I ask that cost of weapon.

[Hanny]

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

[nebelwerferXXX]

$ 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]

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.

[LWD]

...
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.

[Guaporense]

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.

[Guaporense]

...
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.

[Dave Bender]

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.

[LWD]

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]

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.

[LWD]

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]

$ 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

[LWD]

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]

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]

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

[LWD]

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