Evening star., 1943-07-11
Cost Of Army>Navy Equipment
Brings Accusations of Waste
Bv Richard l.. Stokes.

a herculean task to ferret out the pro-
portion of waste in the cost of many
thousands of individual items, and then
to reckon losses for the program as a
whole.
Inquiry indicates the existence Of a
gance and waste, which inside observers.
governmental and industrial, estimate as
high as Is per cent of gross expendi-
lures. They are the first to admit that
such calculations are little more than
guesses, based on few known transac-
tions
The Truman committee began its
career by uncovering evidence of inor-
dinate expense in the construction OF
military cartonments. Later 1t glanced
into naval and merchant shipbuilding
and discovered wide ranges of cost for
identical vessels at different shipyards.
Unfavorable showings we're attributed to
inefficient management.
Charges Huge Waste.
The committees most recent research
of the kind involved the Sunfower Ord
| plant, covering $4,000 acres, for the man.
| ufacture of smokeless powder and nitro
! glycerine. Out of a construction cost Of
| S130, 900 ,000 Senator Truman estimated
that upwards of s30,0O0000, or % per
| cent, could have been saved If there had
been better planning and building meth
| DDS, no duplication of labor and use of
better materials.
| Many factors enter into the margin Of
waste. The country's total unprepared-
ness, three years ago, made speed Of the
essence rather than economy. Army and
Navy supply officers were inexperienced
In the colossal transactions suddenly
thrust upon them. In the interest of
haste, a system of cost plus fixed fee
contracts was adopted in the first two
years of the emergency. The contractor
was guaranteed against loss and his
profits were insured Thus he had no
incentive to "cut the corners of ex-
pense, as he would automatically have
done if the policy could have been one
of competitive bidding
Beyond all else, the disproportionately
high cost of war in the United States
is to be found in the countrys standard
of living, based on national income
calculated at las billions for the pres
ent fiscal year. This income consists
largely of wages, the effect of which
extends also to material costs.
The Department of Labor estimates
that on April last the average weekly
wage in all manufacturing plants was
s4248. This British average for all work
ers, reckoned according to the official
exchange rate, is SIT week. Prewar
scales were si1 go for Great Britain, in
1885, and s28o8 for the United States
in 1941. The Office of War Information
has revealed that average American in
come for men, women and children, en-
ployed and unemployed, rose from
s4792 month In July, 1910, to s85.03 in
April of this year-an increase of nearly
SO per cent in less than three years, as
against British rise of 80 per cent in
five years.
Service Pay Compared.
The base pay for private soldier in
the United States Army as well as for
a nonrated man in the Navy, Is $50
month. Figures made public by the War
Department year ago and believed to
have had no material change to date.
estimated that the base monthly pay for
private soldier in other belligerent
countries was as follows: Japan, 80
cents; Italy, $780, Russia, s4; Great
Britain, S12.20, and Germany, S2l6 A
Japanese first sergeant gets S531 a
month, while the pay of his opposite
number in the American Army is S138
to SPOT
Despite excess profit taxes, the war
boom is extending this year from wages
to corporate earnings. The Department
of Commerce estimates that corporate
profits after taxes will probably aggre-
gate 8 billions in 1943 a rise of 18 per
cent over 1912. Thanks to war wages
and profits the American people on
May l had an all-time high of 16 2-3
billions of currency in circulation, while
civilian expenditures for goods and serv-
ices during the first quarter of 1943 were
at the record rate of 80 billions annually
Mass production, which brought about
sensational cost decreases in the manu-
facture of automobiles and other articles,
has had little general effect on military
production, partly because designs are
constantly changing and there has been
steady growth in the demand for weight
and firepoWer. Even in the case Of the
Garand rife, which was standardized
some years ago and of which millions are
being manufactured, the decline in cost
for one weapon has been from about
s100 to $50.
Sterilization of design and quantity OF
output have cut the price of some ma
chine guns to s275 from twice that figure.
The Armys new M-3 submachine gun,
costing about $50, can be made in less
time and with less material than previ-
GUS models costing $40 One type of air.
craft engine, which cost the Army S31 900
year ago, can now be had for s12,82e.
But staggering prices remain the rule
throughout most of the field of military
production. Due to heavier designs and
increased labor and material costs, the
Navy's FM2 fighter plane jumped this
year to sl12,205 from s79,85l in 1912 and
$74,825 in 1941. Even when produced on
assembly lines, heavy tank costs s145,-
600, as much as 145 ordinary automo-
| hileS. medium, oy,b con mn rd tSrtt