I ask that cost of weapon.

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Hanny
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: I ask that cost of weapon.

Post by Hanny » 30 Oct 2010 02:23

nebelwerferXXX wrote:
An odd thing that, one, and only one, sold ( 300K normaly) never delevered the only one ordered, and loanded back to the SS, pretty sharp lawyers in the SS.
What happened to the 645,000 RM? Did the SS-Lawyers pocketed the money?[/quote]


http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/870791
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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

Re: I ask that cost of weapon.

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 02 Nov 2010 11:41

$ 215,760,000,000,000 for Vehicles, Tanks etc.
---4,924 M3 'Lee/Grant' medium tanks
---50,000 M4 'Sherman' medium tanks
---4,415 M24 'Chaffee' light tanks
---2,428 M26 'Pershing' heavy tanks
---40,000 M3 'White' half-tracks
---650,000 jeeps
---750,000 6x6 Army trucks

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 21:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

$ 215,760,000,000,000 for Vehicles, Tanks etc.

Post by Dave Bender » 15 Nov 2010 16:03

Mid 1943 German armaments production.
http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/tankrep.html
Tanks. 6.4% of total armaments production.
Motor Vehicles. 4.8% of total armaments production.
Towing Tractors. 1.8%
41.9% Aircraft.
9.7% Warships.
24.6% Ammunition.
8% Weapons (I assume small arms and artillery for the army).
2.8% Powder.

Consumable stuff like ammunition, uniforms, field rations, commo wire, field radios, batteries, sand bags, concertina wire, helmets, fuel, sleeping bags, tents, field telephones etc. accounts for the majority of total munitions cost when an army is in large scale combat. That would apply to WWII nations like China, Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union.

Most of the U.S. Army did not experience combat until after the Normandy invasion. Consequently the USA could concentrate on production of military hardware to a greater extent then most other nations. Which is why the U.S. Army was so well equipped and supplied compared to everyone else.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: $ 215,760,000,000,000 for Vehicles, Tanks etc.

Post by LWD » 15 Nov 2010 18:19

Dave Bender wrote: ...
Most of the U.S. Army did not experience combat until after the Normandy invasion. Consequently the USA could concentrate on production of military hardware to a greater extent then most other nations. Which is why the U.S. Army was so well equipped and supplied compared to everyone else.
That's only a part of it and probably not the most important part. The US was also fighting a two front war and from a significant distance from either front. Then there's the resources avialble. etc.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: $ 215,760,000,000,000 for Vehicles, Tanks etc.

Post by Guaporense » 16 Nov 2010 00:18

Dave Bender wrote:Most of the U.S. Army did not experience combat until after the Normandy invasion. Consequently the USA could concentrate on production of military hardware to a greater extent then most other nations. Which is why the U.S. Army was so well equipped and supplied compared to everyone else.
Exactly!

For example, if Germany didn't have a Eastern front to worry about, they could focus their resources in a small group of well equipped divisions to meet the Allies, instead of an 290 division army.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: $ 215,760,000,000,000 for Vehicles, Tanks etc.

Post by Guaporense » 16 Nov 2010 00:20

LWD wrote:
Dave Bender wrote: ...
Most of the U.S. Army did not experience combat until after the Normandy invasion. Consequently the USA could concentrate on production of military hardware to a greater extent then most other nations. Which is why the U.S. Army was so well equipped and supplied compared to everyone else.
That's only a part of it and probably not the most important part. The US was also fighting a two front war and from a significant distance from either front. Then there's the resources avialble. etc.
The most important part was that the US was a huge industrialized country. A non industrialized country couldn't have a well equipped army in any condition. The US had the time and the money to make a fully motorized and well equipped army.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 21:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

US was also fighting a two front war

Post by Dave Bender » 16 Nov 2010 02:47

It's not the number of fronts that count. It's how many army and marine divisions are engaged in combat operations. From June 1941 onward both Germany and the the Soviet Union had 200+ divisions in combat. The USA had perhaps 20 divisions in combat by the end of 1942 and perhaps 30 by the end of 1943.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: US was also fighting a two front war

Post by LWD » 16 Nov 2010 12:44

Dave Bender wrote:It's not the number of fronts that count. It's how many army and marine divisions are engaged in combat operations. ...
I disagree. It's easier to create and maintain two divisions that are engaged on a single front a few hundred miles away from the factories by land than it is to do the same for two divisions that are on two seperate fronts seperated by thousands of miles. The latter takes far more planning and to keep them in good shape more material dispatched earlier. Then there's the means of transport and protecting said means.

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 21:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

the means of transport

Post by Dave Bender » 16 Nov 2010 17:28

Another major U.S. advantage. We transported material thousands of miles but most of those miles were by ship. The least expensive means of transportation.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: I ask that cost of weapon.

Post by LWD » 16 Nov 2010 18:29

An the otherhand much of the material moved further in the US than German material moved in Europe. Of course another factor in the other direction is that there was little threat to the US means of production and after the first year or so of the war little additional effort was wasted in defending the continental US except for some coastal efforts. There are numerous other factors involved as well. Not something that a simple answer does justice to.

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

Cost

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 17 Nov 2010 09:58

nebelwerferXXX wrote:$ 21,576 million for Vehicles, Tanks etc.
---4,924 M3 'Lee/Grant' medium tanks
---50,000 M4 'Sherman' medium tanks
---4,415 M24 'Chaffee' light tanks
---2,428 M26 'Pershing' heavy tanks
---40,000 M3 'White' half-tracks
---650,000 jeeps
---750,000 6x6 Army trucks
Cost of the War: $1,500-billion
---USA spent...$315-billion
---Britain spent...$300-billion
---Germany spent...$270-billion
---USSR spent...$195-billion

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: I ask that cost of weapon.

Post by LWD » 17 Nov 2010 12:57

Why quote yourself spouting irrelevancies? If you've read these threads at all you should no that quoteing costs in dollars for all nations is very problematic. Do you really think your post added anything to this discussion? Especially since we have no idea where any of the numbers came from.

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

Quoting Cost in Dollars

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 18 Nov 2010 03:50

LWD wrote:Why quote yourself spouting irrelevancies? If you've read these threads at all you should no that quoting costs in dollars for all nations is very problematic. Do you really think your post added anything to this discussion? Especially since we have no idea where any of the numbers came from.
My purpose here is the continuation of my earlier post, and my sources are:
The Time Line of World War II
Atlas History of the World, volume 2

Quoting in 'Dollars' was the language of the Author, not me. Okay?

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

Re: Cost: German Navy ships

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 22 Nov 2010 14:00

2 battleships:
---Bismarck...197-million RM
---Tirpitz...181-million RM

2 battle-cruisers:
---Scharnhorst...143-million RM
---Gneisenau...146-million RM

3 armored ships:
---Deutschland...80-million RM
---Admiral Scheer...90-million RM
---Graf Spee...82-million RM

5 heavy cruisers:
---Hipper...85.8-million RM
---Blucher...87.8-million RM
---Prinz Eugen...104.5-million RM
---Seydlitz...84.1-million RM
---Lutzow...83.6-million RM

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: I ask that cost of weapon.

Post by LWD » 22 Nov 2010 15:47

The battleships look cheap compared to the heavy cruisers. Anyone got an idea why>

Return to “Economy”