Why didn't we use them? (After area bombing was approved as a tactic for Bomber Command). I'm loathe to make the pun about rocket science, but they weren't that complex. And we much have recovered a few duds to inspect.
An interesting thought. Maybe no-one on our side thought of it! But we (and the Americans) put a huge amount of effort into heavy manned bombers. The Germans didn't; and with their special weapons they were trying to be too clever and win the war the easy way. In the end, our tactics were right. The V1s and V2s were terror weapons not war winners. What they did to London was bad enough, but nothing like what we were able to do to Berlin. And although area bombing continued to be a part of Allied policy to the end, increasingly we were able to use Allied bombers to attack point specific targets such as factories, railway yards etc. The only good thing about V1s (from the users point of view) is that they caused a lot less casulties to the users than the heavy bomber. But that is not much comfort if you are losing the war.
Actually there were attempts to produce Allied varients of the V1 but the war ended before they could be used Republic-Ford JB-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.mace-b.com/38TMW/Missiles/History.htm http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA162646&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf One of the key failures of the V1 wasn't in the weapon itself but rather the strategy of their use - if they had been used against the Normandy beaches as the military want, as oppossed to Hitler's demands that theyt target London, then they would have been a lot more militarily significant
