All of
these things happened long ago. They are written up by people who took
different paths to the knowledge, people who studied and believed different
versions of events. Historians, like anyone else, may be biased. New original
sources are being discovered all the time. An older history book may or may not
still be a reliable account of events. Dollar amounts are given for certain
things; they may be adjusted for the current value of money or just reported in
contemporary amounts. It can all be confusing.
It is also
important when reading history to read many books on the same subject.
Different historians will address different facets of the events. They will
provide different details. To get the complete picture, you need to read as
many sources as possible. This aspect will be important for another post that
should hit the blog within a week or so.
But today,
the money.
I don’t
have a real historian’s interest in history. I have a grown-up little boy’s
interest in historical events that have always fascinated me. Like World War
II. It is often reported that the Manhattan Project, which gave the world the
atomic bomb, had a total cost of two billion dollars. That’s an impressive
figure; that’s still a lot of money. But a little context would be helpful.
It has
recently come to my attention that the development and construction of the B-29
bombers used in World War II had a price tag of THREE billion dollars. Is that
merely shocking? Or does it only serve to make the atomic bomb sound like a
bargain?
Here’s a
good one. The Thompson sub-machineguns used in WWII had a price tag of about
$350 apiece. Okay. It was a complicated piece to manufacture. It had lots of
parts that needed to be individually machined. It had a wooden stock and hand
grip. It was a terrific weapon though, it was durable, efficient and reliable. Very
popular with the troops. America made an impressive one point three million of
them (1,300,000 units). That comes to about a half a billion dollars, total.
How should we fit that into the context of the atomic bomb or the B-29?
Then there
are the little gems of information that drop by sometimes. It seems that the
unit cost of the Thompson was daunting to the people running that war, and
early on they began to look for a lower cost replacement. They found it in the
sub-machinegun designated the M3 and called “the grease gun.” This gun only
made it into use for the tail end of the war, but it remained in use by the
armed forces for a long, long time. Unit cost? Between $15 and $20.
How’s that
for a contrast? Almost identical in their utility, but the cost drops from $350
to $20. The M3 was made from parts that could be pressed out of sheet metal and
mass produced. It only had one part that needed to be machined, the bolt.
My interest
in these things is almost certainly foolish, but I’m not hurting anybody. Let
an old man have some fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment