No German V-2

[publiusr]

As loathe as I am to admit this, Minutemen circuitry may have played a bigger role than Apollo. The smart phone I suspect owes much to cruise missile circuitry as well..tiny accelerometers needed to fly nap-of-the-Earth---something a warhead on a simpler ballistic trajectory doesn't need quite as badly.

A lot of roads got us here. The West focused on shrinking tech and making things lightweight, where the USSR went towards increasing throw-weight...culminating in one of my favorite launchers--Atlas III.

Glushko's liquid fuel engines under a balloon tank.

I like to see cross-pollination like that.

 

[GeorgeA]

US rocket technology was under development during the war at the aircraft companies, Aerojet, GE, and other places. By 1944-45 the USAAF had a number of ballistic and cruise missile programs under way, including the MX-774 ballistic missile and the MX-770 Navaho rocket-launched ramjet cruise missile. The Army Surface Forces initiated the Hermes R&D program in November of 1944, and of course the Navy had Bumblebee.

Certainly there was broad awareness of the German achievements, which were notable, but it's not accurate to say the US was out to lunch prior to Paperclip. The Germans were well ahead in mass production and systems engineering, but the US research apparatus was beginning to move quickly to catch up as the war ended. The advantage to bringing the V-2s and the von Braun team back to the US was getting operational experience with large rockets. Projects like MX-774, Hermes, and Viking benefited from Paperclip intelligence but the actual technologies involved were already being superseded by systems under development. The biggest impediment to progress was the series of postwar budget cuts that impacted so many programs and avenues of investigation.

Some references to early US rocket development:

Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, John L. Sloop (includes discussion of the state of art of rocket propulsion in the US in the 1940s)
Early US Satellite Proposals (available on JSTOR), R. Cargill Hall (discusses the Navy HATV and associated Aerojet hydrogen engine, and the RAND World-Circling Space Ship)
The Air Force and the National Guided Missile Program, 1944-1950, Max Rosenberg (overview of postwar missile development)

 

[Byeman]

A lot of roads got us here. The West focused on shrinking tech and making things lightweight, where the USSR went towards increasing throw-weight...

Wrong. The US was also increasing throw weight. Atlas, Titan I then Titan II. They also went quick reaction, lower cost and larger deployment numbers with Minuteman. Integrated circuits meant more targets could be loaded onboard.

The only bigger missile that the USSR was the R-36.

 

[Byeman]

Please provide document references as evidence for your assertions.

GEN Betts: Well, no, NASA came out of the post-Sputnik hysteria that was concerned about space, A policy decision was made that non-military space efforts would be managed by a civilian agency. NACA was there and available and the logical agency around which to build a space capability, What the Army had to contribute at that time was the Von Braun team and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, neither of which the Army wanted to give up, But again, I guess I was traitor to the Army party line because I advised my superiors that as far as I could see, the Army had no significant mission for either of those organizations.

Betts - ARPA Director, Head of Army R&D, deputy director of military applications AEC,

 

[Rule of cool]

ICBMs were not feasible until small thermonuclear (not atomic) bombs were feasible.

IIUC boosted fission bombs, in the hundreds of Kt, were the first ICBM warheads. Of course Mt warheads provide more bang for your buck but 2-300 kt on an Atlas is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[edwest4]

US rocket technology was under development during the war at the aircraft companies, Aerojet, GE, and other places. By 1944-45 the USAAF had a number of ballistic and cruise missile programs under way, including the MX-774 ballistic missile and the MX-770 Navaho rocket-launched ramjet cruise missile. The Army Surface Forces initiated the Hermes R&D program in November of 1944, and of course the Navy had Bumblebee.

Certainly there was broad awareness of the German achievements, which were notable, but it's not accurate to say the US was out to lunch prior to Paperclip. The Germans were well ahead in mass production and systems engineering, but the US research apparatus was beginning to move quickly to catch up as the war ended. The advantage to bringing the V-2s and the von Braun team back to the US was getting operational experience with large rockets. Projects like MX-774, Hermes, and Viking benefited from Paperclip intelligence but the actual technologies involved were already being superseded by systems under development. The biggest impediment to progress was the series of postwar budget cuts that impacted so many programs and avenues of investigation.

Some references to early US rocket development:

Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, John L. Sloop (includes discussion of the state of art of rocket propulsion in the US in the 1940s)
Early US Satellite Proposals (available on JSTOR), R. Cargill Hall (discusses the Navy HATV and associated Aerojet hydrogen engine, and the RAND World-Circling Space Ship)
The Air Force and the National Guided Missile Program, 1944-1950, Max Rosenberg (overview of postwar missile development)

Then under that theory, Paperclip should never had happened. The Americans, with British help, obtained 100 V-2 s and parts from Peenemünde. This before the official hand-off date to the Soviets. Von Braun and the others should have been shipped back the moment they showed American technical personnel how the rockets worked. Aside from delivering an explosive warhead, there was no operational experience to be gained.

Not mentioned so far are the Wasserfall rockets that were also shipped over.

Keep in mind that the former military head of Peenemünde, Waler Dornberger, became a consultant to Bell Aircraft.

In May, 1946, a report titled Guided Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft was released by Headquarters Air Materiel Command through T-2 Intelligence at Wright Field. The original classification was Restricted. It covers the use of the V-1, V-2, PC 1400 FX and Hs-293.

 

[TwoTribes]

Partially related to this: it was always my understanding that the turbo pump on the V-2 was the first truly modern turbopump, as we understand it today. I gather that Goddard was also working on a turbopump, but it was a small experimental job (at least the pic of the one the Smithsonian has gives that impression) when compared to the V-2’s pump. Wikipedia (in the history section of the Turbopump article) references Oberth’s 1923 Rakete zu den Planetenräumen as discussing turbopumps well before either Goddard or the German rocket program developed it. Does anyone know if Oberth actually discussed adding turbopumps to a rocket back in the 20s, or does this seem more like standard Wikipedia unreliability?

https://www.scribd.com/document/755...-von-1984-9783486747126-9783486741872#page=59
I know nothing about German (I can only use translation software). He mentioned a pump, but I'm not sure if it's used on rockets. Perhaps you can take a look?

 

[MrTopaz]

https://www.scribd.com/document/755...-von-1984-9783486747126-9783486741872#page=59
I know nothing about German (I can only use translation software). He mentioned a pump, but I'm not sure if it's used on rockets. Perhaps you can take a look?

Thank you! I'll try to see if google translate can help me parse it. My concern is that "turbopump" might not have been a term of art, so to speak, when Oberth wrote his book, and maybe figuring out if what he's describing is a turbopump or just some other pump mechanism, but somewhere to look is better than nowhere to look, so thanks again.

 

[Rule of cool]

As an aside, does anyone else think the V2 isn't the boondoggle it's made out to be? After all, it's not as if building 60-70,000 planes instead of 48,000 in 1944-45 would have won the war for Germany, or even impacted it that much given the big 3 Allies made about 240,000 planes. Its not as if Germany had fuel for them, or trained pilots either. And even if they did these extra aircraft would likely be shot down, like they were in the 1944 Baby Blitz. In contrast the V2 was a hard-to-counter way of guaranteeing a big warhead would hit London.

About the only viable alternative I imagine to the V2 programme is the jet aircraft programme, at least it's output was far more survivable in 1945.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As an aside, does anyone else think the V2 isn't the boondoggle it's made out to be? After all, it's not as if building 60-70,000 planes instead of 48,000 in 1944-45 would have won the war for Germany, or even impacted it that much given the big 3 Allies made about 240,000 planes. Its not as if Germany had fuel for them, or trained pilots either. And even if they did these extra aircraft would likely be shot down, like they were in the 1944 Baby Blitz. In contrast the V2 was a hard-to-counter way of guaranteeing a big warhead would hit London.

About the only viable alternative I imagine to the V2 programme is the jet aircraft programme, at least it's output was far more survivable in 1945.

The alternative I see to the V-2 is a better V-1. You go from the pulse jet to a small turbojet. Work on improving the guidance at the same time while keeping the overall cost per unit low.

Imagine you have a turbojet cruise missile that can fly say, 550 mph (900 kph) at 10 to 20,000 feet. That outpaces any Allied fighter of the time making it un-interceptable by aircraft while making it a very difficult AA gun target. With the Allies not having a SAM system, any missile fired that doesn't suffer some technical failure is going to hit the target.

Design it to be launched with a recoverable JATO unit or using a catapult along with air launch, and you can slam your target city pretty heavily for few losses. Maybe use the Schmidding 109-553 boosters used on Enzian or similar to get it to altitude.

If you can make such a missile at, say, 1/10th the cost of a V-2 you've got a definite winner.

That was the US idea with the Westinghouse J32. A V-1 was flying on about 750 lbs. of thrust, so you build a turbojet that matches that or does a bit better. Unlike a pulse jet, the turbojet works at altitude.

 

[BonPlan2]

It suck up the last reserve of Steel and other stuff needed for war effort.

Less steel in a V2 than in a Panver IV !

 

[Michel Van]

Less steel in a V2 than in a Panver IV !

yes that true, but it V2 got high Priority for mass production,
Next to that came needed infrastructure for construction of underground Factory called Mittelwerk.
Propellant and LOX production plants and Storage.
Also logistic for transport the V2 and V1 from Mittelwerk to west front.

next to that Mittelwerk produce Aircraft engines and Synthetic fuel.

 

[publiusr]

The only bigger missile that the USSR was the R-36.

That was a rough equivalent of the Titan II--a tad bit more potent. They had no big solids until later---and Proton without solids and Titans with them also equivalent.

 

[Byeman]

That was a rough equivalent of the Titan II--a tad bit more potent. They had no big solids until later---and Proton without solids and Titans with them also equivalent.

So, the US had LV parity starting in 1964/65 with Saturn I and Titan III. It had weapons parity earlier and even was ahead in numbers. It had better spysats and better planetary probes earlier. So, other than performing some stunts to record some firsts and having a few years lead in large LVs (which didn't really matter because the US had better performing smaller satellites), the USSR was really not the much far ahead. Especially, when the US stopped using Vanguard and Juno I/II and started using Thor Agena ,Atlas Agena and Delta, with Atlas Centaur coming a little later.

 

[pathology_doc]

The interim design, Lark, was the first successful SAM design and the first to shoot down a live target.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Do you know if there's anything publicly available on the development of Lark? Wayback Machine links, etc?

 

[edwest4]

The alternative I see to the V-2 is a better V-1. You go from the pulse jet to a small turbojet. Work on improving the guidance at the same time while keeping the overall cost per unit low.

Imagine you have a turbojet cruise missile that can fly say, 550 mph (900 kph) at 10 to 20,000 feet. That outpaces any Allied fighter of the time making it un-interceptable by aircraft while making it a very difficult AA gun target. With the Allies not having a SAM system, any missile fired that doesn't suffer some technical failure is going to hit the target.

Design it to be launched with a recoverable JATO unit or using a catapult along with air launch, and you can slam your target city pretty heavily for few losses. Maybe use the Schmidding 109-553 boosters used on Enzian or similar to get it to altitude.

If you can make such a missile at, say, 1/10th the cost of a V-2 you've got a definite winner.

That was the US idea with the Westinghouse J32. A V-1 was flying on about 750 lbs. of thrust, so you build a turbojet that matches that or does a bit better. Unlike a pulse jet, the turbojet works at altitude.

To what period turbojet do you refer to?

 

[edwest4]

yes that true, but it V2 got high Priority for mass production,
Next to that came needed infrastructure for construction of underground Factory called Mittelwerk.
Propellant and LOX production plants and Storage.
Also logistic for transport the V2 and V1 from Mittelwerk to west front.

next to that Mittelwerk produce Aircraft engines and Synthetic fuel.

I.G. Farben produced synthetic fuel and lubricants. Liquid oxygen was delivered by large, insulated rail cars. A specially designed hose was connected to a small transport vehicle for use in the field.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

yes that true, but it V2 got high Priority for mass production,
Next to that came needed infrastructure for construction of underground Factory called Mittelwerk.
Propellant and LOX production plants and Storage.
Also logistic for transport the V2 and V1 from Mittelwerk to west front.

next to that Mittelwerk produce Aircraft engines and Synthetic fuel.

A better way to look at this is that a V-2 cost about the same in RM to manufacture and fire as a Me 110 did. For that, the Germans got a weapon that could strike a target up to about 300 NM from its launch location delivering a 1000 kg payload to within a CEP of about 5 km of the aiming point--ONE TIME.

This would be the equivalent of an Me 110 doing the same thing with greater accuracy and being shot down each time after delivering its bombload.

That is essentially a very expensive weapon system delivering very poor results.

 

[Archibald]

The alternative I see to the V-2 is a better V-1. You go from the pulse jet to a small turbojet. Work on improving the guidance at the same time while keeping the overall cost per unit low.

Imagine you have a turbojet cruise missile that can fly say, 550 mph (900 kph) at 10 to 20,000 feet. That outpaces any Allied fighter of the time making it un-interceptable by aircraft while making it a very difficult AA gun target. With the Allies not having a SAM system, any missile fired that doesn't suffer some technical failure is going to hit the target.

Design it to be launched with a recoverable JATO unit or using a catapult along with air launch, and you can slam your target city pretty heavily for few losses. Maybe use the Schmidding 109-553 boosters used on Enzian or similar to get it to altitude.

If you can make such a missile at, say, 1/10th the cost of a V-2 you've got a definite winner.

That was the US idea with the Westinghouse J32. A V-1 was flying on about 750 lbs. of thrust, so you build a turbojet that matches that or does a bit better. Unlike a pulse jet, the turbojet works at altitude.

Now that's a pretty good idea ! German turbojets life expectancy sucked, but for V-1s it didn't mattered.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

To what period turbojet do you refer to?

The J32 was developed starting towards the end of 1942 and the first deliveries were in mid 1944. The primary user was the US Navy as part of Project Gorgon, to develop cruise missiles for various purposes. Westinghouse's slow development and delivery of this engine, along with rising costs on Westinghouse's part, caused development and manufacture to be cancelled in 1946.

At the time, the 9.5-inch diameter J32 represented the smallest operational jet engine in the world. Its advantage was it could be used in missiles and other smaller airframes.

The problem was the manufacturer chosen was a crap one. Had the J32 design been given to GE or Allison, they'd have quickly sorted out the issues and started production in quantity. The same thing happened in Great Britain with Whittle's engine. It was given to Rover to produce, and Rover screwed the pooch diddling around with the design and never quite getting to production. Once it was taken away from them and given to Rolls Royce, production started in short order and the engines were available in reasonable quantities.

The reason the Navy chose Westinghouse was GE and Allison were 'taken' by the USAAF and there was some inter-service rivalry going on at the time, just like in other countries.

With regard to the V-1, given the US had a flying copy of the V-1 by the fall of 1944, if the J32 were more readily available and in production, it could have been used as an alternative to the Argus pulse jet. I'd think if that were the case, the US installs the engine in the tail of the fuselage an air intake as appropriate, adding a rudder to the design. That means this modified V-1 is more aerodynamic and has roughly equal thrust at about the same weight, so it flies slightly faster.

With some additional development, it could easily break 500 mph in flight.

 

[edwest4]

The J32 was developed starting towards the end of 1942 and the first deliveries were in mid 1944. The primary user was the US Navy as part of Project Gorgon, to develop cruise missiles for various purposes. Westinghouse's slow development and delivery of this engine, along with rising costs on Westinghouse's part, caused development and manufacture to be cancelled in 1946.

At the time, the 9.5-inch diameter J32 represented the smallest operational jet engine in the world. Its advantage was it could be used in missiles and other smaller airframes.

With regard to the V-1, given the US had a flying copy of the V-1 by the fall of 1944, if the J32 were more readily available and in production, it could have been used as an alternative to the Argus pulse jet. I'd think if that were the case, the US installs the engine in the tail of the fuselage an air intake as appropriate, adding a rudder to the design. That means this modified V-1 is more aerodynamic and has roughly equal thrust at about the same weight, so it flies slightly faster.

With some additional development, it could easily break 500 mph in flight.

I see. The American V-1 copy was slated to go into production for the planned invasion of Japan.

 

[pathology_doc]

This would be the equivalent of an Me 110 doing the same thing with greater accuracy and being shot down each time after delivering its bombload.

That is essentially a very expensive weapon system delivering very poor results.

Until you factor in the human-resource availability bottleneck of pilots sufficiently skilled to fly the mission, especially if they don't survive or return from the shootdown, while the V-2 can't be shot down by any technology existing at the time of its employment as a weapon and there is no need to train a pilot.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Now that's a pretty good idea ! German turbojets life expectancy sucked, but for V-1s it didn't mattered.

All they needed was a small one. Centrifugal or axial would do.

Until you factor in the human-resource availability bottleneck of pilots sufficiently skilled to fly the mission, especially if they don't survive or return from the shootdown, while the V-2 can't be shot down by any technology existing at the time of its employment as a weapon and there is no need to train a pilot.

For the outcome achieved, essentially the equivalent of a few bomber raids with poor to horrible accuracy, the V-2 was a very expensive failure. You need nuclear weapons to make ballistic missiles a viable weapon system.

 

[Michel Van]

You need nuclear weapons to make ballistic missiles a viable weapon system.

Or nerve gas or Bioweapons, a rabbit hole Hitler refuse to go down, he know once he start that,
the Allies answer with everything they got in stockpile,
fact is Britain had plan for bombing third Reich with anthrax for this case,
while the USA had very large stockpile on mustard gas also for this...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Or nerve gas or Bioweapons, a rabbit hole Hitler refuse to go down, he know once he start that,
the Allies answer with everything they got in stockpile,
fact is Britain had plan for bombing third Reich with anthrax for this case,
while the USA had very large stockpile on mustard gas also for this...

Using chemical or biological weapons would have been less effective than conventional munitions. After the first delivery, the US and Britain would have returned ten times, or more, the same thing on Germany with greater precision.

The only viable warhead for a ballistic missile is a nuclear one.

 

[BonPlan2]

That is essentially a very expensive weapon system delivering very poor results.

poor destruction power because low accuracy, but another result was obtained : the fear in the civilian population.

 

[Rule of cool]

The alternative I see to the V-2 is a better V-1. You go from the pulse jet to a small turbojet. Work on improving the guidance at the same time while keeping the overall cost per unit low.

Imagine you have a turbojet cruise missile that can fly say, 550 mph (900 kph) at 10 to 20,000 feet. That outpaces any Allied fighter of the time making it un-interceptable by aircraft while making it a very difficult AA gun target. With the Allies not having a SAM system, any missile fired that doesn't suffer some technical failure is going to hit the target.

Design it to be launched with a recoverable JATO unit or using a catapult along with air launch, and you can slam your target city pretty heavily for few losses. Maybe use the Schmidding 109-553 boosters used on Enzian or similar to get it to altitude.

If you can make such a missile at, say, 1/10th the cost of a V-2 you've got a definite winner.

That was the US idea with the Westinghouse J32. A V-1 was flying on about 750 lbs. of thrust, so you build a turbojet that matches that or does a bit better. Unlike a pulse jet, the turbojet works at altitude.

Wouldn't such a weapon need better guidance to be effective?

 

[BonPlan2]

Wouldn't such a weapon need better guidance to be effective?

At those time it was the best possible.

 

[TwoTribes]

The Americans did not necessarily have to wait until after the war or Operation Paperclip to "learn" Germany's rocket technology. Spy, wreckage recovered from crashes in Britain or friendly nations (like Sweden), and debris retrieved by partisans from enemy territory—all provided the Allies with valuable technical details.

If we want to argue that U.S. liquid rocket engine technology was not inferior to Germany's, we should examine American liquid rocket engine technology before 1943, when the U.S. had no possibility of obtaining physical intelligence.

So, what kind of liquid rocket engine technology did the U.S. have before 1943?

The pump, Goddard did use a pump to deliver fuel, but the driving force for his pump came from the expansion of gases produced by fuel vaporization through heat absorption. Compared to the Germans' approach, this was indeed less "strong." (If you know of a better pump cycle developed in the U.S. before 1943, please let me know.)

As for the Germans, their pumps were driven by high-temperature, high-pressure gas generated from the violent chemical reaction between hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate—almost identical to how later liquid rocket engines used combustion (oxidizer + fuel) to power the pump. (After all, combustion is also a form of "violent chemical reaction.")

The Germans' pump cycle design was better suited for high-thrust liquid rocket engines.



The V2 turbopump recovered in Britain.



The V2 combustion chamber recovered in Britain.

Yes, the Americans initiated many rocket/missile programs toward the end of the war.

But they either differed from the V-2's liquid rocket engine technology path: Terrier→ Solid rocket motor, Talos & Navaho→ Ramjet, Matador & Snark→ Jet engine…

Or, even when following the liquid rocket engine approach, they lagged behind or were influenced by German technology: X-1 rocket plane→ still using a simple pressure-fed cycle, RTV-A-2 Hiroc (MX-774 B)→ derived from German technology.

From my understanding, German liquid rocket technology accelerated American technological progress by 4 to 5 years. Looking at the historical development of German rockets, their first large-scale rocket, the A3 , began development in 1935, and the A4 (the prototype of the V-2) made its first flight in 1942—a span of 7 years. Considering that the U.S. had made own advancements during WWII (such as in guidance technology), even without German influence, the Americans likely would have taken less time. Reducing that development from 7 years to 4 or 5 years seems possible.

If the Americans had not acquired German liquid rocket technology and had to start from scratch, it would have meant that the deployment of the liquid-fueled Atlas ICBM would have been delayed until 1963 or 1964. By that time, the solid-fueled Minuteman I would have already begun deployment (assuming Minuteman was unaffected and not delayed, like our timeline). The Atlas ICBM would have been obsolete by then, leading to the termination of the program. The idea of repurposing the Atlas rocket for space missions might also have been severely impacted—perhaps the legendary Atlas family would never have been born, the Atlas rocket would either have remained unremarkable or faded into obscurity.

The Titan I program would also have faced delays, leading to its rapid cancellation. However, Titan II would have continued, as it was capable of delivering larger warheads than Minuteman. The Titan rocket family would still have progressed.

As for the XB-70—no, it wouldn’t lose the "X." The best-case scenario would have been the procurement of additional test aircraft, but the chances of it entering active service were slim. Even if ICBM deployment had been delayed by five years or more, the U.S. would still have entered the ICBM era before the XB-70 was ready. The XB-70 made its first flight in 1964 and would have needed about three more years to enter service—meaning 1967. By then, even without German technology, America would have already transitioned into the ICBM age, rendering the XB-70 obsolete.

At that point, ICBMs might still have been somewhat immature, and some might have argued for procuring more XB-70s for further research. But the story of the XB-70 wouldn’t have progressed much further—its fate wouldn’t have been much different from that in our timeline.

 

[edwest4]

The Americans did not necessarily have to wait until after the war or Operation Paperclip to "learn" Germany's rocket technology. Spy, wreckage recovered from crashes in Britain or friendly nations (like Sweden), and debris retrieved by partisans from enemy territory—all provided the Allies with valuable technical details.

If we want to argue that U.S. liquid rocket engine technology was not inferior to Germany's, we should examine American liquid rocket engine technology before 1943, when the U.S. had no possibility of obtaining physical intelligence.

So, what kind of liquid rocket engine technology did the U.S. have before 1943?

The pump, Goddard did use a pump to deliver fuel, but the driving force for his pump came from the expansion of gases produced by fuel vaporization through heat absorption. Compared to the Germans' approach, this was indeed less "strong." (If you know of a better pump cycle developed in the U.S. before 1943, please let me know.)

As for the Germans, their pumps were driven by high-temperature, high-pressure gas generated from the violent chemical reaction between hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate—almost identical to how later liquid rocket engines used combustion (oxidizer + fuel) to power the pump. (After all, combustion is also a form of "violent chemical reaction.")

The Germans' pump cycle design was better suited for high-thrust liquid rocket engines.

View attachment 779729

The V2 turbopump recovered in Britain.

View attachment 779730

The V2 combustion chamber recovered in Britain.

Yes, the Americans initiated many rocket/missile programs toward the end of the war.

But they either differed from the V-2's liquid rocket engine technology path: Terrier→ Solid rocket motor, Talos & Navaho→ Ramjet, Matador & Snark→ Jet engine…

Or, even when following the liquid rocket engine approach, they lagged behind or were influenced by German technology: X-1 rocket plane→ still using a simple pressure-fed cycle, RTV-A-2 Hiroc (MX-774 B)→ derived from German technology.

From my understanding, German liquid rocket technology accelerated American technological progress by 4 to 5 years. Looking at the historical development of German rockets, their first large-scale rocket, the A3 , began development in 1935, and the A4 (the prototype of the V-2) made its first flight in 1942—a span of 7 years. Considering that the U.S. had made own advancements during WWII (such as in guidance technology), even without German influence, the Americans likely would have taken less time. Reducing that development from 7 years to 4 or 5 years seems possible.

If the Americans had not acquired German liquid rocket technology and had to start from scratch, it would have meant that the deployment of the liquid-fueled Atlas ICBM would have been delayed until 1963 or 1964. By that time, the solid-fueled Minuteman I would have already begun deployment (assuming Minuteman was unaffected and not delayed, like our timeline). The Atlas ICBM would have been obsolete by then, leading to the termination of the program. The idea of repurposing the Atlas rocket for space missions might also have been severely impacted—perhaps the legendary Atlas family would never have been born, the Atlas rocket would either have remained unremarkable or faded into obscurity.

The Titan I program would also have faced delays, leading to its rapid cancellation. However, Titan II would have continued, as it was capable of delivering larger warheads than Minuteman. The Titan rocket family would still have progressed.

As for the XB-70—no, it wouldn’t lose the "X." The best-case scenario would have been the procurement of additional test aircraft, but the chances of it entering active service were slim. Even if ICBM deployment had been delayed by five years or more, the U.S. would still have entered the ICBM era before the XB-70 was ready. The XB-70 made its first flight in 1964 and would have needed about three more years to enter service—meaning 1967. By then, even without German technology, America would have already transitioned into the ICBM age, rendering the XB-70 obsolete.

At that point, ICBMs might still have been somewhat immature, and some might have argued for procuring more XB-70s for further research. But the story of the XB-70 wouldn’t have progressed much further—its fate wouldn’t have been much different from that in our timeline.

The Americans were far behind Germany. According to posts like this, Operation Paperclip should never had happened.

 

[Byeman]

Or, even when following the liquid rocket engine approach, they lagged behind or were influenced by German technology: X-1 rocket plane→ still using a simple pressure-fed cycle, RTV-A-2 Hiroc (MX-774 B)→ derived from German technology.

no. The XLR-11 (X planes) and XLR10 (Viking) used turbopumps

 

[Rule of cool]

At those time it was the best possible.

I doubt that an autopilot and odometer was the best available guidance in 1945.

 

[TwoTribes]

no. The XLR-11 (X planes) and XLR10 (Viking) used turbopumps

XLR-11: The early versions used a simple pressure-fed cycle and were no more advanced than the German designs. The later versions adopted a pump-fed cycle.

XLR-10: Although the Viking rocket incorporated many innovations, the XLR-10 engine definitely utilized German technology. Its pump was driven by gas generated from the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide—just like the V2.

 

[TwoTribes]

Operation Paperclip should had happened—after all

The Americans were far behind Germany.

Americans need German technology.

That's my view as well. My point is Americans had already begun "learning" from German rocket technology before Operation Paperclip - not that they didn't need Operation Paperclip at all.

 

[TwoTribes]

New video by Scott Manley:

View: https://youtu.be/GFECEAp3pWU?si=D4geiNAQpvebpr6j

To see how German technology influenced American rocket technology, you can look at this

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Americans were far behind Germany. According to posts like this, Operation Paperclip should never had happened.

Really? Name what liquid fuel propellants the Germans were using that the US was unaware of.

This is the engine used in the MX 774 HIROC.

This is the engine used in the V-2

So, what does the former owe to the latter?

 

[TwoTribes]

This is the engine used in the MX 774 HIROC.

Well, no. This is the XLR-11, used for the X-1 rocket plane. The MX 774 HIROC was powered by the XLR-35.

So, what does the former owe to the latter?

The key lies in the pump, not the fuel. The Germans went even further in advancing pump technology.

Early versions of the XLR-11 used a pressure-fed cycle, a technology that's difficult to scale for high-thrust liquid rocket engines. Later versions switched to pump-fed cycles.

As for the XLR-35 in HIROC, while I don't have extensive documentation, given that HIROC drew inspiration from the V-2, I can't say the XLR-35 doesn't have German roots. (But I'm certain about one thing - HIROC's successor, the Viking, definitely employed German technology.)

But HIROC did surpass the V-2 in some aspects: for instance, the XLR-35 could vector thrust by gimbaling its four combustion chambers, which was more advanced than the V-2's control vector using graphite vanes.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, no. This is the XLR-11, used for the X-1 rocket plane. The MX 774 HIROC was powered by the XLR-35.



The key lies in the pump, not the fuel. The Germans went even further in advancing pump technology.

Early versions of the XLR-11 used a pressure-fed cycle, a technology that's difficult to scale for high-thrust liquid rocket engines. Later versions switched to pump-fed cycles.

As for the XLR-35 in HIROC, while I don't have extensive documentation, given that HIROC drew inspiration from the V-2, I can't say the XLR-35 doesn't have German roots. (But I'm certain about one thing - HIROC's successor, the Viking, definitely employed German technology.)

But HIROC did surpass the V-2 in some aspects: for instance, the XLR-35 could vector thrust by gimbaling its four combustion chambers, which was more advanced than the V-2's control vector using graphite vanes.

My point was, and is, the US had extant liquid fuel rocket engine technology in 1945 prior to obtaining German tech in that field. The Germans went further at that point because they saw a need to where the US didn't push it because they saw no benefit from developing large liquid fuel rocket engines.

 

[TwoTribes]

My point was, and is, the US had extant liquid fuel rocket engine technology in 1945 prior to obtaining German tech in that field.

I think so too. I do not deny that the United States had the ability to independently manufacture liquid rockets before 1945. But

The Americans were far behind Germany.

He's right. Maybe "far behind" is an overstatement. But the United States' liquid rocket engine technology is indeed "little far" behind Germany's. The pump is crucial, and the Americans aren't doing it well.

the V1 and 2 were simply cheap, available systems that could be expended in testing to virtually no end. That made them useful for that purpose, but little was actually done with them beyond that. Their designs and technology were quickly eclipsed and by 1947 both were really obsolescent if not obsolete.

No. The V2 rocket may have been obsolete by 1947. However, the design and technology associated with the V2 were not outdated at that time. The Redstone rocket, whose engine technology was derived from the V2 and also used hydrogen peroxide decomposition to drive its turbopump, had its final launch in 1967. Moreover, the technical concept of using a “gas generator” to drive turbopumps remains in use to this day.

I don’t mean to deny the history or capability of the U.S. in independently developing liquid-fuel rockets. But what I want to say is that before the end of World War II, American liquid rocket engine technology truly behind Germany’s, and learning from German technology greatly benefited the U.S. .

 

[TwoTribes]

The Germans went further at that point because they saw a need to where the US didn't push it because they saw no benefit from developing large liquid fuel rocket engines.

Well, long-term vision is also part of technical level. However, there are of course other factors that affect the development of liquid rockets.