Back in the '80s I was told that a Milan anti-tank missile cost the same as a brand new Volvo car , model not specified. How do the modern generation of anti-tank missiles compare ? Is the new Volvo comparison still valid ? (Yes, I know I could Google costs & prices myself but where the fun in that?)
£65k for a Teslar and buy a javelin(many different numbers quoted) for about the same Electric top of the range Volvo would also hit that number with add ons Launching a fully kitted out Volvo would also do a lot of damage
In 1988 we had a malfunction of a Milan that made spectacular ground contact shortly after launch. Comment from the officer in charge: "Congratulations, you have just sent a brand new VW Golf to the moles." That was around DM 22,000 at the time For that price you would get a Panzerfaust 3 with all the trimmings today.
I heard in Iraq that economic warfare was at a premium. In the desert environment especially, tanks in prepared positions create " hotspots" when a thermal imaging camera is passed over their positions. These "hotspots" are then targeted by helicopter launched anti- tank missiles. Each missile costs far less than what a tank does, so a helicopter launched series of missiles may well get 10 to 12 hits from a salvo of 16. These hits will result in 10 to 12 "kills", at the exorbitant cost of 10 to 12 times whatever the AFV cost to produce, deploy and service. So this is a good exchange economically speaking, as each missile costs far less than the total cost of each tank destroyed. So even the missiles that do not hit and "kill" are justified in a strict dollar for dollar exchange. Germanicus
Are you confusing unguided rockets with guided anti-tank missiles ? I don't think Hellfires are fired in salvos of 16. They are too expensive for that. $150,000 I just read .
I'm not sure. But thermal imaging could be for guided ordnance . Still, at 150,000 per missile, it's a fair bet that the cost of the missile is a lot cheaper than its AFV target. It's a good exchange economically speaking, and a fine way of costing your enemy far more in the engagement than what your side is spending to create the "kill"
Perhaps a mix-up with the operation of TF Normandy against Iraqi radar positions? Operation DESERT STORM | U.S. Army Center of Military History
These vehicles look like they are dreadfully over engineered and expensive. Sort of reminds me of the EM-50 Top Secret " Urban Assault Vehicle" from the Bill Murray film " Stripes". That vehicle looked like a camper van with a guided missile and roll-up armoured panels. I certainly wouldn't trust that thing for anything but camping in the great outdoors. It was a lampoon example of some of the expensive and idiotic designs for military assault vehicles that seem to proliferate in Army thinking. I'm sure if we continue to Google search we will turn up further examples of expensive projects rejected for one reason or another by military designers unable to find a buyer for their poorly conceived concept design. If we remember the EM-50 , it seemed to operate best in the film as a campervan. It certainly looked like one
On the same subject but WW2,David Irving in his "Hitler's War" claimed that a V1 cost the German war economy the same price as the Peoples Car, the Volkswagen Beetle.
Now would Irving tell porkies? Another Irving reference (The Mares Nest) to the cost of the V1 from British intelligence. He states: "The British Aircraft Establishment put the flying bomb's cost, at £115 if built in a British factory, which compares well with the average price paid to the Volkswagen firm for V1 production at Fallersleben at about £125.Total V1 production was put at 32000 to 32000 units. The RM /$ US exchange rate in 1939/1941 was 2.5 RM to the dollar. No further exchange rate is available from 1942 to 1945.
It's nonsense, really, isn't it. Smells like a calculation on base materials & little else. Maybe even just the rolled/pressed panels. Development, launchers, personnel, fuel etc. etc. etc. Nope. I will maintain that there was a logical financial/infrastructure reason for the 'Wunderwaffen' line of thinking, but I do indeed find this stat hard to accept. No they don't. Weapon cost thread: weapon cost One thought. Passing interesting though the cost per missile is, most of these modern systems also require ridiculously expensive launchers (along with simulators etc.) Wonder what the average number of shots from a c.$126K Javelin launcher is before it's knackered/lost/needing servicing.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where Irving/ British Aircraft Establishment got the figures from, so I can't comment on that. According to this source Fi 103 Daten the manufacturing costs were as high as RM 5000, with RM 380 estimated for the engine alone. But the calculation was made by Mittelwerk GmbH, hence the actual costs must be even higher compared to free world industries, since this factory relied heavily on slave labour.
V1 manufacturing costs have been discussed before. The V-1 Flying Bomb – 13 Facts about Germany's Infamous Cruise Missile - MilitaryHistoryNow.com As regards the V1 and V2,Irving draws a comparison between them which he describes the V1 as unrivalled for its simplicity, economy and efficiency. For the V2, Irving presents references from an official source, that being the British Ministry of Aircraft Production which assessed the cost of the V2 project and production from its commencement in 1936.This assessment looked at the V2 share of the capital cost of the Peenemunde infrastructure which was put at between £24 million and £40 million plus its development and manufacturing costs The evidence gathered was that by 16 March 1945,"Central Works Ltd" had invoiced the German War Office for 5.789 V2 rockets produced up to that date, at an average price of £6.320.Further charged would be the cost of the warhead, raw materials, fuel and control equipment which was assessed at £350.Taking in the capital costs of the project, the British conclusion was that no V2 unit could have cost less than £12000 by the time it was delivered for launching operations. It would appear that the project was a pathway to developing a rocket capable of strikes against the east coast of the US, a vision which proved to be too far in the end (After the successful raid on Peenemunde by Bomber Command on 18 August 1943,the V2 project was seized by the SS by order of Hitler and transferred to the thought safe location of the Mittelwerk at Nordhausen, the location of the slave labour camp being coded as Dora.) It would seem that a search of British archives on the V weapons would give some conciliatory insight to what has been posted.
