No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000.
Spielberger`s definitieve book on the Panther gives the following prices (via Heereswaffenamt WuG 6):
Pz V Panther: 117 100 RM
7.5cm KwK 42 12 000 RM
HL 230 engine: 11 000 RM
AK 7-200 gearbox: 3500 RM
MG 34 : 312 RM
That works out roughly as
145 000 RM, complete with gunetc.
Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1.
Groehler. It may not be 100% accurate, but then again, we don`t know either what the Sherman prices include, wheter it is for the initial batch or later batches that would be obviously cheaper etc. I don`t buy that it was cheaper than the Pz IV, which was a very simple tank design with no fancy things on it, also much smaller.
I am not sure why Overy would be such an authority on WW2 economy - though I haven`t seen much from him in this subject - but he seems to an expert of all fields at the same time, writing numerous books on wildly different aspects of WW2, which makes me wonder how would that be possible for a mere human.
In any case, 145 000 RM figure Spielberger gives (you should really see that book.. its simply Teutonic thoroughness in its sickest form) it works out at roughly 47 500 USD a piece (or 36000, practically the same amount as a the figure claimed for the Sherman tank).
Considering the Panther was produced in a lesser production run (=> higher unit costs for the whole project) than the Sherman, and the uncertainity about the Sherman figures, I would say there was no particularly great difference in costs - and slightly higher costs were more than justified by the Panthers superior capabilities IMHO.
This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.
I don`t think this matters a lot to our current discussion IMHO - MAN had to pay the electric bill at the end of the month, its workers, and Krupp for the armored plates delivered; just like Chrysler, and also make some profit on it.
The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware
The Tiger saw only limited orders and limited production. Unit cost of any product that is produced in small series is going to be higher, regardless of what that product is, a Sherman, a Tiger or a hair-dryer.
In practice however a Tiger costed nowhere near 3 Shermans - what would actually matter in wartime conditions were the raw material needs to produce a single tank, and the time needed on actually producing it from these materials (ie. work hours needed to complete a single unit). In the field, 3 Shermans definietely needed at least twice the support and suplies (ie. 3 times the crews needed to be trained, two to three times the fuel consumed etc.).
It was also not a viable or sensible strategy for the Germans to try to match the sheer output of their enemies - a phyisical impossibilty - but to try to counter higher numbers with higher quality weapons. In an example if the Germans would simply copy the Sherman, they would be still vastly outproduced by the US.
Its an old numbers vs quality thing. NATO played that game against the WP in the cold war. NATO tried for superior quality (altough it did not achieve it IMHO until the Leo2/M1/Challanger came to the scene IMHO).