German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[econ21]

Here's some data on WW2 tanks costs:

http://www.panzerworld.net/prices.html

And on the Stug:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:z...tug+cost&hl=en

My cursory reading is that it is just the Tiger that was excessively expensive. The Panther looks like a good buy, while the lower Stug does not seem worth losing the turret.

I'm not sure if we can trust the exchange rates, but if we can, the Sherman also does not seem that much cheaper than the Panther either.

So basically there is not much of a quantity-quality trade-off excluding the Tiger.

[Franconicus]

Great link
Yes, I will buy Panthers too!

[Kraxis]

Well, what was the conversionrate to $? Also if I'm not mistaken Germany was poorer, meaning a generally lower cost of everything.

But yeah the Panther certainly does look good on the price. And the Panzer IV quiet bad comparably. Add some 20000 R.marks and you will more or less get the price of the fully loaded Panther.

But I was surprised at the high cost of Kar 98k and MP40, while the MP44 (Stg44) is quite low. It has always been heralded as revolutionary and COSTLY! But it is hardly more expensive than the MP40 which was considered cheap.

[econ21]

While the exchange rate between USD and Reichmark changed during the war, the level was around USD 0.4-0.5 for one Reichmark.

But it could be really hard to compare US and German costs. You could look at manhours. But the US probably were probably better at reducing labour input - more automation etc. I read that each year of the war, the labour cost of producing liberty ships halved - the Americans learnt how to organise production much more efficiently over time.

[CBR]

Well the Stug is around 80% cost of a Panzer III and has same gun as an IV plus lower signature which makes it better in defensive operations so I wouldnt say it wasnt worth it.

Edit: oh and remember Panther cost is without weapon. The Tiger cost 50K more fully equipped so that could be maybe 40K extra on the Panther.


CBR

[Kraxis]

Well the Stug is around 80% cost of a Panzer III and has same gun as an IV plus lower signature which makes it better in defensive operations so I wouldnt say it wasnt worth it.

Edit: oh and remember Panther cost is without weapon. The Tiger cost 50K more fully equipped so that could be maybe 40K extra on the Panther.


CBR

Agreed on the StuG.

But the Tiger costed 299,000 compared to the 117,000 of the weaponless Panther. Now a Panther had a 7,5 cm Kw.K.42 L/70 costing 12,000 and two MG34 costing 327. Add to that various other stuff and I will say that 20,000 is a fair, and perhaps even too high figure.
The Tiger gun is not listed, but so isn't the radio. But if we look at the 88mm L71, then we can perhaps glean how much the L53 costed. I doubt that it would be much cheaper given it was the first generation convertion from the AA piece (it wasn't as effective yet), while the L71 was a perfected and designed weapon for the Tiger II.

[CBR]

Well one thing is the actual gun another thing is the work spent on adding it to the turret etc. Thats not gonna be a simple thing and will cost some manhours. Look at the cost for III and IV and the radio can not have been that expensive.


CBR

[DemonArchangel]

HESH cannot be delayed due to its very mechanism of operation (It has to flatten out against what it hits), if the HESH beats through, then it would just hit an inside wall, or maybe simply go all the way through and fail to flatten out. HESH could potentially be delayed by a proxy fuse inside the shell though, althouhg you're better off just using HE or HEAT for that purpose. Also, not all future wars will be in places where there is no armored presence, or no structures of extreme strength (i'd keep sabots around, just so I can penetrate the armor of heavily armored AT pillboxes or very heavily reinforced houses.)

[English assassin]

re the costs, this is relevant if money is the limiting factor in production. If something else is the limiting factor the costs won't help us in the quality vs quantity issue. SA hints at this in his reference to automation (eg production line techniques) If a Panther requires a large input from skilled craftsmen to make, and they are in short supply, whereas a Sherman can be assembed with semi-skilled labour, then you are going to get more Shermans than Panthers. Or, if steel is the limiting factor, a 30 ton Sherman is going to be easier to produce than a 60 ton Tiger.

Interesting figures though. It shows in cost terms at least there's no reason to suppose a bad tamk is cheaper than a good one (the fact that we think it might be is our war game prejudices coming out I suspect...)

[Kraxis]

HESH cannot be delayed due to its very mechanism of operation (It has to flatten out against what it hits), if the HESH beats through, then it would just hit an inside wall, or maybe simply go all the way through and fail to flatten out. HESH could potentially be delayed by a proxy fuse inside the shell though, althouhg you're better off just using HE or HEAT for that purpose. Also, not all future wars will be in places where there is no armored presence, or no structures of extreme strength (i'd keep sabots around, just so I can penetrate the armor of heavily armored AT pillboxes or very heavily reinforced houses.)

Fair enough...

Of course the HE would be the best weapon against infantry in the open (though in protected positions) and in buildings. The fact that artillery caused the majority of all casualties in WWII makes a good cause for that.
But my point was for the rounds actually made for the Rheinmetall 120mm gun on the M1A1, and I have heard about the HESH being made for the gun, so I assumed that the American army had some of them too. Haven't heard about HE though.
And I was talking purely from an Iraq-case. How many tanks and bunkers are left in the hand of what can be termed as enemy forces? In Iraq there is no need for the Sabot, so again I assumed that they were perhaps being swapped for the HESH, since it is better than it against infantry and buildings.