Aircraft Economics the forgotten consideration

[gruad]

To use an extreme example, the tiger tank was absolute rubbish compared to the Sherman. The US built 20 to 1 and though they may have had individual superiority in terms of an actual battle weapon, the Sherman wiped, the tiger clean.

Obviously you can have one thing thhe cost a lot or you can have many things that cost less. No, the tiger versus Sherman is an extreme example, but I'm pretty sure that there is a good application of this principle in terms of what occurred in World war II airplanes.

So we know the Lancaster was cheaper to produce and maintain than the Halifax in fact quite by a deal and that's case closed.

But we also have the case of the p47 versus the p51. Now we do know that the p47 cost twice as much. But just in the same way as you have the tiger tank being a more survivable machined the P47 was.

Now is this a big thing in the b24 B17 debate? I think it might be because I feel that the B24 was a much cheaper design to produce.


The Fw190 vs Me109 being another. Was the crappy undercarriage worth it for ease of manufacturing.


What do other members think?

 

[tomo pauk]

Many times, a much more expensive piece of hardware was actually less capable than the less expensive counterpart. Like the Ki 45 when compared with Zero (yes, Zero was IJN's piece of kit, but still). Bf 110 was probably more expensive than the Fw 187, but the 110 was preferred, even if the 187 was a much better performer.

British saw that once the Hurricane and Spitfire can be outfitted with cannons, they can do without Whirlwind; however, they were still paying for Beaufighter (granted, it offered both great firepower and long range, while Whirlwind was a short range fighter). They were also willing to pay for Tempest and Typhoon, as well as actually pay for Lightning. They didn't have the luxury of hindsight like we have today.

The Fw190 vs Me109 being another. Was the crappy undercarriage worth it for ease of manufacturing.

Ease of manufacturing of the 109 had to do with much more things than just with the layout of U/C, even if we forget the BMW 801 being more expensive engine to make and use than the DB 601/605.

 

[gruad]

Many times, a much more expensive piece of hardware was actually less capable than the less expensive counterpart. Like the Ki 45 when compared with Zero (yes, Zero was IJN's piece of kit, but still). Bf 110 was probably more expensive than the Fw 187, but the 110 was preferred, even if the 187 was a much better performer

Surely that's just an example of grift here!

Well you have an overwhelming economic argument against something and it goes through.

Which of course is the great advantage of free societies in the eventually seeing these problems

As as your examples point out. Tomo at least an individual tiger was worth more than an individual Sherman so there is some kind of rationale behind that.
In the messed up kind of way we could say that Hitler cared for his men with giving them better protection in the tiger than in the inferior Sherman, but that's obviously not what the planners were behind and getting World war II to a conclusion

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Much of the original cost of combat types is not airframe, as the US figures indicate, it is the armament, engine(s), communications etc. and they take a lot of the maintenance time, though an aircraft with poorly designed access panels will cost more to run, the Martin Baker MB5 is reported as a maintenance person's dream. In theory a higher performing type will be cheaper if that translates to less battle damage. Different factories tend to end up with different production costs, before all the problems of assigning the true cost of manufacture, like is depreciation of factory buildings, tools and office furniture included in the price? Head office overhead?

Date	Model	Airframe	Engines(s)	Propeller(s)	GFE	Ordnance	Communications	Total	Notes
28-Feb-43​	P-47	$ 47,796	$ 22,608	$ 5,975	$ 5,651	$ 2,527	$ 3,295	$ 87,852	Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	P-47	$ 61,699	$ 24,313	$ 6,922	$ 5,767	$ 3,504	$ 3,303	$ 105,508	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	P-47	$ 55,783	$ 23,852	$ 6,960	$ 5,357	$ 3,506	$ 2,948	$ 98,406	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	P-47	$ 49,420	$ 22,608	$ 5,257	$ 5,210	$ 3,506	$ 3,295	$ 89,296	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
28-Feb-43​	P-51	$ 23,583	$ 17,558	$ 3,740	$ 2,649	$ 1,905	$ 2,780	$ 52,215	Merlin Versions. Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	P-51	$ 28,984	$ 17,328	$ 4,887	$ 2,322	$ 2,493	$ 2,830	$ 58,844	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	P-51	$ 27,889	$ 17,545	$ 4,391	$ 2,236	$ 2,574	$ 2,780	$ 57,415	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	P-51	$ 25,795	$ 17,558	$ 2,555	$ 2,234	$ 2,559	$ 2,780	$ 53,481	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
28-Feb-43​	B-17	$ 111,443	$ 34,287	$ 3,400	$ 45,606	$ 4,595	$ 9,040	$ 208,371	Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	B-17	$ 157,484	$ 37,480	$ 11,755	$ 48,939	$ 5,999	$ 10,305	$ 271,962	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	B-17	$ 129,150	$ 35,521	$ 11,247	$ 47,425	$ 5,966	$ 9,040	$ 238,349	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	B-17	$ 125,464	$ 34,875	$ 6,487	$ 46,413	$ 5,686	$ 9,040	$ 227,965	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
28-Feb-43​	B-24	$ 115,338	$ 32,659	$ 4,220	$ 49,781	$ 3,205	$ 8,474	$ 213,677	Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	B-24	$ 169,452	$ 36,539	$ 12,899	$ 49,034	$ 4,726	$ 9,752	$ 282,402	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	B-24	$ 138,585	$ 33,363	$ 13,004	$ 47,956	$ 4,520	$ 8,474	$ 245,902	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	B-24	$ 114,951	$ 34,497	$ 8,663	$ 48,288	$ 4,505	$ 8,474	$ 219,378	Costs based on uncompleted contracts

Model	1939-41	1942​	1943​	1944​	1945​
B-17	$301,221​	$258,949​	n/a	$204,370​	$187,742​
B-24	$379,162​	$304,391​	n/a	$215,516​
P-47	$113,246​	$105,594​	$104,258​	$85,578​	$83,001​
P-51	n/a	$58,698​	$58,824​	$51,572​	$50,985​

The 1941 to 1943 Lancaster and Halifax shared the same basic engines, propellers, armament and radio equipment, or about half the total cost of a finished aircraft. The Halifax III etc. used the more expensive and heavier Hercules engines, depending on versions 4 Hercules came in at around 1,000 pounds extra weight.

AVIA 15/2389 covers the sale of RAF aircraft to France in 1945/6, including serial numbers, one point is the prices quoted, in pounds, completed aircraft,

37-40,000 Lancaster I
40,000 Halifax
15,000 Mosquito VI
16,000 Mosquito 30
16,000 Mosquito PR XVI
16,300 Mosquito PR.34
10,000 Spitfire IX
9,700 Spitfire XIV
13,650 Typhoon
26,000 Wellington XIII
25,000 Wellington XIV
55-65,000 Sunderland III

Spare engine prices,

1,530 Merlin 22
1,460 Merlin 24
3,830 Hercules 100
1,480 Merlin 25
1,840 Merlin 76
1,840 Merlin 67, 72 etc.
1,900 Merlin 114
1,800 Merlin
2,300 Griffon
5,550 Sabre II
3,180 Hercules XVII
1,596 Pegasus XVIII

My but Rolls Royce were cost effective.

Early war cost estimates, 201st a/c, man hours, Lancaster 74,319, Halifax 98,246, Stirling 129,944

a) June 1941 proposed order 400 Lancaster 17,700,000 pounds, 44,250 pounds each, 250 Halifax 10,938,000 pounds, 43,752 pounds each

b) Lancaster from Armstrong Whitworth 41,400 pounds, from MetroVic 43,600 pounds, Halifax from English Electric 42,000 pounds.

c) 450 Lancaster from Avro 19,340,000 pounds, 42,978 pounds each, Metrovic 257 aircraft 11,204,000 pounds, 43,595 pounds each. 150 Halifax from Fairey 6,572,000 pounds, 43,813 pounds each

Tanks versus tanks fights happened but doctrine tended to the idea anti tank guns fought tanks, tanks did other things, then as the average anti tank gun size grew, making it harder to hide and move, the anti tank guns became more self propelled and German doctrine changes to tank as anti tank weapon, Panther, Assault guns for infantry support, US doctrine Tank Destroyers as anti tank weapon, tank as infantry support.

Real battlefields are full of all sorts of weapons A British analysis of tank losses in August 1944 indicates that on average it took 1.63 hits to knock out a Sherman, 2.55 to knock out a Panther and 4.2 hits to knock out a Tiger. If you make the big assumption all hits are the same, averaged over the various anti tank weapons both sides had, and hits are equally probable again on average then the "kill ratio" in overall combat would be

1 Panther to 2.55/1.63 or 1.6 Shermans and 1 Tiger to 4.2/1.63 or 2.6 Shermans.

Weight ratios were on the order of 1 Panther to 1.5 or 1.4 Shermans, 1 Tiger to around 1.9 Shermans. So the extra weight, basically armour, had its effect. More particularly it is probably saying the Panther would have been better served with some of the frontal armour being reallocated to the sides, making it tougher all round, like the Tiger. The Panther to Tiger ratio is 1.65 Panthers to the Tiger, the Tiger was around 1.3 times heavier than the Panther. The design of the Panther is reported to have meant it was cheaper to make than the Panzer IV.

 

[GrauGeist]

We can also look at the capabilities of each nation's industrial base, too.

Unlike other nations (Allied or Axis), the U.S. had access to raw materials, ample manufacturing sites, skilled labor and purchasing power.

It also helped that their factories were not under attack, too.

 

[Frog]

...British saw that once the Hurricane and Spitfire can be outfitted with cannons, they can do without Whirlwind; however, they were still paying for Beaufighter (granted, it offered both great firepower and long range, while Whirlwind was a short range fighter). ...

To be fair, you could not slung a torpedo under a Spitfire or Hurricane, neither equip them with a radar...

 

[33k in the air]

Obviously you can have one thing thhe cost a lot or you can have many things that cost less.

The Soviet saying comes to mind: quantity has a quality all its own.

 

[Shortround6]

o use an extreme example, the tiger tank was absolute rubbish compared to the Sherman.

False equivalency.
The Tiger was never supposed to be a general issue tank.
A better comparison but still very flawed would be the Tiger vs M6 or Tiger vs M-26.

And economics of production has lot to do with initial orders or production schedule. The Germany army only asked for (paid for) a delivery rate of 25 tanks per month. Took a while for that to be changed. If they had asked for 75 per month and tooled up (and hired manpower) accordingly the price would have come down, at least a little

But we also have the case of the p47 versus the p51. Now we do know that the p47 cost twice as much. But just in the same way as you have the tiger tank being a more survivable machined the P47 was.

It was not just more survivable, although that took quite a while to prove, and the proof was after many of the contracts were issued. Curtiss flubbed their P-47 production effort but the factories tooled up (or constructed from bare plots of ground) were started around two years before the planes established much in way of combat records. Once you had millions invested in infrastructure and tens of thousands of workers trained and housed in certain areas switching production was not easy.
P-47 on paper in 1942 was going to carry twice the guns and twice the ammo to the "battle" as the P-51. Not saying it was twice as effective but it wasn't quite the 2 for 1 that the cost only indicates.

 

[tomo pauk]

To be fair, you could not slung a torpedo under a Spitfire or Hurricane, neither equip them with a radar...

Not with that attitude
A handful Hurricanes were outfitted with radar for night fighting job, while Spitfire might've possibly mimic the Fiat G.55S and carry a torpedo.
Granted, we'd want two-engined A/C to be a night fighter and/or to be a torpedo bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

The Soviet saying comes to mind: quantity has a quality all its own.

True but you have to reach the required quantity.
If it takes 4 crappy tanks to beat 1 good tank and you can only build 3.2 crappy tanks for every 1 of the enemy tanks??????

Your crappy tanks are really crappy because they didn't do the job.

 

[Shortround6]

The Fw190 vs Me109 being another. Was the crappy undercarriage worth it for ease of manufacturing.

Well, in 1941 the 109 had two 7.92mm MG and one 20mm cannon.
The 190 had could have had two 20mm cannon and four 7.92 mm MG ( use 7.92 mg in the outer wings instead of the 20mm MG/FF just for comparison's sake) so the FW 190 could easily carry twice the firepower to the battle.

Many things are not quite the same and improved capabilities need to be looked at.
Also the desired capabilities did not always line up with actual capabilities at give points in time. The actual capabilities changed with time which then affected the cost equations.

In 1940 the Whirlwind and Beaufighter were the only fighters the British had that could carry four 20mm guns. This changed a bit over winter of 1940/41 as the Hurricane and Spitfire got better engines. Hurricane I with four 20mm guns would have needed a ladder to reach pathetic. The Next hiccup was that early British 20mm guns used 60 round drums. The Whirlwinds sometimes fired their guns in pairs to get longer firing times (and Whirlwinds really didn't go into combat until 1941) and the Spitfire Vb only had two guns with 60 rounds each.
The first 400 (?) Beaufighters had 4 drums per gun and one over worked crewman struggling in a dark fuselage (even in daylight) with 60lb drums trying to reload the guns (guns could empty a drum in 6 seconds so after the first 6 seconds of firing they rarely had 4 guns ready to fire unless there was several minute break while the pilot flew somewhat straight and level).
Hurricanes went to twelve .303s while they figured out the belt feeds for the 20mm guns. Spitfire VCs got the belt feeds which double the rounds per gun.
It took well over a year to actually get working belt fed guns into the planes and 2-3 years from the plans (dreams) of 1938 to get the "ideal" armament into the combat planes.

 

[MIflyer]

Your crappy tanks are really crappy because they didn't do the job.

An elderly German man and a little German boy were watching a US Army column go through their village. Army MPs lined the streets to keep the German civilians from being run over.

As a US tank went by, the German boy said, "Deutsche panzers ist better." The old man shushed him. Then another US tank went by and the boy repeated it; the old man shushed him again. After a bit, the German boy again said "Deutsche panzers ist better." and the MP turned around and said, "If the German tanks are better, then where are they?"

We built 50,000 M4 Shermans. They built 1500 Tiger I's. When a Tiger or a Panther hit 5000 miles it needed an full overhaul. Many of the M4's that went ashore on 6 Jun 1944 had 10,000 miles on them and were good for a lot more.

Granted, we should have put the M26 into action earlier. Patton was oriented toward rapid movement and he assumed that big tank would be slow; it wasn't.

 

[Shortround6]

Not with that attitude
A handful Hurricanes were outfitted with radar for night fighting job, while Spitfire might've possibly mimic the Fiat G.55S and carry a torpedo.
Granted, we'd want two-engined A/C to be a night fighter and/or to be a torpedo bomber.

Could and should are not the same thing

Using singe engine fighters to carry torpedoes works if your enemy is willing to sail their ships very close to your shores.
If your torpedo planes cannot reach enemy ships you have wasted all of the money/effort used to make them.

 

[gruad]

Much of the original cost of combat types is not airframe, as the US figures indicate, it is the armament, engine(s), communications etc. and they take a lot of the maintenance time, though an aircraft with poorly designed access panels will cost more to run, the Martin Baker MB5 is reported as a maintenance person's dream. In theory a higher performing type will be cheaper if that translates to less battle damage. Different factories tend to end up with different production costs, before all the problems of assigning the true cost of manufacture, like is depreciation of factory buildings, tools and office furniture included in the price? Head office overhead?

Date	Model	Airframe	Engines(s)	Propeller(s)	GFE	Ordnance	Communications	Total	Notes
28-Feb-43​	P-47	$ 47,796	$ 22,608	$ 5,975	$ 5,651	$ 2,527	$ 3,295	$ 87,852	Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	P-47	$ 61,699	$ 24,313	$ 6,922	$ 5,767	$ 3,504	$ 3,303	$ 105,508	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	P-47	$ 55,783	$ 23,852	$ 6,960	$ 5,357	$ 3,506	$ 2,948	$ 98,406	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	P-47	$ 49,420	$ 22,608	$ 5,257	$ 5,210	$ 3,506	$ 3,295	$ 89,296	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
28-Feb-43​	P-51	$ 23,583	$ 17,558	$ 3,740	$ 2,649	$ 1,905	$ 2,780	$ 52,215	Merlin Versions. Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	P-51	$ 28,984	$ 17,328	$ 4,887	$ 2,322	$ 2,493	$ 2,830	$ 58,844	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	P-51	$ 27,889	$ 17,545	$ 4,391	$ 2,236	$ 2,574	$ 2,780	$ 57,415	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	P-51	$ 25,795	$ 17,558	$ 2,555	$ 2,234	$ 2,559	$ 2,780	$ 53,481	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
28-Feb-43​	B-17	$ 111,443	$ 34,287	$ 3,400	$ 45,606	$ 4,595	$ 9,040	$ 208,371	Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	B-17	$ 157,484	$ 37,480	$ 11,755	$ 48,939	$ 5,999	$ 10,305	$ 271,962	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	B-17	$ 129,150	$ 35,521	$ 11,247	$ 47,425	$ 5,966	$ 9,040	$ 238,349	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	B-17	$ 125,464	$ 34,875	$ 6,487	$ 46,413	$ 5,686	$ 9,040	$ 227,965	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
28-Feb-43​	B-24	$ 115,338	$ 32,659	$ 4,220	$ 49,781	$ 3,205	$ 8,474	$ 213,677	Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44​	B-24	$ 169,452	$ 36,539	$ 12,899	$ 49,034	$ 4,726	$ 9,752	$ 282,402	Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44​	B-24	$ 138,585	$ 33,363	$ 13,004	$ 47,956	$ 4,520	$ 8,474	$ 245,902	Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44​	B-24	$ 114,951	$ 34,497	$ 8,663	$ 48,288	$ 4,505	$ 8,474	$ 219,378	Costs based on uncompleted contracts

Model	1939-41	1942​	1943​	1944​	1945​
B-17	$301,221​	$258,949​	n/a	$204,370​	$187,742​
B-24	$379,162​	$304,391​	n/a	$215,516​
P-47	$113,246​	$105,594​	$104,258​	$85,578​	$83,001​
P-51	n/a	$58,698​	$58,824​	$51,572​	$50,985​

The 1941 to 1943 Lancaster and Halifax shared the same basic engines, propellers, armament and radio equipment, or about half the total cost of a finished aircraft. The Halifax III etc. used the more expensive and heavier Hercules engines, depending on versions 4 Hercules came in at around 1,000 pounds extra weight.

AVIA 15/2389 covers the sale of RAF aircraft to France in 1945/6, including serial numbers, one point is the prices quoted, in pounds, completed aircraft,

37-40,000 Lancaster I
40,000 Halifax
15,000 Mosquito VI
16,000 Mosquito 30
16,000 Mosquito PR XVI
16,300 Mosquito PR.34
10,000 Spitfire IX
9,700 Spitfire XIV
13,650 Typhoon
26,000 Wellington XIII
25,000 Wellington XIV
55-65,000 Sunderland III

Spare engine prices,

1,530 Merlin 22
1,460 Merlin 24
3,830 Hercules 100
1,480 Merlin 25
1,840 Merlin 76
1,840 Merlin 67, 72 etc.
1,900 Merlin 114
1,800 Merlin
2,300 Griffon
5,550 Sabre II
3,180 Hercules XVII
1,596 Pegasus XVIII

My but Rolls Royce were cost effective.

Early war cost estimates, 201st a/c, man hours, Lancaster 74,319, Halifax 98,246, Stirling 129,944

a) June 1941 proposed order 400 Lancaster 17,700,000 pounds, 44,250 pounds each, 250 Halifax 10,938,000 pounds, 43,752 pounds each

b) Lancaster from Armstrong Whitworth 41,400 pounds, from MetroVic 43,600 pounds, Halifax from English Electric 42,000 pounds.

c) 450 Lancaster from Avro 19,340,000 pounds, 42,978 pounds each, Metrovic 257 aircraft 11,204,000 pounds, 43,595 pounds each. 150 Halifax from Fairey 6,572,000 pounds, 43,813 pounds each

Tanks versus tanks fights happened but doctrine tended to the idea anti tank guns fought tanks, tanks did other things, then as the average anti tank gun size grew, making it harder to hide and move, the anti tank guns became more self propelled and German doctrine changes to tank as anti tank weapon, Panther, Assault guns for infantry support, US doctrine Tank Destroyers as anti tank weapon, tank as infantry support.

Real battlefields are full of all sorts of weapons A British analysis of tank losses in August 1944 indicates that on average it took 1.63 hits to knock out a Sherman, 2.55 to knock out a Panther and 4.2 hits to knock out a Tiger. If you make the big assumption all hits are the same, averaged over the various anti tank weapons both sides had, and hits are equally probable again on average then the "kill ratio" in overall combat would be

1 Panther to 2.55/1.63 or 1.6 Shermans and 1 Tiger to 4.2/1.63 or 2.6 Shermans.

Weight ratios were on the order of 1 Panther to 1.5 or 1.4 Shermans, 1 Tiger to around 1.9 Shermans. So the extra weight, basically armour, had its effect. More particularly it is probably saying the Panther would have been better served with some of the frontal armour being reallocated to the sides, making it tougher all round, like the Tiger. The Panther to Tiger ratio is 1.65 Panthers to the Tiger, the Tiger was around 1.3 times heavier than the Panther. The design of the Panther is reported to have meant it was cheaper to make than the Panzer IV.

Thanks Grau Geist for that fantastic analysis.

So B24 cost a bit more than B17 overthrowing my conception. But the B17 was the better bomber.

Did anyone do WI consolidated forced to make B17 timeline? Repercussions might be not having the versatility of the B24...

The RR value for money thing took me by surprise, but then again they survive to this day so then as now they were really on top of their game.

Thanks again GG your database could make for some very interesting revisions.

 

[Shortround6]

We built 50,000 M4 Shermans. They built 1500 Tiger I's.

Missed the point.
The Tiger was intended for breaking through fortified positions. Not even for exploiting the break through, that would be done by the MK IIIs and MK IVs.

The Tiger was more a contemporary of this type of thinking.

which was somewhere around 60 tons.

Yes the US did not use it in combat for a variety of reasons (not the least of which was that some of it's features truly sucked) but neither tank was expected to general issue to ordinary tank divisions.
Much like the P-61 was not intended to replace the P-38, P-47 as a daylight air superiority fighter.

The US did build and issue 250 of these for a somewhat similar role.

The Germans built over 5500 MK IVs from Aug 1943 to the end of the war, they stopped making Tiger Is in Aug 1944.

The Whole Tiger vs Sherman thing is a distraction from what was going on and is a real mix up of the quality over quantity thing.

 

[gruad]

P-47 on paper in 1942 was going to carry twice the guns and twice the ammo to the "battle" as the P-51. Not saying it was twice as effective but it wasn't quite the 2 for 1 that the cost only indicates.

I am a big fan of the p47 don't get me wrong. Ironically, if there was no mustang then the p47 could have been tweaked to perform the role that the mustang did with drop tanks.

But for the role the mustang was cheaper and therefore it got the role. And the p47 was switched to ground attack where it's ruggedness must have been an absolute blessing.

However, I want some videos of the p47 in action performing strafing and that must have been far more dangerous than actually going on mission escorts at that point of the war.

So really thank God we had such a choice of fantastic planes

 

[gruad]

Not with that attitude
A handful Hurricanes were outfitted with radar for night fighting job, while Spitfire might've possibly mimic the Fiat G.55S and carry a torpedo.
Granted, we'd want two-engined A/C to be a night fighter and/or to be a torpedo bomber.

Lw used Fw190 equipped with Neptune radar in Wild Boar role. And British radar is way ahead throughout the war.

 

[GrauGeist]

The PzKfw IV would be a better comparison to the M4, as it was half the cost of a Tiger I and it's mission role was more along the lines of the M4, unlike the Tiger.

 

[gruad]

An elderly German man and a little German boy were watching a US Army column go through their village. Army MPs lined the streets to keep the German civilians from being run over.

As a US tank went by, the German boy said, "Deutsche panzers ist better." The old man shushed him. Then another US tank went by and the boy repeated it; the old man shushed him again. After a bit, the German boy again said "Deutsche panzers ist better." and the MP turned around and said, "If the German tanks are better, then where are they?"

We built 50,000 M4 Shermans. They built 1500 Tiger I's. When a Tiger or a Panther hit 5000 miles it needed an full overhaul. Many of the M4's that went ashore on 6 Jun 1944 had 10,000 miles on them and were good for a lot more.

Granted, we should have put the M26 into action earlier. Patton was oriented toward rapid movement and he assumed that big tank would be slow; it wasn't.

I think one of the things I'm trying to go against is that this kind of impression that the Germans gave there troops proper tanks and things like the Battle of the bulge, whereas the Americans had kind of half measure tanks to fight them back.

The other thing is this invincibility of German engineering when what it did was produce to Hitler's fantasy rather than the real world which the American stuff was doing.

Prime example is the final drive on the panther.

It would be interesting to know how many German tanks were lost as a result of mechanical failure rather than them actually being destroyed.

 

[gruad]

Missed the point.
The Tiger was intended for breaking through fortified positions. Not even for exploiting the break through, that would be done by the MK IIIs and MK IVs.

The Tiger was more a contemporary of this type of thinking.
View attachment 749445
which was somewhere around 60 tons.

Yes the US did not use it in combat for a variety of reasons (not the least of which was that some of it's features truly sucked) but neither tank was expected to general issue to ordinary tank divisions.
Much like the P-61 was not intended to replace the P-38, P-47 as a daylight air superiority fighter.

The US did build and issue 250 of these for a somewhat similar role.
View attachment 749446


The Germans built over 5500 MK IVs from Aug 1943 to the end of the war, they stopped making Tiger Is in Aug 1944.

The Whole Tiger vs Sherman thing is a distraction from what was going on and is a real mix up of the quality over quantity thing.

Point taken. In my original post I should have referred to panther versus Sherman.