To use an extreme example, the tiger tank was absolute rubbish compared to the Sherman. The US built 20 to 1 and though they may have had individual superiority in terms of an actual battle weapon, the Sherman wiped, the tiger clean.
Obviously you can have one thing thhe cost a lot or you can have many things that cost less. No, the tiger versus Sherman is an extreme example, but I'm pretty sure that there is a good application of this principle in terms of what occurred in World war II airplanes.
So we know the Lancaster was cheaper to produce and maintain than the Halifax in fact quite by a deal and that's case closed.
But we also have the case of the p47 versus the p51. Now we do know that the p47 cost twice as much. But just in the same way as you have the tiger tank being a more survivable machined the P47 was.
Now is this a big thing in the b24 B17 debate? I think it might be because I feel that the B24 was a much cheaper design to produce.
The Fw190 vs Me109 being another. Was the crappy undercarriage worth it for ease of manufacturing.
What do other members think?
Obviously you can have one thing thhe cost a lot or you can have many things that cost less. No, the tiger versus Sherman is an extreme example, but I'm pretty sure that there is a good application of this principle in terms of what occurred in World war II airplanes.
So we know the Lancaster was cheaper to produce and maintain than the Halifax in fact quite by a deal and that's case closed.
But we also have the case of the p47 versus the p51. Now we do know that the p47 cost twice as much. But just in the same way as you have the tiger tank being a more survivable machined the P47 was.
Now is this a big thing in the b24 B17 debate? I think it might be because I feel that the B24 was a much cheaper design to produce.
The Fw190 vs Me109 being another. Was the crappy undercarriage worth it for ease of manufacturing.
What do other members think?