Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 1, the reality

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Also don't forget Louisiana "Sweet Crude" lol

 

[Shortround6]

Getting back to the actual Sten gun.
They made about 3.7 million to 5 million depending on who you believe.
Which is not bad for a "disposable" SMG.
However for context they built around 4 million Lee Enfield No 4s and had about 13 million leftover No 1s.
They also built 5 factories to build Bren guns. 2 in India (?), one in Canada and 1 in Australia.
One of the Indian factories may have been converted from the production line for the Vickers Berthier MG which was built in India from the early 30s?

The Sten was cheap and replaced a number of more expensive submachine guns, it did not replace rifles or LMGs.

 

[SaparotRob]

I know how to pronounce Garand.

 

[GrauGeist]

The first Mobile phone

Marty Cooper (an American) was the inventor of the first mobile cellphone.

He also holds (or held) a pile of patents in the telecom field.

He was also the first person to make a cellular phone call.

 

[SaparotRob]

And the first dropped call.

 

[yulzari]

Getting back to the actual Sten gun.
They made about 3.7 million to 5 million depending on who you believe.
Which is not bad for a "disposable" SMG.
However for context they built around 4 million Lee Enfield No 4s and had about 13 million leftover No 1s.
They also built 5 factories to build Bren guns. 2 in India (?), one in Canada and 1 in Australia.
One of the Indian factories may have been converted from the production line for the Vickers Berthier MG which was built in India from the early 30s?

The Sten was cheap and replaced a number of more expensive submachine guns, it did not replace rifles or LMGs.

At the risk of grossly drifting OT, the operational analysts judged the Sten in NW Europe as effective as a Lee Enfield and production had no effect upon Lee Enfield production. It complemented the Lee Enfield in infantry sections rather than replaced them and was more effective in close actions and as a defensive weapon. I have met several WW2 users who swore by it rather than at it. It and its higher quality successor remained in service with the British army until the end of the century. It and the Lee Enfield were both to be replaced by the Rifle no9 until the Americans b*ggered it up. The only real Sten weaknesses were the lack of a positive safety and copying the MP28 magazine.

The key point of the Sten was not it's, very adequate, machine carbine performance but the ease with which it could be made in quantity by innumerable sub contractors, often sub contractors to sub contractors in tiny premises by unskilled staff including part time workers soaking up the labour potential of women, the elderly and youths. I doubt if the concept can be translated into aeroplane fighter production. Perhaps the nearest would be the adaption of agricultural or trainer aeroplanes into light ground attack roles. I will nominate the Tiger Moth for Operation Banquet in our forum period or the PO 2 in Russia.

 

[Shortround6]

There is certainly nothing wrong, and it is preferable, to "productionize" aircraft whenever possible. Japanese saved over 20,000 parts (?, rivets?) on one fighter. But they did that without sacrificing much, if anything in performance. They also made maintenance/repairs easier. They also kept the standard engine and armament.
However if you are sacrificing performance or load carrying ability the trade-offs for cheaper production get a lot harder to make.
A number of air forces in WW II underestimated the investment in training needed for effective pilots.
In the BoB the shortage turned out to be not the expensive fighters but effective pilots for just one example.
They did not know any better then. We do now.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Marty Cooper (an American) was the inventor of the first mobile cellphone.

He also holds (or held) a pile of patents in the telecom field.

He was also the first person to make a cellular phone call.

Yeah, right. In 1973. But "In Soviet Russia, the Mobile Phone calls YOU!!!" and they already had a nationwide mobile phone network in 1963, based on an invention from 1958.

Altai (mobile telephone system) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess it's considered mobile, but not cellular. There was also some kind of limited car phone thing from Sweden in 1956.

A little like who first invented the airplane or the car, you get a lot of arguments. But the Soviets had a working, (maybe "Sten style?") mobile phone system already working 10 years before Martin Cooper did his thing, and twenty years before there was a network in the US.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There is certainly nothing wrong, and it is preferable, to "productionize" aircraft whenever possible. Japanese saved over 20,000 parts (?, rivets?) on one fighter. But they did that without sacrificing much, if anything in performance. They also made maintenance/repairs easier. They also kept the standard engine and armament.
However if you are sacrificing performance or load carrying ability the trade-offs for cheaper production get a lot harder to make.
A number of air forces in WW II underestimated the investment in training needed for effective pilots.
In the BoB the shortage turned out to be not the expensive fighters but effective pilots for just one example.
They did not know any better then. We do now.

And yet, bigger isn't always better. I again point out the Soviet assessment of the P-47 as 'nice plane, not a fighter'

 

[Shortround6]

And yet, bigger isn't always better. I again point out the Soviet assessment of the P-47 as 'nice plane, not a fighter'

Soviets were not fighting at either 25,000ft or 200 miles (320km) from base.
When you are fighting at under 10,000ft and a combat mission lasts for 40-60 minutes you have different criteria.

It doesn't matter how good a dog fighter you have if you can't reach the fight.

By 1944 many allied fighters were multi-purpose. Even if the squadrons tended to specialize due to training/experience they didn't need quite the difference in airframe modifications that some of the Soviet aircraft needed. And if you wanted to drop 1000-2000lbs of bombs on something the Soviets needed an Il-2 or larger (PE-2?)

 

[GrauGeist]

Yeah, right. In 1973. But "In Soviet Russia, the Mobile Phone calls YOU!!!" and they already had a nationwide mobile phone network in 1963, based on an invention from 1958.

Altai (mobile telephone system) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess it's considered mobile, but not cellular. There was also some kind of limited car phone thing from Sweden in 1956.

A little like who first invented the airplane or the car, you get a lot of arguments. But the Soviets had a working, (maybe "Sten style?") mobile phone system already working 10 years before Martin Cooper did his thing, and twenty years before there was a network in the US.

Ahh, ok.

So their system was like Motorola's mobile radio telephone, which was introduced by the Bell System in 1946.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Soviets were not fighting at either 25,000ft or 200 miles (320km) from base.
When you are fighting at under 10,000ft and a combat mission lasts for 40-60 minutes you have different criteria.

Yes, exactly. Though they did also have PVO air defense for their cities, ports and factories etc., but the Spitfire Mk IX proved to be good for this role. P-47 was very good at 30,000 ft, but at low altitude, in spite of many claims to the contrary, wasn't necessarily that good. For the Russian Front, a Yak 1B or La 5 which probably cost 1/5 as much was better, I suspect.

It doesn't matter how good a dog fighter you have if you can't reach the fight.

But again, "Sten" as we defined it here, is largely about adapting a design to a specific situation. For the Soviets that was a really, really, REALLY huge front line with a lot of close air support and air strikes against tanks, supply dumps, and artillery positions. And their relatively simple, cheaply made aircraft were good for that.

By 1944 many allied fighters were multi-purpose. Even if the squadrons tended to specialize due to training/experience they didn't need quite the difference in airframe modifications that some of the Soviet aircraft needed. And if you wanted to drop 1000-2000lbs of bombs on something the Soviets needed an Il-2 or larger (PE-2?)

There are advantages to 'generalist' multi-purpose designs, for sure, but for the Soviets, it didn't make much sense. As for CAS, I know a lot of people around here tend to discount them but i don't - the Soviets were quite early adapters of air to ground rockets (and many other types of military rockets) which could fit even on I-16s and I-153s. They also had the cannon strafing, which was extended to their more expensive and complicated ground attack specialist.

As you may remember though, I am a fan of the Pe 2 and Tu 2, both quite accurate bombers. I think accuracy matters more than payload with bombers. Pe-2 was definitely a "Sten" type design, if not quite to the same extent as some of their fighters. And fairly versatile. Not sure about the Tu 2 in terms of expense etc..

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ahh, ok.

So their system was like Motorola's mobile radio telephone, which was introduced by the Bell System in 1946.

Interesting, they had a nationwide network patched into the phone system in 1946?

 

[GrauGeist]

Interesting, they had a nationwide network patched into the phone system in 1946?

Wiki (I know, I know) has a good timeline of systems in the "Origins" section:

Mobile radio telephone - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Wiki notes that the original Motorola system weighed like 30 lbs. That's more like a military field radio than a 'mobile phone'.

It looks like this is the actual competitor to the Soviet one

Improved Mobile Telephone Service - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[GrauGeist]

The fact that it was developed and in use in 1946 is a milestone.

The "smart phone" technology of today was not possible 20 years ago and a WWII era telecom device would certainly be bulky.

We often have discussions in various threads regarding the placement of a WWII aircraft's radio due to it's weight and a comparable two-way radio of today is a fraction of the size and weight.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Yeah, right. In 1973. But "In Soviet Russia, the Mobile Phone calls YOU!!!" and they already had a nationwide mobile phone network in 1963, based on an invention from 1958.

Altai (mobile telephone system) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess it's considered mobile, but not cellular. There was also some kind of limited car phone thing from Sweden in 1956.

A little like who first invented the airplane or the car, you get a lot of arguments. But the Soviets had a working, (maybe "Sten style?") mobile phone system already working 10 years before Martin Cooper did his thing, and twenty years before there was a network in the US.

View: https://youtu.be/xDy2tHCPdk8?si=3q4C_INlolQzUZRR

 

[Reluctant Poster]

CHAPTER 8

Attache case portable telephones

 

[pbehn]

When the first transportable phones that could be fitted in cars were introduced and only the rich had them, one British millionaire (there werent billionaires then) always used to delay answering then apologise for being on the other line.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

When the first transportable phones that could be fitted in cars were introduced and only the rich had them, one British millionaire (there werent billionaires then) always used to delay answering then apologise for being on the other line.

Well maybe that's the difference. Our version was just for millionaires, theirs was apparently for a bit broader circle of people. Maybe the party?