It is relevant. We can use successful SAM systems that were developed through the mid 50's as a comparison, along with R&D results from 1946 on.
Wasserfall was very probably the least successful design of a SAM Germany made. The potentially most successful would have been Rheintocter and Enzian. The Hs 117 Schmetterling would have been acceptable as a low to medium altitude SAM. In a word, Wasserfall as a design, sucked.2 To produce 5000 Wasserfall SAMs per month (only 5000 ) 14000 workers would be needed and more than 1 million hours to teach them how to produce these missiles . And 5000 would be totally insufficient : it would mean that only 170 missiles could be fired every day .And given that these missiles had to defend AND the German cities AND the plants of the synthetic oil industry AND the other armament plants (tanks, artillery, ...) AND the air fields of the LW AND the railway stations AND the trains (every day there were thousands of trains driving through Germany ) it is obvious that the use of the SAMs would change nothing, unless Germany could produce every day not 5000 SAMs, but 500000 ,what it could not do .
Given all three of the most likely successful designs used extensive wood components and required a minimum of metal working, making them wouldn't have been much of a challenge. The airframes are simple to build and existing craftsmen had little difficulty making hundreds of prototypes for testing between the various designs.
Producing 1000 + a month would have taken a fraction of the materials and manpower that guns and shell production required. Hell, industry could have simply pushed men working to make the V-1 and 2 into SAM production.
If the Germans were able to fire 170 missiles a day at targets, even at 5% hit rates, they'd be shooting down 8 to 10 planes a day. That puts all of German flak to shame.
SAMs that the Germans were developing in 1944 were at least marginally viable. The big problem was the fire control system for them, not the missiles themselves.3 The fact that TODAY (80 years after the air attacks ) no one is still using flak guns against aircraft,does not mean that the use of SAMs would 80 years ago be successful .
Like flak did a reasonable job of protecting them.4 You know how many train stations had to be defended against allied air attacks ?
Okay, I won't dispute that. That's about 1800 sorties a day. If a widely deployed SAM system with a 3% probability of success per firing, it would take down 54 planes a day out of that sortie rate. Even a 1% success rate has 18 per day or 558 planes for the month.5 In January 1945 there were 56000 Allied flights above Germany :the LW committed 591 aircraft who shot 73 allied aircraft,127 were shot by the Flak,the LW lost 152 aircraft .
About 7% losses is sufficient to force a reassessment of tactics as neither the US or British can keep up with that daily loss rate.How big should be the allied losses to hurt them/to stop the air attacks ?
The whole of the daily Allied air campaign for the time period you mentioned was about 1800 sorties by something like 2500 aircraft total (including those down for repairs, etc.). If SAMs could take down just 18 per day from a widely deployed set of SAM batteries--say 200 total--it would be unsustainable.Let's take 10 % ,or 5600 aircraft .How many SAMs would be needed to do this .
The workers necessary were already available. The problem was manufacturing the necessary tubes and other electronics to support them.6 Not only would the training of the workers take a lot of time, which the Germans did not have, but the men who would fire the SAMs would also need a lot of time .
Conclusion: You have no idea what you're talking about. Flak was not going to stop the Allied air offensive by itself. The SAM systems the Germans were developing had potential but were let down by several issues:7 Conclusion :
the production/ use of SAMs would need a lot of time which Germany did not have
this production/ use would demand additional raw materials and man power which Germany could not afford
there is no proof that this use would make the situation better for the Germans .
as Michael Neufield said :the wonder weapons did not come too late, but too early .
It would take Germany an additional 20 years to be able to do what US and the USSR could do and did in less than 10 years .
The only wonder weapon was the A Bomb. And only the US had the possibility to produce it, and to use it .
* Lack of a sufficiently advanced and sized electronics industry.
* A lack of good solid rocket fuels beyond, by 1943, badly dated diglycol (double base smokeless powder)
* Lack of a focused program rather than relying on aircraft manufacturers to make the missiles while not really coordinating with the electronics industry to produce a guidance system.
* An internal command problem where the Luftwaffe's leadership didn't recognize the potential of these systems and then dismissed them because they didn't understand the technology.