According to Tankopedia, a konigtiger cost approximately $300,000 at then current exchange rates, 5 times more than a panther. The cost of the panther, $60,000, on the other hand, was broadly similar to other tanks. A panther cost about twice as much as a T-34, and about 50% more than a Sherman or Panzer IV.
If one scale the cost of a tank by its weight, you'd find the Panther, T-34, mk IV, and Sherman are all comparable on a $/ton basis. Even tiger I is not that far off. But tiger II is an extreme outlier, costing over 2 times as much as tiger I on a $/ton basis, and 4 times more than panther, Sherman, mk-4 and T-34.
Wartime allied reviews commented on the fact that neither the quality of steel or the worksmenship of Tiger II matches those on the Tiger I or earlier models of Panther. What accounted for Tiger I's disproportionate cost?
Hosted by Darren Baker
Why does tiger II cost so much?
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 01:09 AM UTC
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 02:10 AM UTC
We're not discussing bottom round or tenderloin. You can't measure production costs of a piece of equipment by cost per ton. It doesn't work that way. The KT was a much more complicated vehicle, technically and mechanically, than the other vehicles you mentioned. Everything from machining the hull, turret construction, armament and construction manhours all increase the cost.
erichvon
Joined: January 17, 2006
KitMaker: 1,694 posts
Armorama: 1,584 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 02:40 AM UTC
When you look at the overall tank rather than it's weight it makes more sense as Joseph said. The main armament is bigger for one which is naturally going to cost more. The advantage of that is it can "reach out and touch" at much greater ranges and more accurately. It has thicker armour which again costs more and as the German economy and heavy industry was suffering quite badly by the point KT's were in production costs of pretty much everything had gone up in price. Remember that they're building a tank under a wartime economy rather than in peacetime or when the war was going their way. Resources of raw materials were harder to come by as some essentials were imported and neutral suppliers could put their prices up if they felt like it. Germany wasn't really in a position to say "That's too expensive. Drop the price or we'll invade you and take it for nothing". You would need to look at it on an item by item cost if you wanted to work out why it cost more. The main guns optics would have cost more in 1944 to say the optics on a Tiger 1 in 1943. Costs are all relative.
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 03:01 AM UTC
Quoted Text
We're not discussing bottom round or tenderloin. You can't measure production costs of a piece of equipment by cost per ton. It doesn't work that way. The KT was a much more complicated vehicle, technically and mechanically, than the other vehicles you mentioned. Everything from machining the hull, turret construction, armament and construction manhours all increase the cost.
The king tiger does not appear to be disproportionally complex. It's hull design is similar to those of the a late model, simplified and streamlined and cheaper panther G hull. The number of wed games and machining steps needed to fabricate a ING tiger hull appear similar t those for a panther. King tiger and panther share the same engine, electrical equipment, gun sight, hydraulic equipment. The king tiger has a more sophisticated dual turn radius gear box compared to panther's single turn radius transmission. But tiger I, costing less than half as much as tiger II, also has the sophisticated dual radius transmission. The panther, on the other hand, has a more sophisticated dual torsion bar suspension that allows twice as much suspension travel as tiger II's single torsion bar suspension. Tiger II has a bigger gun, yes, and significantly more armor steel. But that can hardly make the tiger II 5 times more expensive. The notion tthat tiger II is an unusually sophisticated vehicle does not hold water.
I wonder if the high unit cost of king tiger results purely from the relative smaller number built, hence the start up cost of setting up production line has to be depreciated over many fewer tanks.
RLlockie
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 03:34 AM UTC
How was that cost figure calculated? Even today there are many ways of determining the cost of a tank or any other piece of equipment, depending on what is included (R&D, spares etc.) and it's (obviously!) not as simple as looking at what you would have paid at the local tank dealership in 1944 and identifying that as 'the price'.
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 03:53 AM UTC
I don't know how it was calculated. I will guess the costs were based on each government's own accounting of arms procurement budgets and expenses. How these costs were recorded may differ between governments. But those for panther, mk IV tiger 1 and tiger 2 ought to be consistent
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 04:35 AM UTC
Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship; but, its economy, thanks to policies instituted by Hjalmar Schacht, was still a capitalist, profit-driven system. Add that observation to Karl's succinct explanation and there you have the whys and therefores as to the final production cost of a King Tiger.
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 05:35 AM UTC
Even in a capitalist system wartime exigencies requires resources be rationed, and scarcity pricing (i.e. War profiteering) suppressed. So the fact that German military (the market) may be willing to pay a high price for the king tiger does not mean the manufacturers are free to charge what the market will bear. They would be required to operate on a cost plus basis and justify the price they charge by letting the military and the Reich ministry of armament under Albert Speer audit their books to show the price is commensurate with their actually cost.
So,the question is why is tiger 2 so much more costly to make than the panther? The panther is subject to all the war time shortages just like the tiger ii.
So,the question is why is tiger 2 so much more costly to make than the panther? The panther is subject to all the war time shortages just like the tiger ii.
d6mst0
#453
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,925 posts
Armorama: 601 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 06:16 AM UTC
The Tiger II was a larger tank, Jagdtiger being the longer by 10 inches. It frontal armor was six to 7 inches, side armor 3.2 inches. The 88mm was 71 calibers, longer and heavier then the Tiger I, and the 75mm on the Panther. This required a larger turret to maintain the center of gravity and recoil which required a longer chassis. Yes the engine and the transmission was reused from the Tiger. Which is why more Tiger II were lost to breakdowns than combat. The suspension had to be stronger (heavier) along with the road wheels. All of this means 68 tons of steel and hardware and that costs time which means money. You don't just drill through or weld 6 inches of harden armor as it was sheet metal.
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 06:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
So,the question is why is tiger 2 so much more costly to make than the panther? The panther is subject to all the war time shortages just like the tiger ii.
You're beating this argument into the ground like the proverbial dead horse. It's painfully obvious as to why the KT was more expensive to produce than a Panther. Since you're not satisfied with any of the logical reasons provided, why don't you research the subject and let us know what you find?
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 07:01 AM UTC
Quoted Text
We're not discussing bottom round or tenderloin. You can't measure production costs of a piece of equipment by cost per ton. It doesn't work that way.
Determining and comparing cost per unit weight is a valid and useful estimating technique for complex systems. I would say that it would perfectly reasonable for tanks of the same vintage and approximate technology level. It would not be as good to compare a Mark IV rhomboid to an M1A1, however.
KL
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 07:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Determining and comparing cost per unit weight is a valid and useful estimating technique for complex systems. I would say that it would perfectly reasonable for tanks of the same vintage and approximate technology level. It would not be as good to compare a Mark IV rhomboid to an M1A1, however.
KL
Sure, if that means factoring in the cost of R&D, materials, production facility setup and labor to produce said item. Using cost per unit weight isn't valid on its own terms if you are using it within a narrowly defined criteria. If something weighs more than another similar, but not identical item, it stands to reason it will cost more because more material, among other factors, is required. Cost per unit weight doesn't give a complete insight of what is required to produce anything.
erichvon
Joined: January 17, 2006
KitMaker: 1,694 posts
Armorama: 1,584 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 09:43 AM UTC
Another factor which needs to be taken into consideration is man hours involved in construction. German tanks were notoriously complicated therefore it took longer to build them. To say it had "X" amount of welds is wrong. You may be able to count what you perceive as the amount of welds on the outside but there would be literally tens of thousands of weld points. I remember my gran telling me that she had to make 352 welds on a bomb tail during the war (she worked making bomb tails of various sizes), so how many welds external and internal on a KT? When you look at the size of a King Tiger and the engineering involved to say a Panther it is obviously going to take longer to build, QED more man hours on a production line. It may look similar to a Panther hull but the construction of it may be completely different. Not having seen the blue prints and not being an engineer I don't know how the construction differed. Each worker needs paying so this will add to the overall production costs. As Joseph pointed out, if others balanced hypotheses are insufficient the only solution is to do a lot of research into the subject which will be difficult unless you have access to Reich Ministry documents dealing with procurement of raw materials, machining costs etc. Good luck.
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 10:36 AM UTC
I also suspect that the production numbers also had something to do with it. How many more panthers were produced? If you were producing three times as many per month then the production costs could be lower also. Look at the difference between the cost of a T55 and a T62. similar tanks/technology but quite a bit different in cost. I believe the T62's cost was double the cost of a T55.
Dioramartin
Joined: May 04, 2016
KitMaker: 1,476 posts
Armorama: 1,463 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 11:05 AM UTC
Principle 1 – There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Principle 2 – Don’t believe anything you read on the internet without checking their sources and going there yourself.
Tankopedia is some kind of wargaming site - hardly an authority on anything. Albert Speer’s memoir might be a better place to start. In 5 minutes googling I found the following caveats on this subject:
1) Who’s calculating what exchange rates prevailing at what point during WW2 ? Just think about those variables for starters - would the Reichsmark exchange rate against the US $ have been strengthening or weakening in the period say 1941 to 1945? Um….
2) UNIT COST per quantity manufactured. Unit cost of early Tiger 1’s in 1942: “as high as 800,000 Reichsmarks”. Unit cost over whole Tiger 1 production: “250,000 Reichsmarks”.
Tiger II had a tiny production run compared to most other tanks (German and/or Allied) and in the context of those, they never got past “Early production” quantities – refer Tiger I stats above. So of course unit cost would be sky high, costed on ever scarcer materials.
But then I’ve just bandied about unchecked figures I took off the internet too, so don’t believe any of it.
Principle 2 – Don’t believe anything you read on the internet without checking their sources and going there yourself.
Tankopedia is some kind of wargaming site - hardly an authority on anything. Albert Speer’s memoir might be a better place to start. In 5 minutes googling I found the following caveats on this subject:
1) Who’s calculating what exchange rates prevailing at what point during WW2 ? Just think about those variables for starters - would the Reichsmark exchange rate against the US $ have been strengthening or weakening in the period say 1941 to 1945? Um….
2) UNIT COST per quantity manufactured. Unit cost of early Tiger 1’s in 1942: “as high as 800,000 Reichsmarks”. Unit cost over whole Tiger 1 production: “250,000 Reichsmarks”.
Tiger II had a tiny production run compared to most other tanks (German and/or Allied) and in the context of those, they never got past “Early production” quantities – refer Tiger I stats above. So of course unit cost would be sky high, costed on ever scarcer materials.
But then I’ve just bandied about unchecked figures I took off the internet too, so don’t believe any of it.
Scarred
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 02:24 PM UTC
There were more than 6300 Panthers built, 1347 Tiger I's and only 492 Tiger II's. Numbers lower cost. Not to mention you need to factor in man-power shortages, destroyed factories, material shortages, transportation cost when the infrastructure of Germany was being destroyed. It all adds up.
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 04:18 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Sure, if that means factoring in the cost of R&D, materials, production facility setup and labor to produce said item. Using cost per unit weight isn't valid on its own terms if you are using it within a narrowly defined criteria. If something weighs more than another similar, but not identical item, it stands to reason it will cost more because more material, among other factors, is required. Cost per unit weight doesn't give a complete insight of what is required to produce anything.
It may surprise you, but in fact it does. The concept is called parametric estimating. This company, for one, uses product weight as a primary factor in its estimating models for mechanical (i.e. minimal electronics and software like a WW II tank) items. My company trialed their software package and found it to be accurate.
KL
(Professional cost estimator for DOD/DOE equipment)
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 05:09 PM UTC
According to the definition for "parametric estimating", weight is one of the many, and not the primary, variables used:
There's a whole lot more involved.
Quoted Text
Parametric Estimating
An estimating technique that uses a statistical relationship between historical data and other variables (for example, square footage in construction, lines of code in software development) to calculate an estimate for activity parameters, such as scope, cost, budget, and duration. This technique can produce higher levels of accuracy depending upon the sophistication and the underlying data built into the model. An example for the cost parameter is multiplying the planned quantity of work to be performed by the historical cost per unit to obtain the estimated cost.
There's a whole lot more involved.
urumomo
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 08:01 PM UTC
Plus ,
KT had Corinthian leather and 8-track player ...
KT had Corinthian leather and 8-track player ...
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 27, 2016 - 09:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
According to the definition for "parametric estimating", weight is one of the many, and not the primary, variables used...
There's a whole lot more involved.
There can be more, as I said, such as when electronics or new technologies were involved. In the instant case, however, when comparing the cost of a Tiger II to its contemporaries weight would likely and reasonably be the primary cost estimating parameter.
One should note that estimating this way does not mean that the price difference is due solely to the fact that there are 10 more tons of steel at $1,000 per ton, hence a $10,000 price difference. Many factors (e.g. labor, overhead, engineering and administrative effort) can be shown to be a function of the weight of the final object. So, that 10 extra tons of steel may bring with it labor at 75 hours/ton, overhead at $350/ton, engineering at $45/ton, tooling at $625/ton, and so on.
In comparing the Tiger II to the Panther, there really should not be a dramatic difference in the RM/Kg factor. There was no difference in the technological level of the vehicles; one was just bigger, so there was no R&D worth mentioning (even if there had been time to do it). The Panther was more of a departure from previous designs than the Tiger II was from the Panther, so if anything manufacturing start-up costs would have been larger on the earlier vehicle. The real question is what is considered in the various prices and whether the numbers for various tanks include the same costs.
And BTW, the definition you quoted says nothing about how many parameters are needed or used and does not support your statement that weight cannot be used as the primary or even sole factor. The definition, in fact, says quite the opposite,
KL
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Monday, November 28, 2016 - 12:32 AM UTC
That definition was gleaned from the Cornell University IT site.
mmeier
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts
Posted: Monday, November 28, 2016 - 01:23 AM UTC
Did they need new maschines to handle the size/weight of the hull? Did they need "non standard size" armor plates compared to the Panther and/or had more wast (I.e Panther was about as fast to produce as a PIV and used less cuts/waste material per to of tank than a Tiger I)
=======================
But the real reason is:
A Panther was the equivalent to an Asprin. You had M4 or T34, took a Panther and it was gone
Tiger/Tiger II was more like Viagra. When the little Sturmmann or Führer wasn't willing to throw the "german salute" you took a Tiger, a BIG Impressive tank with LONG THICK Barrel and Gretel/Eva/Blondie where happy again.
Compare Asprin to Viagra prices...
=======================
But the real reason is:
A Panther was the equivalent to an Asprin. You had M4 or T34, took a Panther and it was gone
Tiger/Tiger II was more like Viagra. When the little Sturmmann or Führer wasn't willing to throw the "german salute" you took a Tiger, a BIG Impressive tank with LONG THICK Barrel and Gretel/Eva/Blondie where happy again.
Compare Asprin to Viagra prices...
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Monday, November 28, 2016 - 01:36 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Did they need new maschines to handle the size/weight of the hull? Did they need "non standard size" armor plates compared to the Panther and/or had more wast (I.e Panther was about as fast to produce as a PIV and used less cuts/waste material per to of tank than a Tiger I)
=======================
But the real reason is:
A Panther was the equivalent to an Asprin. You had M4 or T34, took a Panther and it was gone
Tiger/Tiger II was more like Viagra. When the little Sturmmann or Führer wasn't willing to throw the "german salute" you took a Tiger, a BIG Impressive tank with LONG THICK Barrel and Gretel/Eva/Blondie where happy again.
Compare Asprin to Viagra prices...
lol? I guess the OP had it coming...
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Monday, November 28, 2016 - 03:24 AM UTC
And now more of a substantial contribution: Did you factor in air raids at all?
AFAIK, Tiger IIs were only manufactured in Kassel (by Henschel). Kassel was hit pretty hard by air raids on 22 Octobre 1943 (80 % destrucion of residential proprety), and again on the following dates: 22.09.1944, 27.09.1944, 28.09.1944, 02.10.1944, 07.10.1944, 08.10.1944, 15.12.1944, 03.12.1944, 21.01.1945, 29.01.1945, 20.02.1945, 08.03.1945 und 09.03.1945.
Assuming that at least some of these attacks directly or indirectly also affected Henschel, there might be a major disdavantage in costs (apart from the sheer numbers) when compared to the Panther which was manufactuerd in 4 different plants at the same time. Air raids on Henschel allegedly cost 600 Tiger IIs...
AFAIK, Tiger IIs were only manufactured in Kassel (by Henschel). Kassel was hit pretty hard by air raids on 22 Octobre 1943 (80 % destrucion of residential proprety), and again on the following dates: 22.09.1944, 27.09.1944, 28.09.1944, 02.10.1944, 07.10.1944, 08.10.1944, 15.12.1944, 03.12.1944, 21.01.1945, 29.01.1945, 20.02.1945, 08.03.1945 und 09.03.1945.
Assuming that at least some of these attacks directly or indirectly also affected Henschel, there might be a major disdavantage in costs (apart from the sheer numbers) when compared to the Panther which was manufactuerd in 4 different plants at the same time. Air raids on Henschel allegedly cost 600 Tiger IIs...
d6mst0
#453
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,925 posts
Armorama: 601 posts
Posted: Monday, November 28, 2016 - 04:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
And now more of a substantial contribution: Did you factor in air raids at all?
AFAIK, Tiger IIs were only manufactured in Kassel (by Henschel). Kassel was hit pretty hard by air raids on 22 Octobre 1943 (80 % destrucion of residential proprety), and again on the following dates: 22.09.1944, 27.09.1944, 28.09.1944, 02.10.1944, 07.10.1944, 08.10.1944, 15.12.1944, 03.12.1944, 21.01.1945, 29.01.1945, 20.02.1945, 08.03.1945 und 09.03.1945.
Assuming that at least some of these attacks directly or indirectly also affected Henschel, there might be a major disdavantage in costs (apart from the sheer numbers) when compared to the Panther which was manufactuerd in 4 different plants at the same time. Air raids on Henschel allegedly cost 600 Tiger IIs...
You are quite right about the effects of the air raids on Henschel. By October 1944 due to hits on his plants the suppliers were also suffering. Production of the TK was down to only 26 for October 1944 from 73 the month before.
According to Peter Gudgin the author of "The Tiger Tanks" he quotes the first 50 TK were with the Porsche turret which had a curved front plate and side plates. This made the turret difficult and expensive to manufacture. Switching to the Henschel turret allowed the use of flat plates making it more simple to construct. It took from January 1944 to August 1944 to produce the first fifty tanks. Production didn't wrap up until the Tiger 1 ceased production, which was in the same plant.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.