Annotated Bibliography

See bottom of page for acknowledgements

M1917 6-Ton Tank

“Pay Tables for 1917.” Couvi’s Blog, April 14, 2007.

This source provides the pay of US Army personnel in the early 1900’s.

This is an unreliable source, being that it is a post on a blog from 2007. However, as explained in the annotations for Naval Encyclopedia, reliance on hobbyist research is common in this space. For the purpose of this project, the information provided is adequate.

R. P. Hunnicutt, A History of the American
Light Tank. Vol. 1, Presidio, 1992.

This source provides the basis for speculation on unit cost.

Cost of military equipment from before WWII is hard to come by, and the price of the M1917 6-ton tank isn’t present anywhere. As such, I’ve used this book to source the cost of the Three-Ton Special Tractor M1918 and extrapolated the cost of the M1917. Cross-referencing with orders for the Renault FT17 indicate that this speculation is within the ballpark of the actual costs.

This source is reliable, standing up to the rigors of peer-review and sourcing in book publishing.

The total cost of the M1917 6 Ton Tank Program was calculated based on unit cost and crew salaries

M4 Sherman

Spoelstra, Hanno. "Sherman’s 1945 Prices.”
The Sherman Register,
https://www.mapleleafup.nl/g104/
cost.htm, June 11, 2003; Accessed:
March 14, 2024.

This source provides the average unit cost for M4 tanks.

This is an unreliable source, being that it is published on a hobbyist website. The rational follows the Naval Encyclopedia article—reliance on hobbyist research is common in this space. For the purpose of this project, the information provided is adequate, and lines up with other, less accessible sources.

Tillitt, Malvern Hall. “Army-Navy Pay Tops
Most Civilians' Unmarried Private's
Income Equivalent to $3,600 Salary.”
Barron's National Business and Financial
Weekly, April 24, 1944. American
Merchant Marine at War Records,
http://www.usmm.org/barrons.html.

This source provides the pay for M4 Sherman crews during WWII.

This article was published during WWII, and is well sourced. While the journalism is sensationalized, narrativizing pay discrepancies between US service members and civilians, the numbers can be trusted to be accurate.

The total cost of the M4 Sherman Program was calculated based on unit cost and crew salaries.

M1 Abrams

“Army Working Capital Fund Fiscal Year
2023 Budget Estimates.” Army Financial
Management & Comptroller, April 2022.

This source provides the maintenance costs for the M1 Abrams.

This document was published by the comptroller for the US Army, and so can be trusted to provide strictly accurate information.

Williams, Greg. “The Army’s M1 Tank: Has It
Lived Up To Expectations?” Project on
Government Oversight, January 1, 1990.

This source provides the unit cost of the M1 Abrams.

The number pulled from this article can be trusted to be accurate, though much of the article is extremely slanted with an anti-M1 narrative. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) is a government watchdog, concerned with wasteful spending. It is associated with the “Reformers” think tank, who are primarily focused on criticism of US military procurement and new technologies. Though some unfair and misleading comparisons are made, the information pulled is still useful and aligns with other sources.

The total cost of the M1 Abrams Program was calculated based on unit cost and sustainment over the program’s lifespan.

Bainbridge Class Torpedo Boat Destroyer

“1922-1942 Military Officer Base Pay Chart.”
Navy CyberSpace,
https://www.navycs.com/charts/
1922-enlisted-pay- chart.html;
Accessed: March 14, 2024

This source provides the pay of US Navy personnel in the early 1900’s.

Navy Cyberspace began as a research source for potential US Navy recruits, on behalf of Navy Recruiting. It is run by a retired Navy Officer, and so can be relied upon for accurate information, though has a pro-military bias.

“Bainbridge class destroyers (1900).” Naval
Encyclopedia, January 11, 2023,
https://navalencyclopedia.com/ww1/us/
bainbridge-class-destroyers.php;
Accessed: March 14, 2024

This source provides the crew count for Bainbridge Class Destroyers

This is an unreliable source, able to be edited by anonymous internet users. However, because statistics on military equipment is esoteric, even if often publicly available, reliance on enthusiasts digging through archives and old books is commonplace in this field. The information provided by this source is reasonable, so is accepted for the purposes of this project.

Boutelle, Charles A. (ME). “Naval
Appropriations Bill.”
Congressional Record 31 (1898) p. 3458.
(Text from: Congressional Record
Permanent Digital Collection);
Accessed: March 14, 2024

This source provides the original budget allotment for the first order of Torpedo Boat Destroyers, which would become the Bainbridge Class.

This is a primary source—being a transcript from the congressional record, it is reliable.

The total cost of the Bainbridge Class Destroyer Program was calculated based on unit cost and crew salaries.

Fletcher Class Destroyer

“1922-1942 Military Officer Base Pay Chart.”
Navy CyberSpace,
https://www.navycs.com/charts/
1922-enlisted-pay-chart.html; Accessed:
March 14, 2024

This source provides the pay of US Navy personnel in the early 1900’s.

Stewart, George. “Manning Fletcher Class
Destroyers.” Naval Historical Foundation,
August 21, 2013.

This source provides the crew count for Fletcher Class Destroyers.

The Naval Historical Foundation is a US Navy adjacent organization dedicated to documenting, preserving, and promoting the history of the US Navy. While its point-of-view is biased in favor of the military, there is no reason to discount the accuracy of the data it provides.

The total cost of the Fletcher Class Destroyer Program was calculated based on unit cost and crew salaries.

Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer

“Navy Ship Usage Has Decreased as
Challenges and Costs Have Increased.”
Weapons System Sustainment U.S.
Government Accountability Office
GAO-23-106440 p. 43, January 2023.

This source provides the yearly sustainment costs for the Destroyer Fleet.

Being published by the Government Accountability Office, this source can be trusted to have accurate numbers. Being that it was created as a check on Military procurement, it contains some narrativization which may be detrimental in some cases, but does not influence its usage here.

O’Rourke, Ronald “Navy DDG-51 and
DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress,”
Congressional Research Service,
February 6, 2024 p. 2.

This source provides the unit cost for a new Arleigh Burke Destroyer in 2023.

Like above, this document was published by an official government department for Congress. It shares the same benefits and issues as with the GAO document.

The total cost of the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer Program was calculated based on unit cost and sustainment over the program’s lifespan.

P-6 Hawk

“Curtiss P-6E Hawk.” Air Force Link, Archived November 18, 2007.

This source provides the unit cost of the P-6E Hawk.

Air Force Link was formerly the website for the US Air Force, and so could be trusted to contain accurate information. The site has since been replaced by airforce.com and its pages taken down. The site was archived by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. The archived page is linked here.

“Pay Tables for 1917.” Couvi’s Blog, April 14, 2007.

This source provides the pay of US Army (also applies Army Air Force) personnel in the early 1900’s.

The total cost of the P-6 Hawk Program was calculated based on unit cost and crew salaries.

P-51 Mustang

“Monthly Basic Pay and Allowances.”
Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
October 1, 1949.

This source provides the pay for US Army (and USAAF) personnel.

This is a primary source from the US Military. It is accurate. While it doesn’t provide the pay during WWII, the mustang was in-service when this table was in effect, so is adequate for this project.

Jackson, David D. “Cost of US WWII
Aircraft.” Warbirds and Airshows;
Accessed: March 14, 2024.

This source provides the unit cost for the P-51 Mustang.

This site suffers the same pitfalls as the Sherman Register, being that the information is assembled by hobbyists. The numbers provided line up with other generally accepted information.

“Mustang Facts.” Stallion 51; Accessed: March 14, 2024.

This source provides the most specific production numbers for the P-51 Mustang.

Many other sources provide only a minimum round number for the Mustang’s production. This pulls from literature on the subject, and so is trusted to be accurate.

The total cost of the P-51 Mustang Program was calculated based on unit cost and crew salaries.

F-15 Eagle

“Aircraft Mission Capable Goals Were
Generally Not Met and Sustainment Costs
Varied by Aircraft.” Weapon Systems
Sustainment, U.S. Government
Accountability Office GAO-23-106217,
p. 220, p. 226, November 2022.

This source provides the maintenance costs for the F-15C/D and F-15E.

“F-15 Eagle Service Life.”
GlobalSecurity.org;
Accessed: March 14, 2024.

This source provides the service lifespan for the F-15 Eagle variants.

This is a hobbyist source, but incorporates accurate information seemingly taken directly from Military documents and analysis. The numbers taken are adequate.

Neufeld, Jacob. “The F-15 Eagle Origins and
Development 1964-1972." Office of Air
Force History, November 1974.

This source provides the unit cost for the F-15 Eagle A/B models.

This article is an example of journalism relevant to the time period. While narrativization is expected, the information is accurate, and aligns with other, less accessible sources. The cost of the F-15A/B is extrapolated to the F-15C/D.

Tirpak, John A. “New Acquisition Report:
F-15EX Unit Cost will be $94 Million.” Air &
Space Forces Magazine, Oct. 3, 2023.

This source provides the unit cost for the Eagle II.

This article is an example of journalism relevant to today. It is the most up-to-date and specific source and is corroborated by other reporting.

The total cost of the F-15 Eagle Program was calculated based on unit cost, sustainment over average unit lifespan, and research/development/procurement costs.

Acknowledgements

This project does not hold up to the scrutiny of Academic History, nor does it try to. Much of the information required to make it a perfectly accurate document simply no longer exists. As such, it uses whatever source is available and passes the bar for hobbyists.

Specific issues

All numbers presented are inflation adjusted to 2024 dollars using US Inflation Calculator.

The source for the USS Bainbridge and USS Fletcher crew pay is misattributed. During the calculations, the sources were mixed up. The original source is unknown, but otherwise trusted enough to be included. This error was not caught until after finalized materials were produced.

During the service of a piece of equipment, units are built, enter service, and retire based on production schedules. The total number of units are not in service for the full lifespan of the equipment. Further, numbers provided by some sources are for specific years, with specific numbers of equipment in service.
For the purposes of this project, these numbers are extrapolated on the the basis that the above is not true—total units are taken to be in service for the full duration of the service life. As such, the numbers presented on the graph are overvalued given the information taken from the sources. However, it is the Artist’s opinion that these are, in fact, far below the actual cost of the equipment. Much of the costs associated with these vehicles are not freely available or totally covered by documentation from the military. For the feeling intended to be conveyed by the artwork, the numbers presented are satisfactory.