The man-hour battle: the cost of production, Spitfire, bf-109 and ???
- Thread starter Conslaw
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Kevin J
Banned
So half the price of a P-40, quarter the price of a Lightning, that's really really good.
Because they had to cross water to get back to base I presume? Wherever possible Park/Dowding wanted combat over land.
Kevin J
Banned
I believe that the Bf 109F solved the engine overheating problem that's why it was 70 kmh faster at sea level. So while the Bf 109E & /N versions were theoretically faster, it was dangerous to do so. The combat reports I've read show the Hurricane gaining on the E at sea level.
There is more than the monetary conversion to consider. For example, wages and 'slave labour' doesn't get a paycheck.
Shortround6
Major General
It's total nonsense.
It is enough trouble trying to compare "prices" from the beginning or early part of the war in the same country due to inflation or deflation (and most of the currencies and/or prices were controlled in war time economies). Prices for war goods often dropped dramatically as companies figured out new and better ways of making things.
It is quite another can of worms trying to compare "prices" between countries before WW II (or 1941) because the value of some of the currencies were not allowed to float. They were fixed at what one or another government said they were. The German Mark was undervalued because the german government was trying to encourage exports and discourage imports. France was another country playing games with it's currency just before WW II. Export Renault R-35 tanks cost roughly twice what what the french Army paid for them. It is often said that the Curtiss Hawk 75s cost twice what French fighters did. Were they really that hard to make or due to this artificial exchange rate were the domesticly produced aircrat being undervalued?
some of the absurdity of this becomes apparent when we are told that in 1943 this cost 32 RM
and yet in the US in 1942 this cost $2.10 (5.25 RM?)
Shortround6
Major General
The slave labor card gets played a lot in these discussions but it was not the only reason for the discrepancy in costs. I am not saying it wasn't a factor but when the whole exchange rate is artificial then the cost of the amount of slave labor becomes just a percentage of the difference.
There are other issues too. Bf 109s were still being produced in numbers when there was no fuel or pilots to fly them. Reports of quality standards dropping were hardly a surprise when slave labour was punished for not meeting targets for things that it was known wouldn't be used.
It works out to around 24000 usd in 41. Not far off the listed price for the P-40D.
The important issue isn't cost or man hours it is or was the UK alone passed Germany in production of single engine fighters in 1940 and continued to outproduce until around 1943 IIRC. The LW as a bomber force was at its strongest before the invasion of France. Whatever the cost in money or man hours, not enough were produced when needed and many produced far too late to change anything.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
This is very true with respect to cost especially when one considers that in Germany the budget for the Luftwaffe was quite literally unlimited. Whatever was requested was approved, and the "budget" only existed so that there was a written record of what the money was being spent on. The sole area of budget limits came in with use of foreign currency reserve use for importing certain things. Essentially the monetary "cost" of any aircraft programmes in the Reich was for practical purposes an utter irrelevance.
I`m not sure I`d agree entirely that man-hours were irrelevant, as even semi-skilled labour was limited, especially later on when so many had been conscripted.
"Interrogation of General Christian, Army Air Forces HQ 20th September 1945"
I didn't say irrelevant but of little relevance when the chips are down. 5,000 Sopwith Camels taking 1000 man hours to make would be of no use to the 1940 RAF, just and 20 Gloster Meteors wouldn't be. It only becomes a relevant issue when you have competitive designs, then you can consider producing the numbers you need and how many men you need, almost all labour was semi skilled everywhere in 1940 because so few stressed skinned monoplanes had been made by anyone, they all had to train people. The parlous state of the German aircraft industry was what happens in a system close to collapse, it is almost a miracle that they produced what they did for as long as they did but I cant see why they did. There were no fuel or pilots for the planes they made.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
I can help with that point - the Jaegerstab began (March 1944 * see pic #2 final entry 8:05) right at the point the strategic bombing of the synthetic fuel plants began in ernest, at the time this vast increase in production was envisaged - the drastic fuel shortages which put a stop to proper training, and eventually even to flying had not yet manifested. There were people to
"train" but so little fuel the resulting men couldnt really be called pilots. The raids on the fuel plants didnt get REALLY serious until about July - although the effects were
felt from the first raids onwards.
The start of the "Oil Offensive" was given in the official history as 12th May 1944 (pic#1 below), two months AFTER the formation of the Jaegerstab (which was the name for the official massive German efforts to step up production with Milch subbordinate to Speer and Saur)
Last edited:
Barrett
Senior Airman
The postwar AAF Statistical Study (should be online) contained typical unit costs for all wartime aircraft
but
I think most/all were 1944 prices where applicable so obviously there were variations.
Also, the War Production Board (or whatever) limited corporate profits to 10%, I believe, through most/all the war. That of course does not account for gear that was produced longer than needed. IIRC the P-40 remained in production almost to the end of 44, and even when the navy was beaching Helldivers, Curtiss kept delivering them.
Politics. But you knew that.
but
I think most/all were 1944 prices where applicable so obviously there were variations.
Also, the War Production Board (or whatever) limited corporate profits to 10%, I believe, through most/all the war. That of course does not account for gear that was produced longer than needed. IIRC the P-40 remained in production almost to the end of 44, and even when the navy was beaching Helldivers, Curtiss kept delivering them.
Politics. But you knew that.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
The entire German military machine was entirely reliant on it - I`m not aware of a single German aircraft constructor who wasnt by the end. Most firms didnt want to do so, as it means unskilled and untrustworthy workers many of whom (obviously) intended sabotage at every chance.
Last edited:
There were other issues too, there were still people working on a European broad gauge railway in Berlin in 1945. Producing aircraft or designing railways meant you weren't given a gun and sent to the front so it was in everyones interest to keep doing it, even when there was no fuel or pilots.
- Thread starter
- #78
Conslaw
Senior Airman
Man-hour comparisons are useful even in the case of slave-labor or unlimited dollar budgets, because there are only so many man-hours (or woman-hours) to go around.
Sort of, but some slave labourers were dedicated to wrecking what others made. I think much of the survey and comparisons were interesting to the USA to compare how they performed relative to the opposition, but only the most general comparisons can be made. Even in UK there was sabotage, like explosives in exhaust manifolds.
Shortround6
Major General
In France Gnome-Rhone walked a tight line between producing just enough engines to keep the Germans from looting the factory of tools and sending the workers to German and actually contributing substantially to the German production schedules. I believe their output was rated at about 25% of actual capacity??
