Which tank is the most cost-effective tank in the war?
Personally, i think its Sturmgeschütz III.

Why this particulal tank?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

For example, a Tiger costs as much as what four Sturmgeschütz III cost. But the killing ratio of 4 Sturmgeschütz III is usually much higher than a Tiger.

Why, the derided Sherman of course.

Cheap from benefitting from economy of scale, a decent gun when applied against most of his peers, and most importantly ran every time you turned the key!

__________________
Bah!

Has to be the Sherman or T-34 doesn't it? Though the Stugs must be top contenders for the Germans, exceptionally good kill ratios and probably the most straightforward vehicle on their books to produce.
I suppose the most cost-effective Stug of all would be one that was remanufactured from a previously damaged III or IV chassis and went on to a succesful career.
Nazi Germany; the home of recycling...
Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

I would suspect the T-34 was the most cost effective with the Sherman coming in a close second. I base this on the T-34 being simpler and cheaper to build with an offset that it was shot to pieces more often and required more rebuilding due to its inferior reliability compared to the Sherman. The Sherman cost more to build but was cheaper to operate.
Of course, it could be the other way 'round too.
The Germans don't even get a door prize for cheap to operate AFV. Their equipment was expensive to manufacture, hard to maintain, and just all around costly.

Yes I would also pick the T-34 followed closely by the Sherman

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I'll agree with that - the T-34 was a phenomenon and a better design than the Sherman. But the Sherman benefitted from mass-production and standardization and I'd think would run the Soviet tank a close second in the 'value-for-money' stakes.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Even under those conditions, the tank out put of Germany during 1944 was only about a thousand and five hundred less than that of the Soviet Union. German war potential literally wasted, what a shame.

Soviet:28,963
Germany:27,300

Not exactly sure what is meant here by these numbers... Total tank production by the 2 nations in 1944, or the 2 tanks in question?

The T-34 and the Stug...

Here are 2 sites you should check out.

http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency...ld_war_ii.html

http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency...ld_war_ii.html

Eitherway according to these charts you are way of in production.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

T-34 in my opinion. " Keep it simple" and no unnecessary parts. The driver even had a hammer next to him in case the gear would not go in otherwise...

__________________

May I disagree?

__________________
Bah!

Ironcross's figures tally with The Oxford Companion to ww2's charts for total 'tank' production (soviet ones derived from Harrison: Soviet planning in peace and war) they're ok but don't differentiate between type of full track vehicle. More interesting are the figures for 'in service' vehicles, the long term production stats, and factoring in US & other allied production & lend lease. Trouble is then you get drawn into the morass of figures becoming largely meaningless without relation to the other complexities of war.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

Unfortunately, the StuG is not considered a tank. It is cheaper to produce because it does not have the complicated mechanics of the rotating turret. So, back to the question, I would have to go with the Sherman.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

You beat me to it.

May i ask you why do you disagree?

I disagree with the shame part in the sentence "German war potential literally wasted, what a shame."

__________________
Bah!

Kai it was the KV tanks that came with a hammer to 'persuade' the gearbox.
The Sherman gets my vote too.

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

There can only be two the Sherman and T-34. I would feel a little safer in a T-34 after all the Sherman was dubbed The Ronson.

__________________
Regards, Richard


"Open channel D"

I think if you factor in the $10,000 life insurance paid to each Sherman crewman's family killed in the thing then the T-34 is more cost effective. I don't believe the Russians paid insurance but I could be wrong.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

I have to wonder about an enthusiate of WWII that cannot differentiate between first run M4s and the ones that saw most of the action. The Sherman was a medium tank that was often against heavy tanks. It was not the best protected or the best armed, but it was one of the most cost effective. Especially when you look at the lend lease models, and all of the variants used.

The Sherman was considered an ideal breakthrough tank. Its reliability and numbers meant that it could keep up with the troops in a tactical situation. The original nickname 'Ronson' was due to the flaw of the dry storage system, but later models with the 1" overlay were a lot better and the below deck wet storage was the best system. The name 'Ronson' was also used as the nickname of the flamethrower model, just as the M48 flamethrower was nicknamed 'Zippo'. The reliabilty factor is really important in the cost effective consideration.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

In looking some information up, I found this interesting report of a comparison done at Aberdeen of some Soviet T-34s and a KV-2 that were checked out.