Which tank is the most cost effective tank in the war

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

Not bad for tanks that entered Berlin now is it?

 

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

 

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

 

If anyone thinks that the German manufacturing system was sub par to the American and Russian (basically American) that would not be correct. There is not one thing made now or in the last 100 years completely in one location. American and Russian production outpaced German only because of plant size, labor availability, and perceived demand. German problems did not stem from improper manufacture but because design limits were exceeded.

Production lines do not have to move to be considered high volume. In many cases it helps, but sometimes you can just as easily move the people to the next item. What made the US stand out as a manufacturing power was retool time. One plant could make a run of M4s one month and the next make trucks, jeeps, or artillery. This was avoided if possible but still the potential existed and helped daily when the need to change part of a process was needed.

As to cost effectiveness I personally would go with the captured Pz(t)35s and Pz(t)38s they were free and contributed alot. After them then the T-34, part of the cost of the M4 Sherman is the shipping.

Most Americans felt that the Sherman was better than the T034 at the time, and could have been, the Sherman was designed to shoot on the move, a most valuable asset, it didnt work out so well. It was vastly more user friendly and comfortable, important factors to those who lived in them. If only a bigger gun had been planed from day one.

About the Russians not getting better parts or things for their equipment... they didnt have better, and they thought that what the had was fine, just like the US and the T-34, if they had wanted to they could have copied it but chose not to in favor of a home grown idea. Remember that B-29s were copied part for part because the Russians lacked experience with larger aircraft. Later they learned and built their own awesome bombers that still fly today (recently to Guam with a nuclear payload).

 

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)

 

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

:chainsaw:

 

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.