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!

__________________

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.

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?

__________________

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.

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.

__________________

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."

__________________

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.

__________________

My Silent Hunter 3 U-Boats Skins to Download.
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gaming/32642-my-u-boat-skins-d-l.html
Small selction of My SH3/4 Mods
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gami...-sh4-mods.html

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.

__________________
I need a bailout of only $500,000

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.

I found it very interesting the simple solutions that evaded the Soviet designers. The transmission of the KV-2 was found to be a duplicate of a design rejected 15-20 years earlier by U.S. tank builders. Why could they not have found a better design?

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

Disruption to Soviet industry was partially responsible for the items in that report quoted above. I've seen another passage that describes flaws in the armor created in making it. ie sections not evenly tempered, some sort of crack or pocket at several points. German records sow the T34s examined in 1941 to lack the problems cited above. Those would have been built in late 1940 & the first half of 1941.

The transmission problems may very well have been the result of the post 1941 production problems.

Several British weapons & other designs were produced in the US. ie the Merlin engine. Many landing craft. The 57mm (six pounder) AT gun. One wonders what might have resulted if the US Army Ordinance dept had got hold of a T34 test model or a KV1 in 1940 or early 1941.

Not sure of its name but the KIWI tank that involved a tractor covered in sheet metal!!!!!
Can't imagine that blowing the budget

__________________
"GARRY OWEN"-Traditional war-cry of the US 7th Cavalry.
"CURRAHEE"-War-cry of the US 506th PIR.
"Everybody thinks that they are going to get the chance to punch some Nazi in the face at Normandy-and those days are over, they are long gone"-Lt Chris Burnett

Not bad for tanks that entered Berlin now is it?

__________________
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