German AFV prices WW2

I recently came across a list of German WW2 AFV prices. Some were surprising, and they might be useful for some TL, so I'll share. The source is the latest issue of the French magazine Batailes & Blindes. (a great mag, by the way)
All prices fully equipped, except were noted.
SdKfz222- 19600RM
SdKfz231 8Rad - 52980RM
PzKfw IIAusf F -52728RM
PzKFw III Ausf M -103163RM (without radio)
PzKfw IV Ausf F2 - 115962RM
PzKfw V Panther Ausf G -117000RM (without weapons)
PzKFw VI Tiger I Ausf E - 299800RM
StuG III Ausf G - 82500RM

So the Panther was a bargain, even if we factor in the extra cost of weapons (should come out at 125000 to 130000) and the Tiger I was really expensive. Stugs were cheap. I'd expect the Tiger II, with simplified Panther type production could be less expensive than the Tiger I, but those were the numbers they had.
Hope somebody finds this useful. I did.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Some more AFV:
PzKpfw IB: ~38.000 RM (without weapons)
15cm s.I.G auf F: 53.000 RM
PzKpfw VIB 'Königstiger': 321.500 RM

Some anti-tank guns:
2cm Kw.K 38 L/55: 3.500 RM
3,7cm PAK 35/36 L/45: 5.730 RM
5cm PAK 38 L60: 10.600 RM
7,5cm PAK 40 L/48: 12.000 RM
7.5cm Kw.K50 L/48: 13.500 RM
7,5cm Kw.K L/70: 12.000 RM
8,8cm PAK 43 L/71: 26.000 RM
8,8cm KwK 43 L/71: 21.500 RM

Mortars and Nebelwerfers:
8cm GR.W. 34: 810 RM
10cm Nb.W.40: 14.000 RM
10,5cm Nb.W.35: 1.500 RM
12cm Gr.W.42: 1.200 RM

Guns, Machineguns and other infantry weapons:
7.92mm Kar.98k: 70 RM
7.92mm M.P.44: 66 RM
7.92mm MG.34: 327 RM
7.92mm MG.42: 250 RM
8.8cm R.Pz.B.54 'Panzerschreck': 70 RM

For comparison:
M4A1 (75): 47.725 US$
M4A3 (75): 47.003 US$
M4A3 (76): 54.836 US$
M10: 40.906 US$

1 US$~2.5 RM
 

Deleted member 1487

How much material did each cost? Man hours? How about the material that went into producing the factories? What was output per month?
There are the things that matter, as pricing, especially in Germany, was pretty much cost plus, which meant that the prices were fixed by the manufacturers and government agreeing on a price, rather than the true costs being factored in.
 
So the Tiger II was even more expensive than the I. But the bombshell is:
The Sherman M4A3(76) was more expensive than the Panther.
Amazing!
 
How much material did each cost? Man hours? How about the material that went into producing the factories? What was output per month?
There are the things that matter, as pricing, especially in Germany, was pretty much cost plus, which meant that the prices were fixed by the manufacturers and government agreeing on a price, rather than the true costs being factored in.

But there should be a relative element. The factories would charge proportionally to cost, so a Tiger II would really be three times as expensive as the Panther. And the costs of the German equipment seem logical. (but for the bargain Panther, even though I'd read on another article that the Panther was not much more expensive than the PzKfw IV.)
Were labour costs the factor for the Sherman high price?
 

Rubicon

Banned
A PzKpfw III used in production:
39.000kg of steel
1.4kg of tin
60.1kg of copper
90.4kg of aluminium
71.1kg of lead
49.1kg of zinc
125kg of rubber

But since a Pz. III didn't weight ~40 tons I guess some of it (particulary the steel) would be melted down and reused afterwards.

I know there were quite a bit of innefficiancy early on in the German production, with German firms granted much larger amounts of raw materiel then needed for construction (which was fixed later on in -43 IIRC). Perhaps this is a case of that.
 

Deleted member 1487

But there should be a relative element. The factories would charge proportionally to cost, so a Tiger II would really be three times as expensive as the Panther. And the costs of the German equipment seem logical. (but for the bargain Panther, even though I'd read on another article that the Panther was not much more expensive than the PzKfw IV.)
Were labour costs the factor for the Sherman high price?

IIRC German pricing was artificially low by the end of WW2, while the US used market pricing (I could be wrong about that...for some reason I think the US did use some cost plus contracts too, but not sure about tanks.
 
IIRC German pricing was artificially low by the end of WW2, while the US used market pricing (I could be wrong about that...for some reason I think the US did use some cost plus contracts too, but not sure about tanks.

But the prices for the Tigers remained very high, and logical. The Panther, specially the G, was designed for mass production. But the huge US plants, very efficiently run, should have been very competitive in prices. Anyone has prices for a Comet?
The huge price diference btw the Tiger and the Panther seems a bit on the wide side, but the Tiger I was a more traditional quality oriented design.
I wonder how much a Porsche Tiger would cost.
 
Two great deals on Rubicon's list. The MP44 is a fantastic deal and the 120mm mortar they copied from the soviets was a great bargain as well.
 
But the prices for the Tigers remained very high, and logical. The Panther, specially the G, was designed for mass production. But the huge US plants, very efficiently run, should have been very competitive in prices. Anyone has prices for a Comet?
The huge price diference btw the Tiger and the Panther seems a bit on the wide side, but the Tiger I was a more traditional quality oriented design.
I wonder how much a Porsche Tiger would cost.

Tiger I used a special high hardness nickel steel for its armour, which I believe had to be imported from the Swedish iron mine at Kiruna as any native supply was either limited or non-existent.

Wherever it came from though, that specialist steel was difficult to work with, resulting in added expense. According to Wiki, it used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maraging_steel

The 8.8cm gun was also somewhat more expensive compared to the 75/L70 but offered less AP performance, see particularly post #27 of this tanknet thread: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=36662&st=20

That was OK for what it was designed to be - a very limited specialist AFV.

Panther was as you say designed from the outset with production engineering in mind, and reduced usage of strategic materials - copper being the one that springs to mind from the explanation in Von Senger's book that I read many years back. It may have needed less of that than the MkIV, or much the same but for a bigger vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Top