Sensible thesis -- but that 'short period' could have been
adequate for swinging the theatre need of the US nukes
from the Pacific to Europe.

And it wasn't just engineering talent and hi-tech
manufacture, it was stuff like fuel production
diverted to the V-programs.



wrote in message
ups.com...

Rand Simberg wrote:
snip

The issue wasn't the cost of the vehicles, but the opportunity cost of
all the engineers who had developed them, who might otherwise have
been doing something useful, like building a long-range bomber.

I am surprised at that opinion. Given Allied air superiority I am
skeptical that a long range bomber would have been effective for the
Germans. Even with air superiority the Allies often had daunting losses
in their air raids until the war was almost over. Further I had the
impression that the development and production of the B29 required
American resources comparable to the development of nuclear weapons,
i.e., more than the Germans devoted to the V2.

An effective counter to Allied air superiority might have been useful,
e.g. a jet design that wass optimized as a fighhter, and not a fighter
bomber combination. But given the large Allied jet production rates by
the end of the war, even such a ddesign would have had a significant
impact for only a short period.