PDA

View Full Version : WW1 Bullet trick....



buckshotshoey
10-20-2016, 11:58 AM
I didnt know where to post this and the mods came move it to a proper area. Found this in an episode of "Digging Up The Trenches".

During the bloody trench warfare, snipers would hide behind steel plates with small doors to shoot through. The Brits devised a method of pulling bullets from the cases, and reversing the bullet so the point is in the case, and the base was the leading end. It would not penetrate the steel plates, but would blow steel fragments into the faces of the German soldiers.

This is the first I have ever heard of this being done and though you all would find it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2AHMTxU7NU

Fast forward to minute 30:15 and watch to 32:30

2ndAmendmentNut
10-20-2016, 02:28 PM
I had heard about the steel plates before, but not about reversed bullets. I find it a little hard to believe. How would reversing the bullet have a positive effect on penetration? Even if accuracy and velocity weren't harmed I don't see how a flat nose would damage the back of a steel plate any better than a pointed FMJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hardcast416taylor
10-20-2016, 02:39 PM
This reversal of a FMJ bullet was a common trick done by professional hunters in Africa when their supply of soft point ammo was near gone till they got back to a trading outpost. Think of the accuracy as `minute of charging lion`.Robert

Kestrel4k
10-20-2016, 02:41 PM
Penetration isn't the issue, it's momentum transfer - which can be a funny thing: more momentum will be transferred to the target (with a subsequent greater chance of spalling) if the bullet bounces straight back / ricochets rather than simply splattering, just for one example.

I'd buy that reversing the bullet could make some sort of difference, but of course I don't know the efficacy of either configuration.

The other variable is that these older FMJ's should have an open base, exposing the lead core.

Black Beard
10-20-2016, 02:48 PM
Sounds like a HESH warhead. Might work on hardened plates. Even a tiny piece of spalled metal would mess up someone's eyes.

buckshotshoey
10-20-2016, 02:51 PM
I dont think pin point accuracy was an issue with this idea. No Man's Land was usually only 100 to 200 meters or so to the other side. Like i said, I never heard of this being done before. It is interesting none the less.

Harter66
10-20-2016, 07:57 PM
There was an experiment done that showed a velocity gain with a dumdum . I think the actual intent was to show base vs nose damage of high velocity bullets , a 30 cal was used .

So a faster bullet would increase the available energy transfer also .

Omega
10-20-2016, 08:09 PM
I read about this but against tanks:
https://owlcation.com/humanities/About-World-War-1-German-Bullets-vs-Allied-Tanks

Kestrel4k
10-20-2016, 08:30 PM
I read about this but against tanks:
https://owlcation.com/humanities/About-World-War-1-German-Bullets-vs-Allied-Tanks
Thanks for that article link; it does provide more detail.

runfiverun
10-21-2016, 12:45 AM
the flat transfers more energy.
there is a reason why we like a flat meplat in a hunting boolit at the normal speeds and make the meplat smaller as we increase the velocity.
the energy transfer of the larger meplat can be too much on the animal.
in this case they wanted more transference to knock shards of metal out the backside of the plate.
if the plate is hit hard enough shards will actually come out the side of the plate as well as the back side.

Bigslug
10-21-2016, 09:12 AM
I believe it was Herbert McBride who wrote of the odd large bore British double rifle being shipped across the Channel for much the same purpose. It was a weird war beyond anyone's previous experience, and it prompted some weird solutions (or at least attempts at them).

McBride also wrote of how marksman would shoot at these steel plates more to alleviate boredom and keep the other guy on his toes by "ringing the bell" than to create any tactical advantage. It was discovered that the Germans had devised armor piercing rifle bullets when they were one day standing around the armored loophole and had a moment of "That didn't sound right".

As far as reversing the bullets, I'm a little dubious about getting it pulled in the field without damaging the case to where it would still chamber, and also about getting it re-seated deep enough to keep the full-caliber base of the bullet from jamming into the lands - again, preventing chambering. Dunno. . .but being constantly shot at tends to spur one's ingenuity.

Scharfschuetze
10-21-2016, 12:16 PM
Reversing the projectile in ball ammo for shooting the M16 at various animals for the pot while in the field is not a problem. It works really well with the powder charge from your handgun rounds. The old army blasting cap crimping tool will pull the 5.56mm projectile without too much damage if care is used. Larry Gibson used to call this unauthorized modification to military ammo his "Panama Load" as he found it useful on a tour there. I used it mostly in SE Asia. Never underestimate the ingenuity of a bored, hungry or desperate soldier.

I've also read in a couple of accounts of the Germans reversing their 8mm ball ammo to shoot through British steel sniper plates and the first French and British tanks.

Omega's link above leads to this nice video documentary on on the topic:

Of course as armor thickness increased, the Germans resorted to larger rounds and the 13mm Mauser and its T-Gewehr rifle were fielded towards the end of the war to do what the 8mm couldn't do.

Here are a few photos of the T-Gewehr and its 13mm ammo in the Luxembourg Military Museum and at the Carlisle Castle Museum in Carlisle England that I took on various visits.

Museum links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Military_History_(Luxembourg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlisle_Castle

Photo 1: Luxembourg
Photo 2: Carlisle Castle

Hardcast416taylor
10-21-2016, 01:38 PM
I read about this but against tanks:
https://owlcation.com/humanities/About-World-War-1-German-Bullets-vs-Allied-Tanks


The modern day HEAT sabot round has a splatter effect of a different nature when used on armored vehicles.Robert

Ballistics in Scotland
10-21-2016, 05:14 PM
I think if there was a difference, it would be in a reduced tendency to glance off when the bullet struck the plate at an angle. The person firing would be using a loophole as well, and directly opposite the sniper wouldn't be the best place to do it from.

JWFilips
10-21-2016, 07:02 PM
the flat transfers more energy.
there is a reason why we like a flat meplat in a hunting boolit at the normal speeds and make the meplat smaller as we increase the velocity.
the energy transfer of the larger meplat can be too much on the animal.
in this case they wanted more transference to knock shards of metal out the backside of the plate.
if the plate is hit hard enough shards will actually come out the side of the plate as well as the back side.

Run Five Run Hit it on the head here! The flat will displace more metal from the plate; as long as the the velocity is sufficient.
I for one would not want to be on the backside of that plate in ay case!

Half Dog
10-21-2016, 08:12 PM
Run Five Run Hit it on the head here!

I hear that quite often and each time I ask...how in the world does he know all of that.

wyofool
10-21-2016, 08:21 PM
Big Hat!

HangFireW8
10-21-2016, 10:27 PM
The modern day HEAT sabot round has a splatter effect of a different nature when used on armored vehicles.Robert

HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) is a chemical energy warhead, typically a shaped charge. It burns a hole through armor.

An APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) warhead is a kinetic penetrator made of something hard, like Tungsten Carbide or Uranium.

The Brits also have HESH.

Older Anti Tank ammo tried to combine an explosive with a penetrator. They didn't penetrate as well as an APFSDS, and don't explode as reliably as an HEAT warhead. I don't know of any still in service, if they are, I wouldn't call them "modern".

runfiverun
10-21-2016, 11:38 PM
the new stuff actually uses a copper cone and the large side of the cone faces the target.
as the material burns it's way through the armor plating the cone turns itself inside out so the point ends up facing towards the inside of the plating.

I know some of this stuff cause I spent about 10 years of my life running all over the world breaking things and getting people with funny berets and other government type jobs out of trouble.
then I suddenly didn't have nuthin to do but work 8 hours a day and spend the rest of my time killing stuff and shooting things.

buckshotshoey
10-22-2016, 05:12 AM
the new stuff actually uses a copper cone and the large side of the cone faces the target.
as the material burns it's way through the armor plating the cone turns itself inside out so the point ends up facing towards the inside of the plating.

I know some of this stuff cause I spent about 10 years of my life running all over the world breaking things and getting people with funny berets and other government type jobs out of trouble.
then I suddenly didn't have nuthin to do but work 8 hours a day and spend the rest of my time killing stuff and shooting things.

Life is good!

Ballistics in Scotland
10-22-2016, 12:43 PM
Cup-shaped and cone-shaped hollow charges have a long history, and are totally different from what happens with a bullet. It's the explosive! The wave-front from a high explosive always has several times the velocity of a bullet, but in the hollow charge it comes from many directions and meets in the middle, producing further acceleration in much the same way as you can squeeze a piece of wet soap and project it at much greater velocity than your fingers. It would have considerable penetrative power if unlined, but in fact it converts the aluminium or copper liner into a jet of liquefied metal. This is significant because it shows how little hardness can matter if the velocity is hard enough. At a few hundred ft./sec. faster than is practical in military firearms, even soft-point bullets greatly increase their abililty to penetrate steel.

A flat-nosed bullet will indeed increase the destructive capability of a bullet in fluid saturated tissues. But that isn't the same as penetrating steel, let alone not penetrating but shedding spalls from the back. If a bullet used that way doesn't have a meplat when fired, it pretty soon will.

buckshotshoey
10-22-2016, 05:10 PM
Cup-shaped and cone-shaped hollow charges have a long history, and are totally different from what happens with a bullet. It's the explosive! The wave-front from a high explosive always has several times the velocity of a bullet, but in the hollow charge it comes from many directions and meets in the middle, producing further acceleration in much the same way as you can squeeze a piece of wet soap and project it at much greater velocity than your fingers. It would have considerable penetrative power if unlined, but in fact it converts the aluminium or copper liner into a jet of liquefied metal. This is significant because it shows how little hardness can matter if the velocity is hard enough. At a few hundred ft./sec. faster than is practical in military firearms, even soft-point bullets greatly increase their abililty to penetrate steel.

A flat-nosed bullet will indeed increase the destructive capability of a bullet in fluid saturated tissues. But that isn't the same as penetrating steel, let alone not penetrating but shedding spalls from the back. If a bullet used that way doesn't have a meplat when fired, it pretty soon will.

Only thing you are forgetting is this was around 1917. They really didnt have the same alloys or armor plate like we do today. Just regular steel and prob had many impurities. Im sure a bullet would would have a different effect between the two time period steels.

runfiverun
10-22-2016, 11:05 PM
velocity does have an important role to play like BIS mentioned.
I remember shooting some thin plates with the Garand and making them jump around on their chain hangers.
we decided to see what the 220 swift would do after reading an article about shooting mules and burro's with army helmets on.
the swift would punch a neat round hole through the plates.

Lloyd Smale
10-23-2016, 07:19 AM
I would have to think that if two bullets on pointy side first the other base first hit a piece of plate thick enough that neither would penetrate the same amount of energy would be applied to the steal with either bullet. Bottom line is both will be smashed flat. Now hitting something like a man that would allow pass through with both and i can see the base first bullet imparting more energy.

Ballistics in Scotland
10-23-2016, 08:39 AM
Only thing you are forgetting is this was around 1917. They really didnt have the same alloys or armor plate like we do today. Just regular steel and prob had many impurities. Im sure a bullet would would have a different effect between the two time period steels.

I wasn't forgetting it, just considering the steel they were likely to be using. Extremely good steels were available at the time, and while extremely good might not have been used as much of the time as it is today, the science of armour plating was extremely well developed in naval technology. Certainly hardened steel plate was used on the first tanks. I am fairly sure it would be homogenous rather than face hardened, but by 1938, the date of the West Point textbook "Elements of Ordnance" I have, there was a choice of homogeneous or face-hardened, the latter having recently been made available down to light armoured vehicle sizes. Face-hardened plate would be less likely to shed spalls from the back if it was hardened only on one side, but I would suspect it was sometimes hardened on both, to reduce warping in the hardening process, which was a considerably greater production loss with this type.

I recently re-read the books of Deneys Reitz, who describes killing some eight or ten British soldiers as a teenage Boer guerrilla, but became a very popular colonel of the Royal Scots Fusiliers in France. He mentions finding a couple of snipers' shields I knew well, as I have seen them in the Imperial War Museum. The Germans might have used mild steel, but a piece of field-gun shield is a possibility, and no doubt both were used on occasion.

I once test-fired .300 H&H softpoints on ½in. mild steel plate, and it penetrated with ease, leaving large, lead-plated funnel-shaped holes. I don't remember whether the first I found it wouldn't penetrate was ⅝in. or ¾in., but the rear was slightly domed and cracked. You wouldn't want to be sheltering behind it, but it looked like it would take penetration to produce any substantial fragments from the back.

PO Ackley reprinted that article on the helmeted sick mule, which was by a Colonel Chamberlain, and involved a light, solid copper Swift bullet, loaded to a velocity you can't buy. I often wonder if it inspired the drawing of a rather worried-looking helmeted mule the Old Western Scrounger used to have in their catalogue. It isn't surprising that the bullet penetrated the helmet, but much more so that numerous fragments, which Ackley thought were mostly bone, did so on their way out.

runfiverun
10-23-2016, 04:09 PM
I never did discuss that with Parker when he was alive.

I know someone here could do the math on the energy transference at the point of contact.
the little point and the big flat will have different energy's transfers.
the math would tell the story.

PositiveCaster
10-23-2016, 07:26 PM
I never did discuss that with Parker when he was alive....
Would have been tough to do after he died..... ;)

Steel silhouette targets made from T-1 armor plate won't spall on the back side when hit by pointed or FN or FMJ rifle or pistol bullets. The steel used in the subject of this thread is unknown, but was probably not nearly as tough as T-1.

Anecdotal evidence from WWI tank crews complained of bullet fragments rattling around inside, having entered through small gaps in the riveted hull plates. Don't know about pieces of plate spalling flying around.



.

runfiverun
10-23-2016, 08:34 PM
it would :lol:
I'll try to mention it next time I'm down at his grave and see what he say's.