because the German economy was desperately short of - well, everything actually, including labour. They are very different things. Both involved the deaths of civilians. But it is the byproduct of bombing and the purpose of the camps. It is not the same.

No Dozer,

the bombing of civilians is a war crime!
It really doesn't matter is they are "collateral damage" or attacked directly.
In our perfect hindsight we know how militarily meaningless 95% of the bombing were.
What brought germany to the knees in the end, regarding to bombing, was the destruction of the refineries and transport ways.
I.e. the fighter production was at its peak at 44-45, the panzer production had its peak at 44.
The night bombing by the raf was a pure terror weapon as not the industrial concentrations but the city centers were targeted.
Dresden, i.e. is not different from hiroshima or nagasaki, except it took longer, was even less a military target and the longevity of damage.

So...was Churchill a war criminal then?

If you take international law as it stood at the time, there might be a case to suggest this. Given Churchill's precipitate attempts to distance himself from the 'area bombing campaign' after the war, one might question whether he thought so himself.

The question is rather moot anyway. He's dead. Not much chance of bringing him to court. I can think of one or two more recent politicians that it might be worth looking at though...

they are both meant to get rid of a lot of people at concentrated places in a short time. Atomic bombs weren´t made to kill tanks or bridges, theyre meant for cities full of civilians why else would mankind invent such a weapon? We had weapons to destroy all the other except for whole cities in 1 blow, the A bomb was of course meant to do this, because it is useless against any other target, would you nuke a tank? or perhaps a key bridge? of course not. That would be a waste of the entire project and very expensive as well, and a regular bomb would do the job as well and with the same effect rendering the target either destoyed or heavily damaged, making it unfit to fullfill its task.

Now back on topic, I agree that they should not include these prototype fighters and bombers into the game, rather focus on historical planes ( and thats a very very lot of planes) and of course the most important, Overall Gameplay. Making it enjoyable not only the first week you play the game but also afterwards.

Correct.


Why are there nuclear warheads for artillery shells and torpedoes?

On the subject of War Crimes.

There are obvious ones, mass executions being a good example. Then it gets murky really fast, Area bombing isn't considered a war crime despite it being indescriminate it's also 'indirect'. I don't think Hirosima was a war crime either. It makes no difference what label you give to it, it was still a low point in history.

War crimes are something we invented so that we could execute some top brass and government types after we'd beaten them. However much the UN try to sanitise war by applying rules when it comes down to it it's all criminal. You just need to make sure you win because it's also highly subjective.

On the subject of Little Boy and Fat man.

If you want a generic A-bomb included in the game then fine, if you get off on dropping nukes then who am I to object to that?

But, if you want Little Boy and Fat man in the game then I say no way. They are too specific to be included in a form of entertainment.

Nuclear artillery shells are intended as last ditch weapons when you are in a situation where sacrificing your own troops, civilians or tracts of land (anything bombed will be largely be unuseable for a good while) is a thinkable strategy. In other words, it is for use on your own territory.

Nuclear torpedos are either intended as "land torpedoes" (the Soviet T-15, where you basically substitute the missile or long range bomber for a submarine), or as anti-submarine torpedoes (the ASTOR) to use on nuclear subs that you would otherwise have no chance of taking out. The first is just a marine version of a Hiroshima-type bomb, the other is a first strike weapon, to stop the enemy submarine from raining death on your own country. Neither are very practical, you are likely to loose whatever vessel is launching it.

There has been some movement to try to produce small, "tactical" nuclear warheads. Bush was arguing for a nuclear "bunker-buster". So far, the technical problem is to make nuclear weapons small enough to not be an city size destruction area weapon. That nuclear artillery shells and torpedoes exist does not mean they are a good idea. Cold war deterrent logic can make anyones head spin.