Cost of WW2

[ethanedwards]

The UK government announced this week that it's cost for military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan was in the region of 3 billion pounds. So this got me wondering what would have been the cost for items during WW2, in today's money?
A Spitfire I believe was around £5000 in 1940, which (very roughly) equates to
£300,000 today. I wonder what a Lancaster cost, or a B17? An Irvin or an A2?
A Bren gun or a round of 88mm?
Do any lounge members know? - there's nothing to prove here, it's just an idle
speculation.......

 

[Story]

wartime economics kicks in

Just prior to WWII, a 1928 Thompson ran around $200-250 (equivalent to a utilitarian automobile). The French made the first big international order (which the British took over) and that noticably drove the per-unit price down.

Also, circa 1935-9, I think a 1911 pistol was in the neighborhood of $11-13 and the M-1 Garand $80-90. By comparison, the wartime STEN and M3 ('grease gun') submachineguns were under $20.

The Bren guns were hideously expensive (320+ milling operations just to make the receiver alone). There is a very good tome on Brens, which had the exact prices.

I don't remember the exact cost in English currency but I went thru a similar exercise - the Bren gun magazine worked out to a half-week's wages for a simple factory laborer! (which is why the British messed around with 'rapidly reloadable' magazines).

 

[Smithy]

A Spitfire I believe was around £5000 in 1940

Actually Ethan, that wasn't the actual cost of a Spitfire in 1940. It was the "price" which was chosen for the Spitfire Fund, based on being somewhere between the actual cost and what the public might be prepared to pay. It came about when a wealthy Canadian mining millionaire, Sir Henry Oakes, cabled Lord Beaverbrook asking how much it would cost to buy one Spitfire for the RAF.

The actual total cost of a Spitfire Mk.I in 1940 was £9,848.19.0. The £5,000 was the figure popularly used during fund-raising.

Cheers,

Tim

 

[ethanedwards]

The actual total cost of a Spitfire Mk.I in 1940 was £9,848.19.0. The £5,000 was the figure popularly used during fund-raising.

Cheers,

Tim[/QUOTE]

Hi Tim, according to this website

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency/default0.asp#mid

this amount of money is worth £282,861.84 today. So I got the figure completely wrong before! Thanks to both you and Story for the very
informative posts! But now I need to ask Story what a receiver is ......

 

[Story]

But now I need to ask Story what a receiver is ......

Part 001, roughly equivalent in function to the engine block in an automobile.
http://www.marstar.ca/images/Automatics/Bren/Bren-A1.gif

 

[ethanedwards]

Thanks Story! E.E.

 

[Cobden]

I don't remember the exact cost in English currency but I went thru a similar exercise - the Bren gun magazine worked out to a half-week's wages for a simple factory laborer! (which is why the British messed around with 'rapidly reloadable' magazines).

£1 was roughly worth $4 at the time (according to period publications). Purchasing power wise, £1 then equals about £30 now, and as the current exchange rate is about £1=$2, £1 1940 equals about $60. The average wage of the period was about £2 for a highly skilled worker (miner, factory worker etc), roughly equal to £60/$120 a week, although I'd guess the national average was probably closer to £1 10/- (conscription probably lowering average wages) so £45 modern or $90 modern or $6 1940.

 

[ethanedwards]

I found these figures in 'The American Aircraft Factory in WW2' by Bill Yenne.

"before the war, the unit cost of a Consolidated B-24 had gone from $379,162 to $215,516. Lockheed billed the government $134,280 for a P-38 before the war and $97,147 for a much more capable variant of the same aircraft in 1944. Douglas charged $128,761 for a C-47 before and $88,574 in 1944. In 1941, a Boeing B-17 cost $301,221, while in 1944 it was down to $204,370. Production had become more efficient as well. In 1941, 55,000 man hours were needed to turn out a B-17. By 1944, this had dropped to 19,000 hours."

This is a fantastic volume, especially for the stunning photographs.

 

[Story]

£1 was roughly worth $4 at the time (according to period publications). Purchasing power wise, £1 then equals about £30 now, and as the current exchange rate is about £1=$2, £1 1940 equals about $60. The average wage of the period was about £2 for a highly skilled worker (miner, factory worker etc), roughly equal to £60/$120 a week, although I'd guess the national average was probably closer to £1 10/- (conscription probably lowering average wages) so £45 modern or $90 modern or $6 1940.

Yup, sounds about right for the Byzantian math I did (using the historical currency and currency conversion sites).

 

[dhermann1]

So the bottom line for the whole war comes out to umpty bazillion dollars (adjusted for inflation)? Oh yes, and 70 million human lives. Let's not do it again.

 

[Story]

Let's not do it again.

Until the next time the Nazis-du-jour & their little buddies show their collective heads and attempt to enslave the entire planet.

 

[ethanedwards]

So the bottom line for the whole war comes out to umpty bazillion dollars (adjusted for inflation)? Oh yes, and 70 million human lives. Let's not do it again.

I didn't want to go down the route of human suffering - how can you put a price on that? But you're right, let's not do it again.

 

[Twitch]

This all makes me think of cars. In the 60s you could still get a new car for $2000. Of course no computers and emissions crapola. Simple and effective. Where have those days gone?

 

[rokket]

I realize I'm late, but maybe someone is still thinking of this..

It's all a bit muddy and relative, this money/cost thing, at least IMHO.

In the 40s, A Gato submarine cost $1 million. Back when a million meant something. Folks made $1200-2,500 a year, so that kind of money would last the average person 400 - 800 years! That's alike a modern sub costing a bullion.5 today!

I have lived in Australia for 14 yrs. The exchange rate of course changes, but is naturally around .70 to .75 compared to a US dollar. yet if you take a week's wage and what you can buy, it averages out to be very similar to the US. But if I take the A$ and go to the US$ I get, well, taken for a ride.

Its always hard to amke equivalents in numbers, better to think of equivalents in week's wage/what you can buy.

Another thought strikes...it costs about the same in labor and materials to make bread now as back in the 4s. So why does bread cost more? Shouldn't it get cheaper as tech improves?

Money and value pretty strange stuff!