Question: Could an ICBM be developed alongside the A-Bomb during WWII?

Just a thought that struck me while going through Amerigo Vespucci's TL - could the US have afforded two simultaneous megaprojects - making the A-Bomb and creating an ICBM (or at least a more powerful version of V2) - during WWII?

Was there political support, military support, the necessary scientific and engineering knowledge (for missile development, we know they had what they needed for the A-Bomb), and most importantly the money for two such grand endeavors?
 
No. The V2 was a major technological feat in itself, the very state of the art a the time. Perhaps Little Boy and Fat Man were a touch conservative in their design but I'd say they were pretty much state of the art at the time. The two don't go together.
 
IIRC the B-29 project cost as much as the Manhattan project. So if they gave up the B-29 they could have done two projects the size of Manhattan.

Could they have produced an ICBM? Good question. I have been rather unconvinced by that WWII ICBM TL, and have quit following it in detail.

A V-2 equivalent? Sure, no problem. An A-10 equivalent that could carry a 1 tonne payload IRBM/short ICBM distances? Probably. Something that could carry a 20tonne payload from the US to Berlin, say. I really really doubt it.
 
IMHO, I don't know if you could get both projects done before the war ended ... even in my TL, I was stretching things to get it done by August 1945. It's definitely improbable, but not impossible, I think.
 
I think it's not so much the ICBM itself that is unlikely, but rather a guidance system. There's no particular reason why with a Manhattan level investment, which the U.S. had plenty of, building a missile that could get from Newfoundland to Berlin would be impossible. A missile that could carry a 10000 pound bomb is less likely, but I wouldn't want to completely rule it out. The problem is that before transistors, anything resembly accuracy is going to be near impossible. The V-2 in practice had a CEP of 12 km, over a tiny fraction of the distance. Scaling that out, an ICBM can expect a CEP of 100 km or more, and that's just worthless, even with nukes.
 
Interesting question...

The issue of guidance is an essential one (engine technology is another, and materials technology still another), the real issue would be a political/institutional one. The US had a large and aggressive program of developing various rocket weapons, but when it came to anything that would compete with manned aircraft (i.e. bombers) the resistance from the AAC would have been a deal-killer. The AAC saw the war as their road to an independent service, and would have fought tooth and nail against anything that might imperil that... Certainly ICBMs (or IRBMs, far more likely...though still very unlikely) would have been a very big problem for a bomber-first mindset. Given the position of the AAC/USAF following the war, where a bombers first mentality predominated well into the 1950s, I think it is unlikely that this could have been different in any concievable ATL.

The barriers of physics can be overcome, but bureaucracies are far tougher things to transcend...
 
An addendum...

Now the Brits might have been able to do it from an institutional perspective (the RAF was already independent, and might have been willing to pursue the technology), but the resources were not even close to being there....
 
(engine technology is another, and materials technology still another)

At least both of those were in fact solved OTL during the time period in question, and by the Germans who were considerably weaker in both. Guidance on the other hand, wasn't solved until the late 50s, and even those missiles had CEPs only really acceptable with Megaton range hydrogen warheads.

Given the position of the AAC/USAF following the war, where a bombers first mentality predominated well into the 1950s, I think it is unlikely that this could have been different in any concievable ATL.

I remember reading this interview with General Curtis LeMay where he completely rejects that SAC under his command ever impeded missile development. In fact, he claims that he personally and the Airforce in general pushed strongly for ICBM development and were happy at the prospect of rendering themselves (as in the SAC bomber crowd) obsolete. (the way he put it was that he could finally retire and go play golf) I do detect a possibility of self-serving bias there.:D
 
Well, would YOU rather be flying a B-36 against the Red Air Force, when you could let a computer do all the work and play golf at home?
 
Given the technology level concerining guidance systems, I'd say it'd be impracticable. You aim for Berlin and end up hitting Dresden instead.
 
Top