The American Military-Industrial Complex
OT I know, but how do they make less money on a larger tank that uses more steel and more of pretty much everything else?
Efficiencies in M4 production? (1)
Lower fixed prices for the Pershing? (2)
Just curious?
1) Yes, because they've been making them all along with all the kinks in the assembly line completely worked out. Also, a smaller tank, with lighter materials, means quicker production time per tank.
2) IDK
There were logistical restrictions on transporting tanks the size of the Pershing. But of course, to just keep saying that they were too "insurmountable" to be overcome would suggest the US Army would be relying on the Sherman to this day.

Clearly, they COULD be overcome, as the Ardennes proved. But the excuse of numbers-numbers-numbers would not be let go of by US Armor Replacement Command. I wonder how many of these bastards wound up serving on Big 3 corporate boards after the war?
The thing is, if you could MAKE three Shermans in the time it takes to make ONE Pershing, assuming all other factors being equal, you'll make a lot more $$$. Then there's the issue of downtime on the assembly line while everything is being retooled. And the ferocious demand for new tanks because the old ones keep getting blown apart so fast.
It's like saying you don't have time to plug the leaks in the lifeboat because you are too busy bailing water, and you are making more money bailing than you could make plugging.
But when I think of the results gained from the handful of tank-to-tank encounters between Pershings and panzers...

A lot of GI's never came home because people back home wanted to become MORE rich than they already were.
