Reversed bullets

[egbert]

Once again- whether you like it or not: reversed bullets were not used against tanks . The method is useless, ineffective and endangers your own life more than doing harm to the opponent. I have read thousands of German primary sources and never read anything about it. Also you should accept a scientific research on German antitank subject. SmK's were the only bullets the infanterist used effectively against tanks when available. Please also accept the hours spent in the German archives by the author Dr A.Fasse which did not substantiate the issue of reversed bullets against tanks.

And please do not mix the issue of reversed bullets with using of self built dum-dum bullets, which were used by British first and copied by Germans properly. When Germans or British took prisoners with dum-dum bullets in posession, a lot of accounts tell of either the individual or the group instantly being shot .

[centurion]

And please do not mix the issue of reversed bullets with using of self built dum-dum bullets, which were used by British first and copied by Germans properly. When Germans or British took prisoners with dum-dum bullets in posession, a lot of accounts tell of either the individual or the group instantly being shot .

No confusion - a reversed bullet is a form of dum dum as the jacket does not completely cover the base of the bullet and the lead 'explodes' out ward on impact - like a hollow point. Covered in one of the previous threads. There are written standing orders about the execution of prisoners found with tampered bullets - these have also been shown in previous threads.

Its de ja vu all over again

In fact tampering with lead bullets to make them expand on impact is almost as old as the lead bullet itself. Certainly there are records of very stiff letters exchanged between George Washington and Cornwallis each accusing the other side of cutting Xes into musket balls. There were accusations in the ACW as well. By WW1 there were generally observed international rules prohibiting any kind of explosive bullet and whilst ammo was still made by the arsenal at Dum Dum these were not dum dums (something that still causes confusion). The only way a British soldier could create a dum dum would be to snip the end of the round - something that could cause enough distortion to affect loading. Given the construction of the German round reversing the bullet would be the easiest and quickest way to create a dum dum.

[MikB]

Egbert, no amount of archive study is worth anything if it isn't informed by a capability to construct, substantiate, accurately communicate and debate possible explanations for the findings.

If you're denying both the probable explanations for the finds of reversed bullets, you're not left with much other than deliberate fabrication and planting by the Allies.

Proving a negative is always problematic - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Regards,

MikB

[Jack Sheldon]

Centurian

Could you direct me to the source of the point you make about German confusion post-Arras concerning the penetrability of British tanks? This is not a challenge, by the way, I should just like to know where the information comes from. I have two relatively early sources here in front of me:

Bayerische Reserve Division I Nr 8491 of 23.4.17, which refers to a Sixth Army Ia Nr 5361 of 20.4.17. This document concerns 'Experiences from the latest Battles on the Aisne and Elsewhere' and, within the paragraph concerning tanks, states: 'Tanks can definitely be knocked out by k ammunition at close range ... '

3rd Bavarian Infantry Division lecture dated 6.5.1917 'Experiences derived from the Battles around Arras' which includes this sentence. 'It is well known that the first appearance of tanks on the Somme caused panic, at least in those places where our field guns were unable to get them in their sights and engage them with direct fire; but when the fact became known before Arras that they could be dealt with by any rifle or machine gun firing k ammunition and when our infantry and the machine guns were issued, three days after their deployment, with this ammunition, they lost their shock value. On the contrary, everyone was longing to claim the 500 Mark bounty which I had offered. Finally seven of these monsters were knocked out in the divisional sector. On behalf of every division which is posted to a main battle front there must be a demand that they be issued with k ammunition in advance and that this be distributed to machine guns and riflemen.'

I must state that the word translated as 'before' is vor, so it should be read as having geographical significance and not mean that the division knew about this prior to its deployment.

I also have documents relating to anti-tank action during Third Ypres, one of which: Heeresgruppe Rupprecht Art.Nr. 27557 of 16.9.17 discusses issuing the infantry with a heavy anti-tank rifle, which needs to be developed. Part of the justification is this sentence: 'In order to make the infantry more self-sufficient in the area of anti-tank defence as it has been so far with the machine gun firing SmK ammunition ...'

So back to my question. During what period did the Germans believe that British tanks could be penetrated by normal SAA and how and where did this manifest itself on the battlefield?

Jack

[centurion]

Something I've read in more than one place - I'll have to go and look now.

Of interest may be the fact that after Boulecourt Every man in the German infantry was issued with 5 rounds of SMK and a statement promulgated throughout the army that tanks could be knocked out by rifle fire (The fighting tanks 1932 Rarey, Jones and Icks)

The thicker armour of the Mk IV was resistant to the SmK which would explain the need for an AT rifle.

[Andrew Upton]

Its de ja vu all over again

A case of rejavu - it's happened before, and it'll happen again...

[Herekawe]

Plenty of medical reports and diary entries from British, Canadian and French doctors reporting the horrible effects of reversed bullets. The problem is that there will always be those who say that these wounds could have been caused by tumbling bullets and without current access to the patient its impossible to say. Until someone develops a time machine or discovers a handy worm hole I'd put my belief in those doctors who must have seen a huge variety of bullet wounds (including those caused by tumbling rounds) and still reported wounds caused by reversed bullets - after all they were the experts with practical experience in the field.

Hi

Surely with machine guns and rifles firing at attacking troops with high velocity ball ammunition at relatively flat trajectory and the obstacles across no mans land, soldiers, posts, pickets, barb wire, uneven ground pocked by shell holes, stones, bricks, trees, bushes and ruined buildings, fences etc etc there must have been thousands of richochetting, tumbling, deformed and fragmented projectiles flying around no mans land during a major fire fight. I have no doubt the doctors above must have seen a lot of bullet wounds which were not of the relatively clean in/out variety but how would they tell if the wound resulted from a deliberately reversed bullet? Even a bullet found in situ in a wound facing backwards would not indicate it was fired that way- the fact that it stopped in the wound at all might mean it had gone through something else on the way and lost a lot of momentum.

That time machine/worm hole could take a lot of fun out of the forum!

James

[MikB]

That time machine/worm hole could take a lot of fun out of the forum!

Especially since you'd still need to spend an altogether unhealthy amount of time in No Man's Land, and a long and very depressing period examining the dead and wounded, sandbags, damaged loophole plates and tanks, in order to arrive at any opinion that would stand peer review...

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

Hi

Surely with machine guns and rifles firing at attacking troops with high velocity ball ammunition at relatively flat trajectory and the obstacles across no mans land, soldiers, posts, pickets, barb wire, uneven ground pocked by shell holes, stones, bricks, trees, bushes and ruined buildings, fences etc etc there must have been thousands of richochetting, tumbling, deformed and fragmented projectiles flying around no mans land during a major fire fight. I have no doubt the doctors above must have seen a lot of bullet wounds which were not of the relatively clean in/out variety but how would they tell if the wound resulted from a deliberately reversed bullet? Even a bullet found in situ in a wound facing backwards would not indicate it was fired that way- the fact that it stopped in the wound at all might mean it had gone through something else on the way and lost a lot of momentum.

That time machine/worm hole could take a lot of fun out of the forum!

But you could ask them how they could tell - they certainly seem to have thought they could, one very senior Canadian Medical officer reports an increase in the number of his doctors reporting such wound. There must have been something distinctive given that they would have had plenty of experience of all the forms you have listed. They could be said to be expert witnesses.

[centurion]

In the Canadian Medical Association Journal Dec 1916 is an article called GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF THE PRESENT WAR by Lt Col E. J. WILLIAMS, M.D Commanding No. 1 Canadian

Stationary Hospital, Salonica . In it he clearly distinguishes between wounds caused by tumbling rounds and fragments (which h covers in some detail) and those caused by reversed bullets

"The reversed bullet, i.e., the bullet removed from the shell and replaced

point inwards, causes wounds similar to a dum-dum. These were

used quite extensively in the early part of the war where the trenches

of the combatants were separated by a distance of less than a

hundred yards and when rifle fire from the trenches was a commoner

practice than at present, and within which distance the velocity

maintained was sufficient to cause them to strike the part with

base-end foremost, or partially turned. The resulting wound

simulated in every particular that produced by a dum-dum bullet.

Large numbers of these reversed bullets were found on the German

prisoners captured at different times."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P...j00335-0019.pdf

Interestingly he also mentions that revolver or pistol fire at shot range also produced dum dum effects (but that the number of pistol shot wounds were very rare)

[Herekawe]

Those old docs may well be right - I am reminded that at Gallopoli the New Zealand troops were horrified by the effect of Turkish dum dum or hollow pointed bullets until they saw some Turks they had shot and realised that these wounds were just the normal wound of a high velocity ball round at close range. (no I couldn't find the reference but am still looking.)

On the weekend I removed a few MkV11 projectiles NZ 1957 and Candian 1944 manufacture looking at the reversing bullets issue, for my own interest, and the first thing I saw is that (as expected I suppose) the base of the projectile is the most heavily constructed part of it and is well crimped into the core. So it is not really like a soft point bullet. I only have a couple of 8mm ball rounds in my collection and both of post WW11 construction. Could some expert on this topic tell me if this .303 and 7.92 ammo was all made to basically the same spec, where ever and when ever it was made.

Surely carrying reversed bullet rounds (if this is correct, not some rumour from the front lines) would have been a death sentence when captured. I have seen the photos on the forum of reversed 8mm rounds picked up so I am not denying it happened.

Regards

James

[centurion]

Those old docs may well be right - I am reminded that at Gallopoli the New Zealand troops were horrified by the effect of Turkish dum dum or hollow pointed bullets until they saw some Turks they had shot and realised that these wounds were just the normal wound of a high velocity ball round at close range. (no I couldn't find the reference but am still looking.)

On the weekend I removed a few MkV11 projectiles NZ 1957 and Candian 1944 manufacture looking at the reversing bullets issue, for my own interest, and the first thing I saw is that (as expected I suppose) the base of the projectile is the most heavily constructed part of it and is well crimped into the core. So it is not really like a soft point bullet. I only have a couple of 8mm ball rounds in my collection and both of post WW11 construction. Could some expert on this topic tell me if this .303 and 7.92 ammo was all made to basically the same spec, where ever and when ever it was made.

Surely carrying reversed bullet rounds (if this is correct, not some rumour from the front lines) would have been a death sentence when captured. I have seen the photos on the forum of reversed 8mm rounds picked up so I am not denying it happened.

Regards

James

The German round in WW1 as I've said on a number or posts, is recorded as not having the metal jacket covering the base - quite unlike your ammo of thirty or forty years later. The effect if fired reversed would be that the lead would 'explode' out of the jacket on impact - exactly like a dum dum. Trying to reproduce the effect with more modern ammo is quite useless.

[Old Tom]

Having read more of Glandfields book the plot thickens. If I may paraphrase a part of his book dealing with the Landships Committee in about March/April 1915 dealing with the choice of armour - construction depended on availability of suitable sheet armour - hardened steel plate was preferred but was difficult to roll as thin plate and was difficult to grind on assembly to ensure close fit of plates - it was learned that Germans were reversing rifle bullets to improve penetration - trials with a German rifle were requested - the RN armoured car people said that the increased penetration only applied to Beardmores plate* and did not hold true for steels from other mills - the misunderstanding led to a later increase in flank armour 8mm to 12 mm and a severe weight penalty.

The first armoured cars were plated with a 8.5 mm nickel chrome alloy developed by Beardmores which stopped a rifle bullet but 10mm was necessary to resist reversed rounds.

I have forgotten most of the metallurgy I learnt 50 odd years ago, but I think nickel chrome would be brittle compared with hardened steel which, I assume would have an unhardened core.

Old Tom

[TonyE]

The German round in WW1 as I've said on a number or posts, is recorded as not having the metal jacket covering the base - quite unlike your ammo of thirty or forty years later. The effect if fired reversed would be that the lead would 'explode' out of the jacket on impact - exactly like a dum dum. Trying to reproduce the effect with more modern ammo is quite useless.

I have refrained from entering this debate again as we seem to be going round in circles yet again, but I would like to comment on Centurion's post.

All ball bullets, whatever their nationality, had an open base with the lead core exposed. I am not sure what you mean by "your ammo of thirty or forty years later", but even today, whether 7.62mm Nato . 5.56mm or 5.45mm Russian, ball bullets do not have the metal jacket covering the base.

Also, to answer Herekawe's question, both the .303 inch British and the German 7.92mm had a lead core with a metal envelope covering it and open at the base. The differences were that the British used cupro-nickel (CN) for the envelope whilst the Germans used steel plated with CN. The other major difference was that whilst the German bullet had an all lead core, the British used a two piece core, with the lead as the rear part and an aluminium tip filler. That in itself raised questions about the performance of the .303 on striking bone, as it tumbled and could produce explosive Dum Dum like wounds.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

Old Tom

Can you quote exactly where in the book this is? I can't find it in Glanfield (perhaps I should be reading Glandfield!) These thicknesses do not coincide with the actual thickness used On the Mk I armour varied from 0.2 to 0.4 inch (5 mm to 10mm) On the MK IV this was increased to between 0.2 and 0.47 (5mm to just under 12mm) in order to cope with K rounds, Reading Stern K rounds were already known about when the tanks were first designed but the degree of penetration was underestimated although trials were carried out with captured ordinary bullets, reversed rounds and K rounds. From the details of one trial (provided in an earlier thread) the firer would have to get suicidally close to the tank before there was any difference between an ordinary round and a reversed one

I have refrained from entering this debate again as we seem to be going round in circles yet again, but I would like to comment on Centurion's post.

All ball bullets, whatever their nationality, had an open base with the lead core exposed. I am not sure what you mean by "your ammo of thirty or forty years later", but even today, whether 7.62mm Nato . 5.56mm or 5.45mm Russian, ball bullets do not have the metal jacket covering the base.

Also, to answer Herekawe's question, both the .303 inch British and the German 7.92mm had a lead core with a metal envelope covering it and open at the base. The differences were that the British used cupro-nickel (CN) for the envelope whilst the Germans used steel plated with CN. The other major difference was that whilst the German bullet had an all lead core, the British used a two piece core, with the lead as the rear part and an aluminium tip filler. That in itself raised questions about the performance of the .303 on striking bone, as it tumbled and could produce explosive Dum Dum like wounds.

Regards

TonyE

Although the dum dum effect is not caused by tumbling and takes effect from the moment of impact?

[Robert Dunlop]

In the Canadian Medical Association Journal Dec 1916 is an article called GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF THE PRESENT WAR by Lt Col E. J. WILLIAMS, M.D Commanding No. 1 Canadian Stationary Hospital, Salonica . In it he clearly distinguishes between wounds caused by tumbling rounds and fragments (which h covers in some detail) and those caused by reversed bullets.

With respect, Lt Col Williams does not 'clearly' make a distinction. As you say, he describes the effects of high velocity or tumbling rounds in great detail. He also writes at some length about the effects of other projectiles and fragments. But there is no detail at all about the effects of reversed bullets, just a comment about the similarity to dum-dum bullet wounds (which he does not describe at all either). The differences between the details and the very general comments are quite stark, especially to a clinician. The information is inconclusive, certainly not expert evidence, at least not as I have had to provide in court cases.

Robert

[MikB]

Although the dum dum effect is not caused by tumbling and takes effect from the moment of impact?

Most soft- or hollow-point bullets will expand progressively as they penetrate. The risk of toppling off-axis increases with the mushrooming cross-sectional area, and when that happens the rotational energy is rapidly dissipated in a rather similar way to a ball round's snap turnover. Anyone wanting to indulge in gruesome detail can do so, but I doubt the victim would notice the difference.

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

But a surgeon might

[Old Tom]

Hello,

If I may restate my object in going round the bouy yet again. I was at first sceptical of reversed bullets having any AP capabilty, but having come across a reference to actual use (against armoured cars in late 1914) I sought to suggest the mechanics of the process. There was a measure of agreement but others, authoritively, said it was not possible. I have now found another reference that suggested that only one specific sort of steel plate was vulnerable. This, I thought, was of interest.

The introduction to the thread of the anti personel aspect of reversed bullets has, perhaps, clouded the point, but, I suppose that is the nature of a forum like this. That's not a criticism as diversity adds more interest.

For Centurion. It was Glanfield, my apologies that my finger slipped in my first post, and its page 81 of the edition published in 2001 by Sutton Publishing.

Old Tom

[centurion]

Thanks for the reference - I think Glanfield himself may have been confused as the increase to 12mm was on the Mk IV in response to the effect of K rounds (armour piercing not reversed bullets) against Mk I tanks in the Battle of Arras. Trials against armour plate were indeed carried out before the first Mk Is were built (Crompton's efforts were before this).

[Old Tom]

May I give this pot another stir?. I am currently reading 'The Official History of the Ministry of Munitions' Volume XI. It contains a section on body armour (VII of chapter V). The section says that during the war considerable private and official effort was expended on the search for body armour, but that by the end of the war no steel had been produced that would provide protection for infantrymen at acceptable weight.

It also says that in March 1915 'GOC France' asked for a bullet proof shield for scouts or bombers not to exceed 25 lbs in weight. Samples made by Vickers proved vulnerable to the 'German reversed bullet' and it was decided that protection was impracticable. No further detail is given and unlike many statments in the book this is not supported by a reference to other documents.

It appears that the reversed bullet idea took root at high levels.

Old Tom

[Gunner Bailey]

Can someone clarify for me whether a reversed bullet actually had the ability to pentrate armour plate and enter a tank or whether it knocked a scab off the inside like a squash head round, causing damage to people and equipment inside?

If this is not clear then people may be asking the wrong question.

John

[Piorun]

<b><!--coloro:#0000ff--><span style="color:#0000ff"><!--/coloro-->Well said Jack. I would also like to add where did they get the reloading tools to remove and reload the reversed bullets.

The .303 bullet is supposed to rquire a force of 60 lbs to extract the bullet, one would expect the 7.92 to have similar requirements.

Retlaw.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>

Not so, I'm afraid. The German round was very easy to remove and reverse and quite different in seating to the .303. Antony.

[truthergw]

May I give this pot another stir?. I am currently reading 'The Official History of the Ministry of Munitions' Volume XI. It contains a section on body armour (VII of chapter V). The section says that during the war considerable private and official effort was expended on the search for body armour, but that by the end of the war no steel had been produced that would provide protection for infantrymen at acceptable weight.

It also says that in March 1915 'GOC France' asked for a bullet proof shield for scouts or bombers not to exceed 25 lbs in weight. Samples made by Vickers proved vulnerable to the 'German reversed bullet' and it was decided that protection was impracticable. No further detail is given and unlike many statments in the book this is not supported by a reference to other documents.

It appears that the reversed bullet idea took root at high levels.

Old Tom

A round which could defeat body armour might not defeat the armour on a tank. This thread is fascinating and I expect to see it carry on for a while yet. Like all long threads, it has split into sub threads and it is not always clear which sub thread we are looking at in any given post. Did reversing a German rifle round give an armour piercing ability and to what extent, if at all, was this done and a catch all section covering all, any or none of pertinent other business. Interesting though that there would appear to be more or less official testing of the effect of reversing the bullet.

[Piorun]

I believe that the greatest effect was not so much in piercing the armour but in knocking rather deadly shards off the back side of the plate. These could prove lethal to a tanker or sniper. Antony