Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 1, the reality (1 Viewer)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Okay, the Wi-Fi here is a bit wonky so that edit got posted twice.

The Americans did benefit from from British jet technology. We also made our own improvements.
The F-4 was limited by ROE that eliminated its advantages. It was really superior to the MiG-21.

I don't think that is really born out by the record. It had both advantages and disadvantages, but the MiG 21 in my opinion was just as good, while being MUCH cheaper both to build and maintain.

I said the T-62 was scary, and I'm a fan of the M60. The T-62 made us come up with something better. We did.

The M-60 had a fairly poor record in combat. I think they expanded it to be too big, among other problems.

I said the SA-2 was a surprise. I think I said it was quite good.
The F-117 shoot down was a combination of NATO complacency and a surprising bit of initiative and luck on the other (non Russian) side. BTW, the F-117 pilot and the missile battery CO are now friends and have played some b-ball together.

The Serbs adapted the technology to the situation, much as the Soviets repeatedly did.

What does your last point have to do with Soviet craptitude?

My point is that it wasn't always "crapt". And a fair amount of both their and our military kit was not very good, we have a tendancy to make a different type of (design, production and implementation) mistakes than they do. Our kit (or the British) is not always better, by a long shot.

 

[SaparotRob]

None of the aircraft you just listed are Sten SMG types. Most of these were initially innovatIve aircraft that stayed on the roster too long.
I never said the M-60 was great. I thought I implied the T-62 was better. I'm also a fan of the Brewster Buffalo and the Amiot 143.
The P-39 was the culmination of a lot more development than something like the XP-77 which was a Sten-SMG airplane.
The P-39 also ruled the skies and was the single greatest reason for the Allied victory.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The P-39 also ruled the skies and was the single greatest reason for the Allied victory.

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SaparotRob]

One mentions the P-39 at one's own peril.

 

[Shortround6]

The Soviets did have a lot of trouble with quality controls. Nobody else was perfect, Curtiss was making P-40s that were sometimes over weight by over 100lbs. But that is on a 6500lb empty weight airplane. If you are overweight by 100lbs on a 5600lb airplane the percentage is higher. Next question is how many planes were coming out significantly overweight.
The US "system" was that planes that were overweight by certain amount got a small amount knocked off the price. depending on contract, that could be so much per pound over a certain limit. Same for acceptance flights, if the plane didn't reach the Guarantee speed (3%?) the Government didn't accept the plane and/or deducted a penalty fee. Granted the US was not being invaded but there were agreed to contract penalties for failure to perform to specifications.


Skipping to the tank thing, make sure you are comparing the same things. T-62s looked good on paper. But they had many of the standard soviet bugaboos. Low Silhouette was very often touted as a holy grail, Right up the west figured out that the Soviet tanks could not depress their guns, (can't use hull down positions) have truly horrible rates of fire and thus rate of engagement, have more trouble with target obscuration. 10 M-60s are going to put out about 3 times the number of shells as 10 T-62s in the first minute. Some of the T-62s are never going to get off a 2nd shot even if it takes the M-60s until their 2nd or 3rd shot to get a hit.
Also make sure you are comparing the right ammo in many years.
M-60 was about 4-5 years older than the T-62. T-62 was an attempt to equal the M-60 and Centurion (and Leopard/AMX-30). British bumbled the engine on the Chieftain but the 120mm gun scared the crap out of the Russians. The British had just made their new 115mm gun obsolete. Then it was a race for better ammo to use in the old guns.

BTW the M-60 was just about the same size as the M-48, which pretty much used the same chassis as the M-47 (got rid of the bow gunner and made the bow more pointy) which used the same chassis as the M-46, which used the same chassis as the M-26. Turret got fatter but not much higher, except for the admittedly ridiculous commander's cupola.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

None of the aircraft you just listed are Sten SMG types. Most of these were initially innovatIve aircraft that stayed on the roster too long.

Well quite a few of those came out during the war and were utter duds. My point here is precisely that they were NOT "Sten types", and this was part of a whole different set of design problems. The turret alone on the Defiant probably cost more than an I-16.

The "Sten" approach posed some problems. So did the "B-70" approach.

I never said the M-60 was great. I thought I implied the T-62 was better. I'm also a fan of the Brewster Buffalo and the Amiot 143.

The M-60 is a bit baffling as to why it wasn't great. The Chieftain also seems to have been considerably better. But it (the M-60) was derived (I think?) from the M-26 Pershing which from what I understand was a pretty good tank. Where did it go wrong? I kind of liked the M-60, I played with plastic ones as a little kid and we still had some when i was in the Army. But I don't think I'd want to go into combat inside one.

I too like the Buffalo and the Amiot 143, the latter for it's sheer beauty. I have a 1/72 kit of one that I have big plans for (in theory)

The P-39 was the culmination of a lot more development than something like the XP-77 which was a Sten-SMG airplane.

Yes, per above I see it as something like the opposite problem. A bit overbuilt etc.

The P-39 also ruled the skies and was the single greatest reason for the Allied victory.

Goes without saying. We should use it today.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think what we have often done in analysis of not just the Soviets, but many others, is confuse "Crapt" with "Sten".

You can have expensive "Crapt" and cheap "Crapt", but "Sten" is sometimes very good, albeit not always as versatile as more robust designs.

 

[Shortround6]

They also had lower grade fuel, their main engine was the Hispano 12Y (which I like, but was definitely already getting a little old by the start of the war), and they were lacking in many resources.

This needs to be put to bed and without supper.

fuel ratings.
octane..................PN
87.........................68.29
90........................73.68
92........................77.78
95........................84.85
100......................100

Soviets used 95 octane fuel for a good part of the war which meant it was better than what the Italians, Japanese, and a large part of what the Germans had.

The "small" H-S 12Y engine was 36 liter engine (2,197) cu. in. It was very light, under 1100lbs (492kg) HOWEVER, the Soviets had modified it into a 35 liter engine of 2,136 cu in (made the cylinder bore's 2mm smaller for more strength) that weighed 570-600kg depending on model (this is for the M-105s,) The Soviets had already started using a 2 speed supercharger and 3 valves instead of the 2 the 12Y used. This was one reason they were working on the M-106 and M-107 engines in 1939-40.

Now if you do not have access to 100 or 100/130 fuel you have two choices, cry in your borscht or design and engine that will give you the power you want/need. Since you can't use the cylinder pressures that 100-100/130 fuel allows you don't need the make the cylinder walls, piston, piston rods, crankshaft and crankcase quite as strong.
See German DB 601 and Jumo 211 engines, running on 87 octane fuel for displacement and weights.

Pouring allied 100/130 fuel into an Soviet M-105 engine and turning the boost limit up would have simply blown the engine up. They weren't built to take that load in the cylinders.
They had enough trouble trying to boost engines without enlarging the radiators and cooking them. But larger radiators meant more drag.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well I'm not as much of an expert on fuel or aircraft engines as you, but from what I have read the two biggest problems the Soviets had with the Allied planes early on were 1) lack of spares or manuals, 2) the need to drain all fluids which wasn't built in (even for things like oil inside the spinner) and 3) dealing with oil and fuel requirements. The Soviet planes had much lower requirements for keeping the oil clean and ran best on their own lower octane (than the British and US fuel) gas.

By the time the "Greatest Fighter Ever Made" arrived, the Soviet mechanics and engineers had figured a lot of this stuff out, and those 'adaptations' were part of the fairly long workup it got before going into action. I think maybe having the engine mid-body also (possibly) helped protect it from the cold a bit in flight? Not sure but they seemed to have much less problems with the engines compared to the P-40.

 

[Shortround6]

The M-60 is a bit baffling as to why it wasn't great. The Chieftain also seems to have been considerably better. But it (the M-60) was derived (I think?) from the M-26 Pershing which from what I understand was a pretty good tank. Where did it go wrong?

It didn't.
Progress was a bit slow at times. Israelis did rather well with it.
Soviet tanks often traded simplicity for "ease of repair", I am stating this badly.
They were crude and often not actually hard to repair, problem was they needed repair often and needed a fair amount of spare parts.
Track live was short. They used the same steering system the T-34 did (and that was crude in WW II). One Soviet tanker of the cold war claimed that over 30% of the Soviet tanks would be broken down with bad steering clutches trying to drive across Europe without even meeting enemy forces.
US tanks used much more complicated transmissions and steering gears but were easier to drive, they may have had faults but they usually did not fail in catastrophic fashion. But just like automatic transmissions in cars, they are harder fix when they do go wrong.

 

[BiffF15]

I thought the AK47 was a remake of the STG-44. Anyone have data on that?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It didn't.
Progress was a bit slow at times. Israelis did rather well with it.
Soviet tanks often traded simplicity for "ease of repair", I am stating this badly.
They were crude and often not actually hard to repair, problem was they needed repair often and needed a fair amount of spare parts.
Track live was short. They used the same steering system the T-34 did (and that was crude in WW II). One Soviet tanker of the cold war claimed that over 30% of the Soviet tanks would be broken down with bad steering clutches trying to drive across Europe without even meeting enemy forces.
US tanks used much more complicated transmissions and steering gears but were easier to drive, they may have had faults but they usually did not fail in catastrophic fashion. But just like automatic transmissions in cars, they are harder fix when they do go wrong.

Interesting analysis. Maybe we should start another thread on tanks.

I know the Soviet / Russian tanks had design problems - and not just with depressing their gun barrels - elevating them too turned out to be a nightmarish problem in Chechnya. But of course they did prevail there ultimately.

I agree with you that high / low silhouette is often oversimplified. Higher silhouette can be an advantage for spotting enemy targets. I think it's more often the case to be spotted (especially by someone in cover) than to spot the enemy from inside a tank. There is also the issue of comfort and driving conditions. But with improved optics, gyrostablizers and laser rangefinders, and now days drones, tanks become a lot less "blind" and maybe this tips the balance.

It's pretty well established that (so long as they didn't get stuck) M4 tanks could drive a lot further than T-34s before breaking down, on average.

But that said, I was around during REFORGER and some other big exercises and I can tell you that NATO tanks, in particular the M-60, also broke down a lot. So did Leopard I by the way. I don't think any tanks would be driving across Europe without a lot more than 30% stopping for some reason or another. The normal NATO practice was to ship them close to the battle (or in our case, exercise) area by rail, then bring them off the trains and into action. Then when they are done, back on the trains (and either back to the repair depot or back to some other staging area).

The M-1 broke down a lot too, though they were much more impressive... scary, really. And they could run on any kind of fuel (though whatever fuel it was, bring a LOT)

I don't think the Israeli's had that high of an opinion of the M-60 nor did it do as well as some of their others, IIRC they liked the Centurian best I think until they started making Merkava. The M-60 did quite poorly for the Pakistanis. I don't remember all the details but I remember talking to some tankers back in the day (because I love tanks) and they told me about a litany of problems, some of them very frustrating and clearly design issues. Of course that is typical military to focus on all the problems.

I know one issue with all the American armored vehicles including the M-1 is that they seemed to have comparatively poor off-road performance compared to a lot of the others. By which I mean, not that they couldn't go fast, but they would throw tracks and get stuck. Even if your engine and transmission are still working, if you get stuck in the mud or your track comes off you are not going anywhere. They also use an incredible amount of fuel.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I thought the AK47 was a remake of the STG-44. Anyone have data on that?

The STG-44 was kind of Germany's answer to the PPSh-41 (which was basically a Soviet copy of a Finnish SMG). The Soviets were definitely inspired by it, but they developed their own new 'mid-sized' rifle round (superior to the 7.92 Kurz) and their own new rifle, which was much cheaper and more reliable than the Sturmgewehr 44. Very much a "Sten" design, if you will, except that it seems to have been very widely adaptable and not just to one particular scenario or theater.

By the way while I'm at it, the Uzi was basically a copy of a Czech SMG...

 

[tomo pauk]

I thought the AK47 was a remake of the STG-44. Anyone have data on that?

Would not bet a farm on that.
StG-44 used different 'guts' (bolt and bolt-carrier group), it was stamped/sheet metal from the get go, field disassembly/assembly was very different, it featured stock that was in line with barrel (= once of things that made it superior for firing the bursts).
Kalashnikov supposedly said that he was looking, among other things, at M1 Garand for inspiration.

 

[Shortround6]

Well I'm not as much of an expert on fuel or aircraft engines as you, but from what I have read the two biggest problems the Soviets had with the Allied planes early on were 1) lack of spares or manuals, 2) the need to drain all fluids which wasn't built in (even for things like oil inside the spinner) and 3) dealing with oil and fuel requirements. The Soviet planes had much lower requirements for keeping the oil clean and ran best on their own lower octane (than the British and US fuel) gas.

By the time the "Greatest Fighter Ever Made" arrived, the Soviet mechanics and engineers had figured a lot of this stuff out, and those 'adaptations' were part of the fairly long workup it got before going into action. I think maybe having the engine mid-body also (possibly) helped protect it from the cold a bit in flight? Not sure but they seemed to have much less problems with the engines compared to the P-40.

Trying to run Allison's or Merlin's on 95 octane was not going to end well. But that is very different than claiming the Soviets were held back from building high power engines by fuel.

The amount of boost you can use in an engine is dependent on 4 things (assuming no fuel injection).
in no order
1. Compression ratio of the cylinder
2. Amount of boost
3. the temperature of the mixture going into cylinder/s
4. The knock rating of the fuel

You can trade off compression ratio for boost, Merlin used 6.0 compression ratio and tolerated higher boost pressures(actually manifold pressure) than any other engine. The combination of the compression ratio and the boost hit a certain pressure before the fuel ignited. Allison engines used (99% of them) used 6.65 compression would tolerate about 8-10% less manifold pressure. It also gave the Allison about 8-10% better gas mileage when cruising. The higher the cylinder compression the more work you can get out of the same amount of fuel. However with lower compression you can squeeze more fuel into the cylinder and get more power, even if not as efficient.
The Soviets used 7.0 compression in the M-105 engines.
The Soviets did try to use lower compression on the M-106 and M-107 engines in addition to other changes.
They also lower the compression on the engines used in the IL-2 to get more power.
But since you are burning more fuel you need better cooling.

Now address #3 you can use two stage supercharging (for the same amount of boost the air will be heated less.) or you can use an intercooler. Some Ju 211s used the only single stage supercharger I know of with an intercooler that made production. It was good for around 100hp but you have weight and you need airflow (drag) though the intercooler.
Just about every production two stage supercharger used an intercooler or both inter cooler, aftercooler but then they were trying to use a higher overall pressure ratio than single stage supercharges.
I don't know of any aircraft engine that used a two stage supercharger without an intercooler ( a few race cars of the 30s did)

 

[tomo pauk]

Just about every production two stage supercharger used an intercooler or both inter cooler, aftercooler but then they were trying to use a higher overall pressure ratio than single stage supercharges.
I don't know of any aircraft engine that used a two stage supercharger without an intercooler ( a few race cars of the 30s did)

2-stage supercharged versions of the V-1710 haven't used intercooler of aftercooler.
Jumo 213F, DB 605L and one version of the DB 603 (L or LA, I'm too lazy to look it up) also used no inter- or aftercooler.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Trying to run Allison's or Merlin's on 95 octane was not going to end well. But that is very different than claiming the Soviets were held back from building high power engines by fuel.

The amount of boost you can use in an engine is dependent on 4 things (assuming no fuel injection).
in no order
1. Compression ratio of the cylinder
2. Amount of boost
3. the temperature of the mixture going into cylinder/s
4. The knock rating of the fuel

You can trade off compression ratio for boost, Merlin used 6.0 compression ratio and tolerated higher boost pressures(actually manifold pressure) than any other engine. The combination of the compression ratio and the boost hit a certain pressure before the fuel ignited. Allison engines used (99% of them) used 6.65 compression would tolerate about 8-10% less manifold pressure. It also gave the Allison about 8-10% better gas mileage when cruising. The higher the cylinder compression the more work you can get out of the same amount of fuel. However with lower compression you can squeeze more fuel into the cylinder and get more power, even if not as efficient.
The Soviets used 7.0 compression in the M-105 engines.
The Soviets did try to use lower compression on the M-106 and M-107 engines in addition to other changes.
They also lower the compression on the engines used in the IL-2 to get more power.
But since you are burning more fuel you need better cooling.

Now address #3 you can use two stage supercharging (for the same amount of boost the air will be heated less.) or you can use an intercooler. Some Ju 211s used the only single stage supercharger I know of with an intercooler that made production. It was good for around 100hp but you have weight and you need airflow (drag) though the intercooler.
Just about every production two stage supercharger used an intercooler or both inter cooler, aftercooler but then they were trying to use a higher overall pressure ratio than single stage supercharges.
I don't know of any aircraft engine that used a two stage supercharger without an intercooler ( a few race cars of the 30s did)

Ok but didn't the Soviets have lower octane fuel initially?

 

[Shortround6]

Back to the basic Sten, it did have a few problems.
Like a very crude "safety". some other guns were even cruder.

A deluxe Sten
The 1st safety is to push the cocking handle into a small hole on the other side if the receiver, locking the bolt in place. However the gun is either without a round in the chamber or it is closed on a live round in the chamber. The gun cannot go off, You have to pull the cocking handle back, ejecting the live round and bolt will catch on the firing mechanism and release when trigger is pulled and go forward, load round and fire as the bolt closes.
The 2nd safety is pull the handle to the rear and turn it up and into the little dog leg track. To fire pull back and down and pull trigger. The problem with this was you can't use the Sten as a door breaking tool. Unlike a Lee Enfield you can't hammer on a door with butt of the gun without some chance of the bolt handle getting knocked out of the dogleg slot and going forward. If the bolt goes foreword it will fire. How common this was I don't know. You also have about 6-8 Lee Enfeilds for every Sten so using the the only SMG in the squad to break in doors seems a little wasteful? Break in the door with the Lee Enfield butt and have the SMG gunner ready to fire as the door swings open?

Sten magazines did have a tendency to get dented/dirty and jam.
Most Stens only had a casual relationship between the barrel and sights

and with standard of manufacturing of the Sten chances of the barrel and sights actually being fairly close?
I know it is not a target rifle.

 

[Shortround6]

Ok but didn't the Soviets have lower octane fuel initially?

I don't know, 95 is usually what comes up.
The early M-100 engines used 5.8-6.0 compression
The M-103 and M-104 used 6.6 compression
The M-105s used 7.1 compression

If you change the supercharger gears (slower) it will lower the intake temperature, but you get a lower FTH. British could run 9-10lbs of boost on 87 octane gas with the low altitude naval engines.

I also have no idea what the Baku oil fields were producing. Each oil field is a bit different and the fuel can be wildly different. Some oil fields produce oil with very few aromatics and other have a lot, sometimes over 20% and in the 1930s with rather crude refining they often didn't spend a lot of time over refining things.
In the US in WW I (well before the octane scale was developed) gas from Pennsylvania crude was good for 38-40 octane once they tested it. Oil from California was good for about 70 octane once they test it. Pennsylvania crude was responsible for a lot of blown up engines and about all they could do was label where it came from. In the early 30s you could doctor the Pennsylvania gas up to California levels but why bother? Texas was somewhere in between. Once they introduced cracking and were going past straight run fuel things really began to change.

Baku could be under 95 and need extra stuff and 3.0 CCs of lead (or more? ) or with 3 CCs of lead it could be 95-105. don't know.
British 87 octane was never commonly measured at rich but since they specified up to 20% aromatics for better rich response you could get more power (more boost) than using US 87 octane fuel. This is an under reported area of study.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Apparently Fred Koch set up the refineries in the Soviet union, and in Nazi Germany too.