Cost of UBoats

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the submarine forces of the Kriegsmarine.
Duncan
Member
Posts: 281
Joined: 05 Oct 2003 12:39
Location: England

Post by Duncan » 02 Feb 2005 19:22

second data sheet
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Post by Tim Smith » 02 Feb 2005 19:25

Prinz Eugen wasn't operational at the time of the Norwegian operation. She wasn't completed until December 1940 and then spent 4 months training in the Baltic.

So Germany only had 2 heavy cruisers in Norway - Hipper and Blucher.

Had the heavy cruisers not been built, the old coastal battleships Schlesien and Schleswig Holstein could have been used instead. They had 4 x 11" guns and 10 x 5.9" guns, so were quite capable of engaging Norwegian shore batteries and British destroyers. If one or even both had been sunk, it would have been no great loss to the Kreigsmarine - they were hardly ever used operationally again anyway.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 24 Jun 2004 16:05
Location: Germany

Post by kfbr392 » 19 Mar 2006 17:34

Lars wrote:Paul,

I didn´t - quite - remember correctly. I did a check last night. Eichholz´s comparison of the shipyards is not the price but the (declining) number of work hours spend on the VIIC and IX build by the different German yards during the war. And the figure of 2.0 mio. Reichsmarks per VIIC is not from April 1943 but from late 1943 (see below).

I dug out some more info, so here it comes:

VIIC: By late 1943 the Blohm und Voss shipyard was the cheapest producer of the VIIC. Indeed the B & V was almost consistently cheapest thoughout the war. The price tag of a VIIC from B & V was 1.983 mio. RM. The other shipyards weren´t much more expensive. They used more working hours per u-boat but as 1.4 mio. RM of the VIIC´s price tag was from outside the shipyards and therefore given costs (sub-contractors, steel, electronics, etc), I´d say that 2.0 mio. RM per VIIC by late 1943 is probably correct.

IXC: I´ve not been able to find the price per IXC. However, I´ll give you a good estimate as the same price per tonne on the VIIC and the IXC is an educated guess. So, the VIIC weighed 769t and the IXC 1,120t, givning a late 1943 price of the IXC of 2.9 mio. RM.

XXI: 4.6 mio. RM


I wonder who is right here, Gröner or Eichholz?

Gröner is considered the "pope" of the Kriegsmarine, and he tags a Type VIIC at 4.6 Mio RM (source listed above), not 2.0 Mio RM.

Where die you get your figures, Lars, and how do you explain the discrepancy?

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Bismarck and Scharnhorst-classes

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 27 Aug 2012 07:42

Paul Lakowski wrote:Tirpitz is likely to cost more since it took longer to make and based on weight comparison the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau should cost ~ 69% of the Bismarcks cost or about …~ 50-million RM. So in total we have 72 x 2 plus 50 x 2 = 244-million RM. Type VII U-boat cost ~ 1.9-million RM to build so you could buy 128 Type-VII U-boats for the cost of those ships.

Bismarck, Tirpitz plus Scharnhorst & Gneisenau required 8,300 sailors, while each Type-VII U-boat required ~ 45 personnel so exchange should result in staffing for ~184 additional Type-VII U-boats.

Bismarck, Tirpitz plus Scharnhorst & Gneisenau required 155,085 tons of steel to build, while each Type-VII U-boat required ~ 860 tons, so exchange should result in staffing for ~180 additional Type-VII U-boats.
Nice data...

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1440
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Bismarck and Scharnhorst-classes

Post by Paul Lakowski » 27 Aug 2012 18:42

nebelwerferXXX wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:Tirpitz is likely to cost more since it took longer to make and based on weight comparison the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau should cost ~ 69% of the Bismarcks cost or about …~ 50-million RM. So in total we have 72 x 2 plus 50 x 2 = 244-million RM. Type VII U-boat cost ~ 1.9-million RM to build so you could buy 128 Type-VII U-boats for the cost of those ships.

Bismarck, Tirpitz plus Scharnhorst & Gneisenau required 8,300 sailors, while each Type-VII U-boat required ~ 45 personnel so exchange should result in staffing for ~184 additional Type-VII U-boats.

Bismarck, Tirpitz plus Scharnhorst & Gneisenau required 155,085 tons of steel to build, while each Type-VII U-boat required ~ 860 tons, so exchange should result in staffing for ~180 additional Type-VII U-boats.
Nice data...

In retrospect the Type VII C has a surface displacement of 770 tons not 860 tons. According to Rossler the submerged figure is 870 tons.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Kingfish » 27 Aug 2012 20:17

Tim Smith wrote:Prinz Eugen wasn't operational at the time of the Norwegian operation. She wasn't completed until December 1940 and then spent 4 months training in the Baltic.

So Germany only had 2 heavy cruisers in Norway - Hipper and Blucher.
Lutzow was also there.
Had the heavy cruisers not been built, the old coastal battleships Schlesien and Schleswig Holstein could have been used instead. They had 4 x 11" guns and 10 x 5.9" guns, so were quite capable of engaging Norwegian shore batteries and British destroyers. If one or even both had been sunk, it would have been no great loss to the Kriegsmarine - they were hardly ever used operationally again anyway.
I think the requirement was not so much firepower as it was speed, since their primary duty was troop transport, and NGF secondary.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3073
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Cost of UBoats

Post by Takao » 28 Aug 2012 01:12

Paul Lakowski wrote:In retrospect the Type VII C has a surface displacement of 770 tons not 860 tons. According to Rossler the submerged figure is 870 tons.
You need to be more retrospective than that. Since, the entire steel/displacement passage
Bismarck, Tirpitz plus Scharnhorst & Gneisenau required 155,085 tons of steel to build, while each Type-VII U-boat required ~ 860 tons, so exchange should result in staffing for ~180 additional Type-VII U-boats.
is garbage.

First, to achieve 155,085 tons for the four ships, at a minimum, standard displacement values were used. Standard displacement encompasses much more than just the displacement of the steel/metal in the ships. For a better idea of the "minimum" weight of the respective ships, you would have to look at their "light ship" displacement values. For the Bismarck, this usually falls between 39,000 - 40,000 tons & for the Scharnhorst this is about 29,000 - 30,000 tons(varies depending on source).

Second, For the Type VIIC, 770 tons, is it's weight with fuel & water tanks fuel. Dry, the Type VIIC was 719 tons, but I don't know if this also included ammunition, crew, stores, etc.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3073
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Weserübung

Post by Takao » 28 Aug 2012 01:28

Kingfish wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:Prinz Eugen wasn't operational at the time of the Norwegian operation. She wasn't completed until December 1940 and then spent 4 months training in the Baltic.

So Germany only had 2 heavy cruisers in Norway - Hipper and Blücher.
Lützow was also there.
Had the heavy cruisers not been built, the old coastal battleships Schlesien and Schleswig-Holstein could have been used instead. They had 4 x 11" guns and 10 x 5.9" guns, so were quite capable of engaging Norwegian shore batteries and British destroyers. If one or even both had been sunk, it would have been no great loss to the Kriegsmarine - they were hardly ever used operationally again anyway.
I think the requirement was not so much firepower as it was speed, since their primary duty was troop transport, and NGF secondary.
Kingfish is likely correct on this, since both coastal battleships did participate in Operation Weserübung, but they stayed in Danish waters and never participated in Norwegian operations.

Schleswig-Holstein was part of Warship Group 7, and her objective was Korsör and Nyborg in Denmark. Schlesien served as escort for the German minesweepers working south of the Skagerrak mine belt.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Cost of UBoats

Post by phylo_roadking » 28 Aug 2012 19:16

If one or even both had been sunk, it would have been no great loss to the Kriegsmarine - they were hardly ever used operationally again anyway
Actually - it would; if they were sunk, their crews mightn't have come off so well :P Only a few months later, they were combed out for scratch crews for Sealion barges, armed trawlers etc.. Sealion would have been much more difficult a plan to concoct...and hard to make credible...without those hundreds of KM personnel. The complexion of the war in late summer 1940 might have been very different...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

8,300 sailors

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 09 Nov 2012 14:28

Paul Lakowski wrote:Bismarck, Tirpitz plus Scharnhorst and Gneisenau required 8,300 sailors, while each Type VII U-boat required ~ 45 personnel so exchange should result in staffing for ~184 additional Type-VII U-boats.

Bismarck, Tirpitz plus Scharnhorst & Gneisenau required 155.085 tons of steel to build, while each Type VII U-boat required ~ 860 tons, so exchange should result in staffing for ~180 additional Type-VII U-boats.
Instead of manning 184 additional Type VII U-boats, the 8,300 sailors should be converted into infantrymen. Its weapon requirements were only 8,300 automatic rifles , 8,300 Walther pistols and 16,600 stick grenades.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

11 ships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Nov 2012 09:13

Paul Lakowski wrote:Flugzeugträger 92-M Rm [~20,000 tons]
Graf Zeppelin 93-M Rm [~20,000 tons]
Bismarck 197-M Rm [50,000 tons & 2,100 sailors]
Tirpitz 181-M Rm [50,000 tons & 2,600 sailors]
Scharnhorst 146-M Rm [35,000 tons & 1,800 sailors]
Gneisenau 143-M Rm [35,000 tons & 1,800 sailors]
Hipper 86-M Rm [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]
Blucher 87-M Rm [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]
Prince Eugen 105-M Rm [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]
other two cruisers 84-M Rm each [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]

Total cost = 1,298,000,000 Rm [~1.3-B Rm] [@6-M Rm per U-boat = 217 x Type IXB U-boats bought]
Steel = 290,000 tons [@1,500 tons per U-boat = 193 x Type IXB U-boats built]
Manpower = 16,590 sailors [@50 per U-boat = 332 x Type IXB U-boat manned]

Looking at ship yard construction & Build rates, U-boats took ~ year to build and the a survey of three major sub yards showed 62 U-boats produced over 5 years prior to WW II or about 4 x U-boats per ship yard per year. The 9 capital ships listed above would mean 7 large shipyards open for U-boat construction during the same time period 1935-1940. The Carriers and Battleships occupied these yards for two years each, while the Heavy Cruisers were more like two-three years. Comparing such large shipyards to the smaller U-boats, its not hard to imaging three to four U-boats could be built in the same space these capital ships occupy. That’s 16 shipyards/years of construction @ 4 x U-boats per year or ~ 64 new U-boats constructed in place of the capital ship program. If those ship yards were used full time [at the prewar rate] during this 5-6 year span, they could manufacture up to 140-168 U-boats [roughly ½ Type VIIB U-boats and ½ Type IXB U-boats].

Consistently USSBS analysis of the German war economy reveals that most of the essential war industries [ship building, airplane manufacture, tank and automobile industries] were run at ½ to ¼ of capacity at the start of the war and were only patched up to full capacity after the reversals at Stalingrad at the end of 1942. The automobile production industry was never run at more than ¾ of capacity through out the entire war.

Realizing the many people would rather hold on the battle ships at any cost, I reconfigured the above calculation based on removing the heavy cruisers and carriers from the production schedule instead and focused on a reduced purchase of Type VII U-boats instead of IXB U-boats.

Flugzeugträger 92-M Rm [~20,000 tons]
Graf Zeppelin 93-M Rm [~20,000 tons]
Hipper 86-M Rm [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]
Blucher 87-M Rm [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]
Prince Eugen 105-M Rm [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]
other two cruisers 84-M Rm each [16,000 tons & 1,600 sailors]

Total cost =621,000,000 Rm [~0.6-B Rm] [@4.4-M-Rm per U-boat = 143 x Type VIIB U-boats bought]
Steel = 120,000 tons [@900 tons per boat = 138 x Type VIIB U-boats built]
Manpower= 8,000 sailors [@45 per U-boat = 178 x Type VIIB U-boats manned]

Looking at ship yard construction & Build rates, we have 5 instead of 7 large shipyards open for U-boat construction during the same time period –1935-1940. The Carriers occupied these yards for two years each, while the Heavy Cruisers were more like two-three years. Going on about four U-boats per capital ship yard and ~12 shipyards/years of construction [@4 x U-boats per year], that’s about ~ 50 new U-boats constructed in place of the Carrier/Cruiser ship program. If those ship yards were instead used full time during this 5-6 year span, they could manufacture 120 additional VIIB U-boats by the end of 1940.
Ok ! Nice explanation ! Good job !

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Plus 6 heavy tanks

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 10 Nov 2012 09:20

Paul Lakowski wrote:Looks like the Norway invasion force had the following warships and moved 8,850 troops, which were the spearheads of two infantry divisions and a mountain division, plus the follow up of two reinforced infantry divisions.

2 x B/Cruisers
3 x H/Cruisers
4 x L/Cruisers
2 x fleet tenders
1 x training ship
14 x DDs
21 x DEs [torpedo-boot]
12 x minesweepers
8 x tankers
7 x supply ships & 24 x other ships [merchants ?], these would make three sorties each to transport the logistics of these deployed divisions to allow them to fight over the several months the operation lasted.
28 x Subs as screen ?

Plus 500 transport aircraft and 500 bombers and fighters flying in support.
There's always something to learn. Thanks !

eaglestar78
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 07 Nov 2012 23:06

Re: Cost of UBoats

Post by eaglestar78 » 12 Jan 2013 23:32

The Type VII C cost $750,000 USD in 1943

User avatar
Polar bear
Member
Posts: 2543
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 15:49
Location: Hanover, Lower Saxony

Re: Plus 6 heavy tanks

Post by Polar bear » 17 Jan 2013 21:07

hi,
nebelwerferXXX wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote: ...
21 x DEs [torpedo-boot]
...
There's always something to learn.
more to learn
the 21 DEs were
- 1 command vessel ex DE of 1000 ts (Geleitboot)
- 8 torpedo boats of 1200 ts (Torpedoboot)
12 motor torpedo boats of 100 ts (Schnellboot)

greetings, the pb
Peace hath her victories no less renowned than War
(John Milton, the poet, in a letter to the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652)

User avatar
Danzig69
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 26 Mar 2009 03:36

Re: Cost of UBoats

Post by Danzig69 » 27 Jan 2013 02:07

Where were the type XXI and XXIII made, from the same shipyard or were several used?
Patriotism - the last refuge of a scoundrel...

Return to “U-Boats”