Which tank is the most cost effective tank in the war

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

 

Why this particulal tank?

 

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... :tree::tree:
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

 

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.

 

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/enc...rman_tank_production_during_world_war_ii.html

http://www.teachersparadise.com/enc...viet_tank_production_during_world_war_ii.html

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.