No V2 what effect does it have on space flight and icbms

How much would space flight and ICBMs be delayed if there were no V2


  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
I think that had the Nazis not squandered resource in this particular form of terrorism all thoughts of other things would be delayed
 

Thande

Donor
You phrased the poll confusingly, I voted for the first option because I thought it meant "Not at all the same" rather than "Not at all - the same".

Anyway my real opinion is that it might in extreme cases prevent the development of spaceflight and ICBMs altogether and would at least put it back by decades. Your only real hope is that rockets get considered among one of the wacko ideas the US defence agencies had when they were getting loads of cash thrown at them in the 1950s and 60s (though note in OTL the US was very lukewarm on rocket development until Sputnik shook them up even with the example of the V2).

I have this horrible mental image of rockets being seen as like say fusion power is nowadays - "2010: Today the US Department of Defence demonstrated a two-foot model rocket and stated that a larger version could theoretically put a platform in a circular path around the globe to enable a considerable expansion of communications, but while the President welcomed this development it's generally thought that funding will not be forthcoming, especially as the undersea cable industry lobbyists would block it" etc.
 

Cook

Banned
Depends on what they used the resources that would have gone to the V2 on instead.

A more advanced version of the V1? Perhaps leading to greater interest in cruise missiles post war. And yes I am awhere of post ware cruise missiles, that’s why I said “greater”.

I like to think Eugene Sanger's Antipodes Bomber (Amerika Bomber) would have got greater development. Kicking off space plane research and development far earlier.
 
You phrased the poll confusingly, I voted for the first option because I thought it meant "Not at all the same" rather than "Not at all - the same".

Anyway my real opinion is that it might in extreme cases prevent the development of spaceflight and ICBMs altogether and would at least put it back by decades. Your only real hope is that rockets get considered among one of the wacko ideas the US defence agencies had when they were getting loads of cash thrown at them in the 1950s and 60s (though note in OTL the US was very lukewarm on rocket development until Sputnik shook them up even with the example of the V2).

I have this horrible mental image of rockets being seen as like say fusion power is nowadays - "2010: Today the US Department of Defence demonstrated a two-foot model rocket and stated that a larger version could theoretically put a platform in a circular path around the globe to enable a considerable expansion of communications, but while the President welcomed this development it's generally thought that funding will not be forthcoming, especially as the undersea cable industry lobbyists would block it" etc.
I dunno. Rockets were extensively used by major participants in WWII, albeit much smaller ones and their theoretical capabilities were already known. And they'll be particularly important to the USSR later on as a way to hit the USA. The Americans had bases in Japan, Turkey and Europe, as well as CVBG capable of hitting the USSR, while the soviets could only hit the USA from soviet soil. It might be delayed, but the importance of aerial reconnaissance, strategic bombardment, rocket artillery and nuclear bombs was already more than clear after WWII.
 

Cook

Banned
Anyone else see the irony of the US Military importing a lot of German Engineers and scientists who had studied and used Robert Goddard’s ideas and designs?
 
Up to 25 years. Likely less, unlikely more. First soviet space flights were launched on glorified V2s, and Von Braun designed Saturn rockets for US.
Still germans were not the only ones to develop rockets, they just did earlier breakthrough on the way to ICBMs.
As said in above post by juanml82 it is likely that Soviets would focus on rocket development anyway. After all, Korolev was transferred from Gulag to prison science labs before V2 and even V1 launched. But without V2 development sure would take longer. In worst case it may be even closed if no significant results achieved for some time. And Tupolev or someone else gets more funds to develop long range strategic bombers.
ICBMs eventually would have been developed as the idea already was there. But space programs would be completely different.

Interesting note - if no ICBMs yet in 60-s, wouldn't it make WW3 more likely to happen? It is very good chance that US could avoid retaliation strike from USSR and actually win the war. Europe would be destroyed though anyway...
 
Little, if at all. Of course, we'd likely be relying on ramjets instead of rockets. Remember, North American's Navaho ramjet cruise missile project came before the development of ICBMs. Only after it became clear that ICBMs were more promising was Navaho scaled back and cancelled. Without a V-2 to divert attention, you get a development series that goes something like V-1/Matador/Mace/Snark/Navajo and on from there.
 

Archibald

Banned
Well, the V-2 engine was the basis of the soviet RD-107/108 powering... the Soyuz rocket, which is still flying in large numbers as of today.
In the USA the V-2 engine led to the Navaho booster, then to the Thord and Atlas engines (S-3, MB-3 etc.)

So, big butterflies are coming.

On the other hand concepts of ICBM & satellites were in the air even without the V-2. Korolev, Glushko, Goddard are still there.
Big bombers are still vulnerable to SAMs after 1960, with a speed limit around mach 3 (B-52 > B-58 > B-70).
So rocket development move forward, maybe more slowly.
 
There was lots of work on small rockets - jato units and the like during WWII, also attack rockets. Bigger and bigger rockets might lead tactical ballistic missles, which might eventually lead to IRBMs and then to space launch. I think it would likely take quite a while, at minimum 10 years more than OTL, quite possible as much as 25. Probably not much more than 25.
 
Eh...less than five years, I'd think.

As Amerigo said, there were other paths being explored, and these could well have yielded space exploration by the early 1960's as in OTL.
 
Depends... there is a few different 'no V2' scenarios. For instance do the krauts do the development work then pull the plug because V1s are cheaper? Is development/production somewhat delayed, turning the V2 into Napkinwaffen with production lines ready but no missiles used in combat? Is the program not started at all/abandoned early on?

There is also the fact Germany had other ballistic missile programs (e.g. Rheinbote which saw limited use in late 1944).

I'd be inclined to say that the first two scenarios I've listed cause a only a couple of years delay until missile development kicks off to the nations who manage to obtain the experts and the missiles. The effect on space flight is harder to predict, but assuming both the US and USSR land their share of the loot then I'd *suspect* it'd only be delayed by the slightly slower start or rocket development.

The third scenario is possibly more 'interesting' and would likely result in a longer delay, I'd guess 10 years minimum.
 
I wanted to put 10 years but put 5 instead, as other people have said someone else would have gone down this route as long as there is a reasonable degree of military spending and research, early rockets may have looked a bit different but the basic idea (big rocket engine, aerodynamic shape, fire in ballistic arc to get really long range) is so sound that its inevitable as soon as the underlying technology is there and it was by the 1930's.
 
If the Nazis had put the resources wasted on the A4/V2 into the Wasserfall SAM, the V1 and the Arado and Me-262, then the Second World War might have lasted into 1946 or 1947. Big butterflies here on German jet technology, also the damage done to London by the V1.

Delay? Well, Arthur C. Clarke et al may have influenced reusable boosters, but Britain already had Isaac Lubbock's 1-ton thrust lox/petrol rocket engine. If Lippisch had stayed in Britain, then Britain could have evolved its own IRBM.

Expect 1960s to resemble the 1950s in terms of rocket and satellite development - a 10 year delay.
 

Commissar

Banned
If the Nazis had put the resources wasted on the A4/V2 into the Wasserfall SAM, the V1 and the Arado and Me-262, then the Second World War might have lasted into 1946 or 1947. Big butterflies here on German jet technology, also the damage done to London by the V1.

Wasserfall was useless. It relied on MCLOS. Now try targeting a moving target 20,000+ feet above you going at 200+ mph and dropping magnesium flares as you use a clunkly shoulder mounted director to guide the missile.

Also the Wasserfall didn't have enough of a speed/height advantage to maneuver so even if the Germans fitted radar guidance to it, most bombers would be able to dodge it unless they were on the bomb run with the Bombardier flying the plane.
 

Commissar

Banned
Interesting. And the other suggestions?

Brave:

V1, well a good terror weapon, but AI is nonexistent so it is useless as a strategic weapon. Especially when the Germans relied on targeting information from turned spies in Britain.

Arado, good recon platform and not much else.

ME 262, not enough high quality jet engines for them and requires a skill pilot to compensate for the speed when aiming. Furthermore, the Allies would just simply park P-47s way above the Bombers and dive down on the jets, killing them.
 
The more I look into it, the more it appears the V1-Navajo route is the way to go. You're not going to butterfly the jet engine away, and RATO is still going to be developed in the U.S. Combine the two, and you've got a viable long-range nuclear delivery system.
 
Consider something else, tho. As jets get faster & fly higher, the need for hi-po SAMs increases, which tends to demand higher-performance solid boosters. Doesn't this lead to big solid-fuel ICBMs sooner? Or anyhow? Especially given the desire to deliver nukes...
 
My thoughts exactly

A4/V2 showed what a mobile SSM could do, it just needed more punch at the other end to be worth the resources plowed into the launchers and missiles, which nukes provided the obvious next step in explosive power. Marry the two and you've got the ultimate terror weapon.

Without the V2 IOTL showing an accurate missile throwing a reasonable, uninterceptable payload, ICBM research gets a holiday of roughly 10-15 years, maybe longer.

The United States would've concentrated on bombers more as a strategic deterrent until rocket technology and guidance technology improve enough to make it cost-effective to go that way. Without the urge to make microelectronics work brought by the push for missiles and spacecraft, electronics development would have been a lot slower.

You might see a lot more work in guided glide bombs as standoff weapons and eventually Skybolt missiles launched from bombers in the 1970's but nowhere near the breakneck push for ever-bigger lifters for ballistic missiles (and spacecraft) as we had IOTL.

ITTL, you might have seen a lot more work on ram and scramjet technologies to speed planes up to hypersonic speeds and allow them ballistic orbital paths, allowing for spaceplane research that would have resulted in X-20's or something equivalent as both a recon "plane" and possible FOBS platform. The good news about that is that
space might only be a place we visit, but there's a ton more planes going up there in this scenario vs. a dozen launches a year.

There'd be a lot more reliance on weather balloons and so on to keep real-time surveillance going over the Soviet and US heartlands vs OTL reliance on satellites, though one might see them launch a booster rocket to get past 99% of the air resistance and a lot less gravity to fight as well.

This butterflies away the really amazingly successful unmanned probes that have taught us so much more about our neighbors in the Solar System until the 1980-2000's without the lifters developed in OTL 1960's (Titan, Soyuz, and Apollo) or Ariane a little later to get them up there.

In sum, space exploration's retarded by decades compared to OTL.
However, the infrastructure for NEO is much more advanced with many more players. We could have several space stations up there if we got serious about space planes for both military and civilian aspects.
 
Top