So, do you have a better rocket engine than the V-2's?
The US had rocket engines. They didn't have a need for one as large as that on a V-2 so they didn't develop one. You still can't grasp that difference.
Alright, the U.S. didn’t need ballistic missiles—it needed AAMs and SAMs. Surely that counts as "America chose to do something, America was capable of doing something," right? So in 1945, for the AAM and SAM projects that the U.S. both had the capability and the will to pursue—did they advance further than the Germans?
By 1945 the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) was pulling ahead of Germany in SAM and AAM development. Had the war continued, by 1946 that lead would have been massive.
First, the US had far, far better guidance systems and technologies to use in guidance systems than the Germans did. This is the most important part of those systems. Any reasonable missile will work so long as you have a good guidance system. On the other hand, the best missile with a crap guidance system is worthless.
The US had SCR 584, the microwave radar that was able to lock onto a target and automatically track it. That was coupled to a fire control computer that could turn the track into a firing solution all done automatically with just operator supervision. The Germans had nothing close to it.
Bell labs had just discovered how to build a monopulse radar, a huge step forward as these were difficult to jam compared to conical scan radars in use. Their first set was on a modified SCR 525.
The US was well ahead of Germany in television technology and was actively using it for guidance of drones and glide bombs at a time when Germany was still just experimenting with such a system using inferior television components.
The US led in using FM radio technology.
The X-4 was a joke as AAM's go. Even the Germans admitted that MCLOS wasn't going to work for guidance and that the missile using such a system couldn't be fitted to and operated by a single-seat fighter plane.
The USAAF had the JB-3 in testing mostly to find the best aerodynamic configuration along with some control options at the time. This was followed by the Ryan Firebird. Hughes Aircraft was looking at the next generation missile after the JB-3 dubbed "Dragonfly" at the time. This eventually became the AIM 4 Falcon.
Little Joe was on par with German subsonic SAMs like Enzian or Schmetterling. Lark was from the outset a better design than any subsonic missile that Germany designed. The British Brakemine was on par with those German missiles too and the British did manage to operate it was beam rider, something the Germans never got to the point of doing with any of their systems.
Nike, and Bumblebee were on a whole different level from where Germany was even in 1945. These systems were far better thought out and being more carefully designed
as systems than with the Germans who were focused on missile development while only giving passing thought to a guidance system lashed up from mostly, if not entirely, existing bits of electronics.
In 1945, they were not yet mature engines. Like I said.
So?
Did the Americans have a more mature surface-to-air missile program than theirs (Germany's) by then?
Another trivial objection on your part.
Were those fancy guidance methods of theirs even mature or viable by 1945?
The US ones were far more mature and better than anything the Germans had in 1945.
These systems accomplished the missions assigned to them by the German high command. Therefore, they were not ineffective.
They were marginal but accepted because the Germans were desperate. The Allies weren't.
If the U.S. didn't need missiles, why did it have so many missile programs? If America truly didn't need them, then its investment of resources and talent must have been less than Germany's—which did need missiles. This naturally led to Germany's rocket technology surpassing America's. Isn't this obvious?
They saw a future need and were addressing the problem in a timely fashion, something the Germans didn't do. Missiles became a subject for development only when it was apparent that what was in service was no longer cutting the mustard so-to-speak.
So they were still guided bombs after all.
Gargoyle was a powered missile based in part on Pelican and Bat.
You criticize me for unfairly comparing postwar America to wartime Germany, yet you comfortably pit mature 1950s technology against Germany's wartime technology.
I also pit wartime Allied technology against German and the Germans come up short in most fields.
If you want to prove that American rocket (or missile) technology was superior to Germany’s, you’ll need to provide projects that actually existed in 1945.
I have. You just argue in return that because the US or British didn't deploy that technology operationally it somehow was inferior.
Was ramjet SAM technology truly advanced? Are there still ramjet SAMs in service today? Liquid-rocket SAMs and solid-rocket SAMs have far longer service lives than ramjet SAMs ever did.
Yes, ramjets were that advanced. In fact, I'm surprised the Germans didn't bother to develop a ramjet missile as it would have been superior to anything they actually did develop.
At the time (1945 to about 1960) ramjets offered the best solution to a long-range SAM. As solid fuel technology advanced, it caught up and overtook ramjets. Liquid fuel rocket SAMS were limited pretty much to first generation missiles. Navies rejected them out of hand due to the inherent dangers they posed with their fuel aboard ship. By the second generation of SAM's everybody was going to solid fuels both for ease of handling and because these were now totally outperforming liquid fuels in that application.
The MX 774 C "Manhattan," demonstrated that some still recognized the potential of ballistic missiles for long-range nuclear capabilities at the time. Soviet jet aircraft and radar systems were only going to become more numerous and advanced (as indeed they did). Investing in ballistic missiles in 1945 was not at all unreasonable.
The US recognized that delivery of a nuclear weapon by a standoff missile, be it air launched, a ground launched cruise missile, or a ballistic missile was desirable and that development should go forward on all three until it became clear which was the superior means. The ground launched cruise missile lost out in that while air launched and ballistic missiles were desirable.
In 1945, everybody saw the bomber as the most serious threat and the expected means for nuclear bomb delivery. With jet bombers, AA guns became all but totally worthless as these could fly higher and faster to a point where an AA gun either took on absurd size and cost or was completely ineffective against them. Thus, the need for a SAM.
