The 'Bob Semple':
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/n...ewzealand.html
Minimum cost & effectiveness.
We have a winner!

__________________
It's only the Internet.

Hi All,
My Choice,
Sherman Firefly for the Allies,
Panzer 4 Ausf H for the Axis.

Matt

Depends an awful lot on how you define cost and how you define effective. Under some definitions the M-41 might reach close to the top. Likewise some of the IS-series. If you look at the early war period the Tiger or one of the French or British tanks might also be worth considering. My personal opinion is that under most reasonable criteria it will be one of the two forum favorites the M-4 or the T-34.

Is anybody here qualified to specify tank costs for a number of nations?

How much in absolute terms did cost a Pz IV, a T-34, a M-4, etc? And in relative terms in what concerns the weight of the ecomony? This discussion is flawed from the start!

__________________

I think they mean cost productivity.
the sherman and its variants, were all made on a production line using similar hulls, turrets, wheels and engines etc.
same with the T-34s.
Everything built in house.

but a tiger tank would have a factory dedicated to that one tank with parts and components such as Porsche engines and henschel gearbox parts and rheinmetal guns coming from all over Germany.
production line verses transport economy.

Matt

I don't understand this reason. The M-4 Sherman, the epitome of the assembly line, certainly received a number of critical components from different suppliers.

First of all the tanks themselves came out of several plants, like Lima, Fisher/Grand Blanc, PullmanAmerican Loco, Baldwin, etc. Some of these were converted railway hardware plants.

Engines would come from other plants in Detroit area: Continental, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, etc., depending on model. Track links were cast elsewhere. Wheel rims came from tyre plants God knows where. Guns came from a number of arsenals.

So you see, they were not by all means all built in-house.

__________________

but the railway lines suppling the parts were`nt being bombed,
think the gun barrels were made in france for the tiger and panthers.

Matt

Wiki say

The initial cost of a T-34/85 was 30% more than a model 43, but by the end of the war that cost was 50% less, and the armor/fire-power was almost double, with all else the same.
Not quite sure what that means, the same what? (short-comings/problems/joys/Hallelujahs)

Also said the Sherman was unmatched in reliability/serviceability.

Both were said to be cost effective, by almost everyone.

So which model, what time period, and what do you mean, "Flash Gordon approaching?"
translation....cost effective?

Cost per kill? Money to build? Cost in human life (ones destroyed)? Cost of gaining ground? Cost to repair? Cost of time lost due to deficiencies? Costs in fuel? Ammunition? Accuracy? Arriving on station? Transportation? on & on

Za has a point

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

__________________
The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands..." — Mohamed Akram. http://jihadwatch.org/

The German warmachine was run on slave labour, pows or other subhumans worked in factories for no money and very little food.

very cost effective production.


Matt

I don't understand, you said the Serman etc. were completely produced in house and I said otherwise. Now you reply with this and I fail to see what it has to do with being produced in house or not.

So I assume that with the fall of France production of Panthers had to stop ? Actually no, those guns were made by Rheinmetall, based in Düsseldorf.

__________________

No that's cheap not necessarily cost effective. Especially when the workers are sabotaging the products.

I think that the T-34 and the M-4 are clear winners. The production numbers are clear about this. That the germans got high kill scores has got to do with the nature of the fighting. In the early war years, the allies were in the dark about dealing with Blitzkrieg, and in the later years the germans fought on the defence.

The T-34 is one of the ugliest designs I have ever seen, but the innovative sloped armour and incredible cross country ability is undeniable. A good gun for its time and like all soviet equipment damned reliable.

The M-4 is also reliable, had a good gun for it's time and had some innovative features.

Both designs was modified during the war without loss of mobility or reliability.
The only german rival in my view is the Mark IV. But the Mark IV was too complicated to produce. (like most german designs)

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

I say, Sir, we'll have to meet at down. Choose your weapons!

__________________

This probably is'nt very cost effective. From the book Sturmgeschutz III &V.

Over 10 firms were involved in the production of 7.5cm Stu K40 guns from extruding the barrels,maching the lands and grooves for the riflng,casting the breech,maching the breech, manufacturing the recoil cylinders,to assembling and testing the gun.

Altogether over 100 firms were involved in producing the parts and components needed to complete a single StuG.

I've never really thought of the T-34 as an ugly tank. The Churchill, now that's one uh-uh-ugly tank. One has to remember that good aesthetics does not translate into combat effectiveness or I would have been one heck of a paintball player, as good looking as I am.

On an aside and totally thought. Were the Soviet tanks given a "knickname" of sorts along the lines of the US M4 (Sherman) or the lovely A-22 (Churchill)?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Well, the KV and JS tanks were acronyms for Kliment Voroshilov and Josef Stalin, but that was only a quirk of that design bureau, everybody else stuck to a number (T-34, T-28, T-70, etc).

Now, the Brits did have a 'Harry Hopkins'

__________________

Za

I choose oven mittens!!

It isn't built in a caring fashion either. The welding looks apaling. But hey it just keeps on running. Rather have a working vehicle that looks like it has been put together in somebodys backyard, that a pretty piece of scrap bogged down somewhere.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Haha!

It seems I got lucky then, I saw a few T-34s (76 and 85) in a museum and Finland, and was surprised especially with the 85, really good welds. The 76 was austere but not bad as you say. I wouldn't like to generalise.

__________________

I found a few nicknames for the Soviet T-60 tank.

The Russian Battlefield - T-60: combat employment