Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Fw190 vs Me109 being another. Was the crappy undercarriage worth it for ease of manufacturing.
Surely that's just an example of grift here!Many times, a much more expensive piece of hardware was actually less capable than the less expensive counterpart. Like the Ki 45 when compared with Zero (yes, Zero was IJN's piece of kit, but still). Bf 110 was probably more expensive than the Fw 187, but the 110 was preferred, even if the 187 was a much better performer
Date | Model | Airframe | Engines(s) | Propeller(s) | GFE | Ordnance | Communications | Total | Notes |
28-Feb-43 | P-47 | $ 47,796 | $ 22,608 | $ 5,975 | $ 5,651 | $ 2,527 | $ 3,295 | $ 87,852 | Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts |
31-Jul-44 | P-47 | $ 61,699 | $ 24,313 | $ 6,922 | $ 5,767 | $ 3,504 | $ 3,303 | $ 105,508 | Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date |
31-Aug-44 | P-47 | $ 55,783 | $ 23,852 | $ 6,960 | $ 5,357 | $ 3,506 | $ 2,948 | $ 98,406 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
30-Nov-44 | P-47 | $ 49,420 | $ 22,608 | $ 5,257 | $ 5,210 | $ 3,506 | $ 3,295 | $ 89,296 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
28-Feb-43 | P-51 | $ 23,583 | $ 17,558 | $ 3,740 | $ 2,649 | $ 1,905 | $ 2,780 | $ 52,215 | Merlin Versions. Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts |
31-Jul-44 | P-51 | $ 28,984 | $ 17,328 | $ 4,887 | $ 2,322 | $ 2,493 | $ 2,830 | $ 58,844 | Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date |
31-Aug-44 | P-51 | $ 27,889 | $ 17,545 | $ 4,391 | $ 2,236 | $ 2,574 | $ 2,780 | $ 57,415 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
30-Nov-44 | P-51 | $ 25,795 | $ 17,558 | $ 2,555 | $ 2,234 | $ 2,559 | $ 2,780 | $ 53,481 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
28-Feb-43 | B-17 | $ 111,443 | $ 34,287 | $ 3,400 | $ 45,606 | $ 4,595 | $ 9,040 | $ 208,371 | Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts |
31-Jul-44 | B-17 | $ 157,484 | $ 37,480 | $ 11,755 | $ 48,939 | $ 5,999 | $ 10,305 | $ 271,962 | Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date |
31-Aug-44 | B-17 | $ 129,150 | $ 35,521 | $ 11,247 | $ 47,425 | $ 5,966 | $ 9,040 | $ 238,349 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
30-Nov-44 | B-17 | $ 125,464 | $ 34,875 | $ 6,487 | $ 46,413 | $ 5,686 | $ 9,040 | $ 227,965 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
28-Feb-43 | B-24 | $ 115,338 | $ 32,659 | $ 4,220 | $ 49,781 | $ 3,205 | $ 8,474 | $ 213,677 | Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts |
31-Jul-44 | B-24 | $ 169,452 | $ 36,539 | $ 12,899 | $ 49,034 | $ 4,726 | $ 9,752 | $ 282,402 | Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date |
31-Aug-44 | B-24 | $ 138,585 | $ 33,363 | $ 13,004 | $ 47,956 | $ 4,520 | $ 8,474 | $ 245,902 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
30-Nov-44 | B-24 | $ 114,951 | $ 34,497 | $ 8,663 | $ 48,288 | $ 4,505 | $ 8,474 | $ 219,378 | Costs based on uncompleted contracts |
Model | 1939-41 | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 |
B-17 | $301,221 | $258,949 | n/a | $204,370 | $187,742 |
B-24 | $379,162 | $304,391 | n/a | $215,516 | |
P-47 | $113,246 | $105,594 | $104,258 | $85,578 | $83,001 |
P-51 | n/a | $58,698 | $58,824 | $51,572 | $50,985 |
To be fair, you could not slung a torpedo under a Spitfire or Hurricane, neither equip them with a radar......British saw that once the Hurricane and Spitfire can be outfitted with cannons, they can do without Whirlwind; however, they were still paying for Beaufighter (granted, it offered both great firepower and long range, while Whirlwind was a short range fighter). ...
Obviously you can have one thing thhe cost a lot or you can have many things that cost less.
False equivalency.o use an extreme example, the tiger tank was absolute rubbish compared to the Sherman.
It was not just more survivable, although that took quite a while to prove, and the proof was after many of the contracts were issued. Curtiss flubbed their P-47 production effort but the factories tooled up (or constructed from bare plots of ground) were started around two years before the planes established much in way of combat records. Once you had millions invested in infrastructure and tens of thousands of workers trained and housed in certain areas switching production was not easy.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.
Not with that attitudeTo be fair, you could not slung a torpedo under a Spitfire or Hurricane, neither equip them with a radar...
True but you have to reach the required quantity.The Soviet saying comes to mind: quantity has a quality all its own.
The Fw190 vs Me109 being another. Was the crappy undercarriage worth it for ease of manufacturing.
An elderly German man and a little German boy were watching a US Army column go through their village. Army MPs lined the streets to keep the German civilians from being run over.Your crappy tanks are really crappy because they didn't do the job.
Could and should are not the same thingNot with that attitude
A handful Hurricanes were outfitted with radar for night fighting job, while Spitfire might've possibly mimic the Fiat G.55S and carry a torpedo.
Granted, we'd want two-engined A/C to be a night fighter and/or to be a torpedo bomber.
Thanks Grau Geist for that fantastic analysis.Much of the original cost of combat types is not airframe, as the US figures indicate, it is the armament, engine(s), communications etc. and they take a lot of the maintenance time, though an aircraft with poorly designed access panels will cost more to run, the Martin Baker MB5 is reported as a maintenance person's dream. In theory a higher performing type will be cheaper if that translates to less battle damage. Different factories tend to end up with different production costs, before all the problems of assigning the true cost of manufacture, like is depreciation of factory buildings, tools and office furniture included in the price? Head office overhead?
Date Model Airframe Engines(s) Propeller(s) GFE Ordnance Communications Total Notes 28-Feb-43P-47 $ 47,796 $ 22,608 $ 5,975 $ 5,651 $ 2,527 $ 3,295 $ 87,852 Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts 31-Jul-44P-47 $ 61,699 $ 24,313 $ 6,922 $ 5,767 $ 3,504 $ 3,303 $ 105,508 Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date 31-Aug-44P-47 $ 55,783 $ 23,852 $ 6,960 $ 5,357 $ 3,506 $ 2,948 $ 98,406 Costs based on uncompleted contracts 30-Nov-44P-47 $ 49,420 $ 22,608 $ 5,257 $ 5,210 $ 3,506 $ 3,295 $ 89,296 Costs based on uncompleted contracts 28-Feb-43P-51 $ 23,583 $ 17,558 $ 3,740 $ 2,649 $ 1,905 $ 2,780 $ 52,215 Merlin Versions. Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts 31-Jul-44P-51 $ 28,984 $ 17,328 $ 4,887 $ 2,322 $ 2,493 $ 2,830 $ 58,844 Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date 31-Aug-44P-51 $ 27,889 $ 17,545 $ 4,391 $ 2,236 $ 2,574 $ 2,780 $ 57,415 Costs based on uncompleted contracts 30-Nov-44P-51 $ 25,795 $ 17,558 $ 2,555 $ 2,234 $ 2,559 $ 2,780 $ 53,481 Costs based on uncompleted contracts 28-Feb-43B-17 $ 111,443 $ 34,287 $ 3,400 $ 45,606 $ 4,595 $ 9,040 $ 208,371 Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts 31-Jul-44B-17 $ 157,484 $ 37,480 $ 11,755 $ 48,939 $ 5,999 $ 10,305 $ 271,962 Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date 31-Aug-44B-17 $ 129,150 $ 35,521 $ 11,247 $ 47,425 $ 5,966 $ 9,040 $ 238,349 Costs based on uncompleted contracts 30-Nov-44B-17 $ 125,464 $ 34,875 $ 6,487 $ 46,413 $ 5,686 $ 9,040 $ 227,965 Costs based on uncompleted contracts 28-Feb-43B-24 $ 115,338 $ 32,659 $ 4,220 $ 49,781 $ 3,205 $ 8,474 $ 213,677 Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts 31-Jul-44B-24 $ 169,452 $ 36,539 $ 12,899 $ 49,034 $ 4,726 $ 9,752 $ 282,402 Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date 31-Aug-44B-24 $ 138,585 $ 33,363 $ 13,004 $ 47,956 $ 4,520 $ 8,474 $ 245,902 Costs based on uncompleted contracts 30-Nov-44B-24 $ 114,951 $ 34,497 $ 8,663 $ 48,288 $ 4,505 $ 8,474 $ 219,378 Costs based on uncompleted contracts
Model 1939-41 1942 1943 1944 1945B-17 $301,221 $258,949n/a $204,370 $187,742B-24 $379,162 $304,391n/a $215,516P-47 $113,246 $105,594 $104,258 $85,578 $83,001P-51 n/a $58,698 $58,824 $51,572 $50,985
The 1941 to 1943 Lancaster and Halifax shared the same basic engines, propellers, armament and radio equipment, or about half the total cost of a finished aircraft. The Halifax III etc. used the more expensive and heavier Hercules engines, depending on versions 4 Hercules came in at around 1,000 pounds extra weight.
AVIA 15/2389 covers the sale of RAF aircraft to France in 1945/6, including serial numbers, one point is the prices quoted, in pounds, completed aircraft,
37-40,000 Lancaster I
40,000 Halifax
15,000 Mosquito VI
16,000 Mosquito 30
16,000 Mosquito PR XVI
16,300 Mosquito PR.34
10,000 Spitfire IX
9,700 Spitfire XIV
13,650 Typhoon
26,000 Wellington XIII
25,000 Wellington XIV
55-65,000 Sunderland III
Spare engine prices,
1,530 Merlin 22
1,460 Merlin 24
3,830 Hercules 100
1,480 Merlin 25
1,840 Merlin 76
1,840 Merlin 67, 72 etc.
1,900 Merlin 114
1,800 Merlin
2,300 Griffon
5,550 Sabre II
3,180 Hercules XVII
1,596 Pegasus XVIII
My but Rolls Royce were cost effective.
Early war cost estimates, 201st a/c, man hours, Lancaster 74,319, Halifax 98,246, Stirling 129,944
a) June 1941 proposed order 400 Lancaster 17,700,000 pounds, 44,250 pounds each, 250 Halifax 10,938,000 pounds, 43,752 pounds each
b) Lancaster from Armstrong Whitworth 41,400 pounds, from MetroVic 43,600 pounds, Halifax from English Electric 42,000 pounds.
c) 450 Lancaster from Avro 19,340,000 pounds, 42,978 pounds each, Metrovic 257 aircraft 11,204,000 pounds, 43,595 pounds each. 150 Halifax from Fairey 6,572,000 pounds, 43,813 pounds each
Tanks versus tanks fights happened but doctrine tended to the idea anti tank guns fought tanks, tanks did other things, then as the average anti tank gun size grew, making it harder to hide and move, the anti tank guns became more self propelled and German doctrine changes to tank as anti tank weapon, Panther, Assault guns for infantry support, US doctrine Tank Destroyers as anti tank weapon, tank as infantry support.
Real battlefields are full of all sorts of weapons A British analysis of tank losses in August 1944 indicates that on average it took 1.63 hits to knock out a Sherman, 2.55 to knock out a Panther and 4.2 hits to knock out a Tiger. If you make the big assumption all hits are the same, averaged over the various anti tank weapons both sides had, and hits are equally probable again on average then the "kill ratio" in overall combat would be
1 Panther to 2.55/1.63 or 1.6 Shermans and 1 Tiger to 4.2/1.63 or 2.6 Shermans.
Weight ratios were on the order of 1 Panther to 1.5 or 1.4 Shermans, 1 Tiger to around 1.9 Shermans. So the extra weight, basically armour, had its effect. More particularly it is probably saying the Panther would have been better served with some of the frontal armour being reallocated to the sides, making it tougher all round, like the Tiger. The Panther to Tiger ratio is 1.65 Panthers to the Tiger, the Tiger was around 1.3 times heavier than the Panther. The design of the Panther is reported to have meant it was cheaper to make than the Panzer IV.
Missed the point.We built 50,000 M4 Shermans. They built 1500 Tiger I's.
I am a big fan of the p47 don't get me wrong. Ironically, if there was no mustang then the p47 could have been tweaked to perform the role that the mustang did with drop tanks.P-47 on paper in 1942 was going to carry twice the guns and twice the ammo to the "battle" as the P-51. Not saying it was twice as effective but it wasn't quite the 2 for 1 that the cost only indicates.
Lw used Fw190 equipped with Neptune radar in Wild Boar role. And British radar is way ahead throughout the war.Not with that attitude
A handful Hurricanes were outfitted with radar for night fighting job, while Spitfire might've possibly mimic the Fiat G.55S and carry a torpedo.
Granted, we'd want two-engined A/C to be a night fighter and/or to be a torpedo bomber.
I think one of the things I'm trying to go against is that this kind of impression that the Germans gave there troops proper tanks and things like the Battle of the bulge, whereas the Americans had kind of half measure tanks to fight them back.An elderly German man and a little German boy were watching a US Army column go through their village. Army MPs lined the streets to keep the German civilians from being run over.
As a US tank went by, the German boy said, "Deutsche panzers ist better." The old man shushed him. Then another US tank went by and the boy repeated it; the old man shushed him again. After a bit, the German boy again said "Deutsche panzers ist better." and the MP turned around and said, "If the German tanks are better, then where are they?"
We built 50,000 M4 Shermans. They built 1500 Tiger I's. When a Tiger or a Panther hit 5000 miles it needed an full overhaul. Many of the M4's that went ashore on 6 Jun 1944 had 10,000 miles on them and were good for a lot more.
Granted, we should have put the M26 into action earlier. Patton was oriented toward rapid movement and he assumed that big tank would be slow; it wasn't.
Point taken. In my original post I should have referred to panther versus Sherman.Missed the point.
The Tiger was intended for breaking through fortified positions. Not even for exploiting the break through, that would be done by the MK IIIs and MK IVs.
The Tiger was more a contemporary of this type of thinking.
View attachment 749445
which was somewhere around 60 tons.
Yes the US did not use it in combat for a variety of reasons (not the least of which was that some of it's features truly sucked) but neither tank was expected to general issue to ordinary tank divisions.
Much like the P-61 was not intended to replace the P-38, P-47 as a daylight air superiority fighter.
The US did build and issue 250 of these for a somewhat similar role.
View attachment 749446
The Germans built over 5500 MK IVs from Aug 1943 to the end of the war, they stopped making Tiger Is in Aug 1944.
The Whole Tiger vs Sherman thing is a distraction from what was going on and is a real mix up of the quality over quantity thing.