Armour peircing bullets

[bob lembke]

Bob,

What about anti-tank rifles, rather than the ordinary small arms?

Ian

Ian;

I am familiar with the characteristics of the 13 mm anti-tank rifle, but I do not have a grasp on how they actually worked out tactically. Assuming that the rifle could puncture a Mark IV at some distance, it could have been a formidable weapon, and a cheap one to produce. One or two guys with these, in a nice hidden position, should have been able to take out a tank or two. I believe that each German infantry company was issued three sniper rifles with telescopic sights and three binoculars for spotting; the company officers to pick their best shots for sniper duty; a Grupp with these and a pair of A-T rifles, and 2-3 helpers and spotters, could have made a difference in a tank or tank/infantry attack.

It would all depend on the range at which the rifle could hole a Mark IV, and if it could at a bit of an angle. (I think the Mark V's armor was a bit thicker.) Does anyone know if these were effective?

Certainly a direct hit from a 77 mm, or a 105 mm howitzer, would more definitively end the career of a tank. But the 13 mm rifle was cheap, and could be available to men that 99% of the time had other duties.

I think 50 batteries of infantry guns were formed; if they followed the example of the storm battalion infantry gun batteries, they might have had smaller wheels and some other modifications to make them lower and lighter, the better to be man-handled over the battlefield. I am sure that these would have performed an A-T role.

In the 1918 offensive it seems that every infantry regiment had at least one "accompaning battery"; if there was not an infantry gun battery about for this duty a battery or two of regular field artillery were detailed to this duty.

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

I've just joined this thread but my first take on the debated phrase was that it sounds similar to my use of the Browning 9mm pistol. That is, beyond about 10yards it would be more effective if I threw it at the 'baddies.

Roxy

Hi, Roxy;

My wife has a e-buddy on a Brit literary forum, an Englishman (it seems he comes from the same obscure corner of Engliad as my crazy Nazi English maternal grandmother; the only Nazis in my family were about 3-4 English, much to the amusement oif my German cousins), and he has emigrated to the US and just took out citizenship, and immediately, gleefully took out his "carry permit". His practical test 1) he had to be able to load the damn thing in front of a police officer; and 2) he had to hit a target 7 out of 10 shots. The size and range? 12" by 18", at a range of nine feet! Practical, but a low standard of shooting.

My wife also has another friend, blind since his first week of life, who is a card-carrying NRA member (and has a Ph. D.), who target-shoots.

But I applaud Roxy for his honesty; most people can't shoot a hand gun for beans, many even after a lot of training or practice. One of my instructors as an army cadet, a regular captain, told me that many professional US officers had a terrible time every year at their annual "shoot for record"; of course that was in the pre-deluvian age when we had that nasty .45 caliber Colt, adopted to knock down charging drug-crazed Phillipinos (sp?) wrapped with vines as armor and waving machetes, after the .38 caliber service revolver did not suffice.

Bob Lembke

[Robert Dunlop]

Significant numbers of anti-tank rifles were issued. From all that I have read (most recently 'The Tank Corps'), they were not particularly effective. Here is a description from the Battle of le Hamel, in which the Mk Vs made their first debut:

"The new tanks were blessed of a deadly power of manoeuvre which they used to the full, expending little ammunition upon machine-gun nests, but even when they had passed an emplacement by in the first rush, swinging swiftly round on the wretched gunners and crushing guns and crews beneath them. As a Tank chronicler somewhat grimly remarks: 'This method eliminated all chance of the enemy coming to life again after the attack had passed by.'

Over 200 machine-guns were accounted for during the day. There were also other and rarer little groups of picked men which the tanks here and there routed out of the standing crops.

These little parties, consisting of three men, were armed with a special rifle of gigantic size designed to be fired - like our Lewis gun - from a bipod. Its projectile was a heavy steel-cored armour-piercing bullet.

It was a new anti-tank weapon, a weapon from which the Germans hoped great things."

I have only come across a couple of examples where members of a tank crew were killed or wounded by anti-tank rifle fire. The tank crews feared the field guns. There are numerous examples why this was so, by way of contrast. RAF squadrons were attached to tank units, starting at Le Hamel. Their role was to seek out and destroy anti-tank field guns.

Robert

[ian turner]

I believe the British army had the anti-tank rifle (Boyse, Boise?) still on the go in WW2, but I do not think it was any more successful, certainly not against a King Tiger!

Ian

[SiegeGunner]

I believe the British army had the anti-tank rifle (Boyse, Boise?) still on the go in WW2, but I do not think it was any more successful, certainly not against a King Tiger!

Ian

Boys, .55"

[zooloo]

I have no reference, so from memory I recall the German's had anti-tank machine guns in the pipeline.

But it was all over before they got anywhere.

I could be wrong

zoo

[bob lembke]

I have no reference, so from memory I recall the German's had anti-tank machine guns in the pipeline.

But it was all over before they got anywhere.

I could be wrong

zoo

I think that boxes of armor-piercing 8 mm ammo in belts were distributed to MG units. But I do not know for sure.

20 mm A-T rifles were even used in WW II. A rifle that caliber, perhaps with one of those nice MG telescopic sights that the Germans had, would have been quite an actor. The 13 mm probably only had the punch to go thru not too far away, and at clean right angles. But the 20 mm would have been a problem in other ways. The Germans were being beaten in in every direction due to shortages of industrial resources, materials, and manpower. There were many, many "ifs".

Bob Lembke

[Robert Dunlop]

You are right about the MG ammo, Bob. It was distributed, especially if an attack was thought to be imminent.

Robert

[Tom Morgan]

Having checked the original source referred to, I see that Trevor Pidgeon in "The Tanks at Flers" says that there was evidence that reversed rounds had greater penetrating power than rounds fired point first, but this seems to have got no further than experimentation. He says that as far as he is aware, no reversed ammunition was used in actual fighting on the Somme. He says that the S.m.K. round - fired point first - was the small arms round found to be most effective against tanks on the Somme.

This is what he says,

"Difficult though it is to believe, tests in Germany had shown that bullets fired backwards had a greater penetrating power than bullets fired point first, at least over short distances. British tests confirmed this: there are photographs in the Imperial War Museum taken at the time which demonstrate very clearly the impact made by reversed ammunition. Moreover, the specification of Mother's armour given to the dignitaries at the Hatfield trials refers to the increased thickness of nickel steel plate required as defence against reversed bullets as opposed to bullets fired first. (At 10 yards range this was 12mm against concentrated fire of reversed bullets, 10mm against reversed single shots, 8mm against ordinary bullets. As far as the author is aware, no reversed bullets were used in actual fighting on the Somme, the German S. m.K bullet - a pointed projectile - being the small arms round found most effective against the tanks."

Tom

[bob lembke]

Having checked the original source referred to, I see that Trevor Pidgeon in "The Tanks at Flers" says that there was evidence that reversed rounds had greater penetrating power than rounds fired point first, but this seems to have got no further than experimentation. He says that as far as he is aware, no reversed ammunition was used in actual fighting on the Somme. He says that the S.m.K. round - fired point first - was the small arms round found to be most effective against tanks on the Somme.

This is what he says,

"Difficult though it is to believe, tests in Germany had shown that bullets fired backwards had a greater penetrating power than bullets fired point first, at least over short distances. British tests confirmed this: there are photographs in the Imperial War Museum taken at the time which demonstrate very clearly the impact made by reversed ammunition. Moreover, the specification of Mother's armour given to the dignitaries at the Hatfield trials refers to the increased thickness of nickel steel plate required as defence against reversed bullets as opposed to bullets fired first. (At 10 yards range this was 12mm against concentrated fire of reversed bullets, 10mm against reversed single shots, 8mm against ordinary bullets. As far as the author is aware, no reversed bullets were used in actual fighting on the Somme, the German S. m.K bullet - a pointed projectile - being the small arms round found most effective against the tanks."

Tom

Tom;

Interesting. At least we have a concrete narrative.

However, this still does not indicate that a simple reversal of a bullet would be useful on the battle field. The earlier suggestion that this might be related to the effectiveness of the "discarded sabot" A-T shell design might well be correct. I am not an expert, although I have always been interested in armor (I considered a career as an armor officer in the 1960's), and only became aware of discarded sabot rounds in the 1960's or 1970's. If the S. m. K. round had a hardened steel core, the blunt end might have stabilized the core when the round impacted the armor, and might have transferred more of the kinetic energy of the lead core and steel jacket to the hardened core as it attempted to pierce the armor.

But a simple reversed S. m. K. round would still have had terrible areodynamics, and at any practical range (10 yards is a bit close to the tank, to my taste) the round would have lost a lot of energy. A test at 50 or 100 yards would certainly be different. And the round might start to tumble, which it wound not be able to do to any extent at 10 yards. If you were able to zing 8 mm rounds into a Mark IV, I would think that on average you would only have a say 15% probability that a given round would do something serious, like hit a crew member, and perhaps only a 2% chance of a truly crippling or destroying effect, like hitting the fuel tank. Trying to put 20 or 30 or 40 rounds into a M IV at a range of 10 yards with a bolt action G 98 would probably be a bad career choice.

A reversed round, IMHO, would have a much higher chance of feeding from a belt-fed MG 08/15 than from the magazine of a G 98 into the chamber. A proper discarding sabot 8 mm round should probably have a streamlined nose-cone jacket for feeding and areodynamics.

Incidentally, an e-friend of mine has a working and fully licensed MG 08/15, and has flown with it across the US to go to re-enactors' meets, where he is a real hit, I gather. I assume that that sort of travel must be complicated. I met him when I saw him purchase a post card of a two-man crew loading an Austrian 37 mm trench gun on e-Bay, and I e-mailed him a translation of an inscription on the card in Slovene in Suetterlin: "More work for the gravediggers." The PC dealer thought that the inscription was Czech. He has the trench gun also and wanted the card as a guide to his restoration of the piece.

American primary sources from the AEF in 1918 often mention receiving fire from German 37 mm trench guns; I am 99% sure that the Germans did not have such a weapon, and it was an example of "the fog of war". There is a very famous photo of two "doughboys" firing one on the Western Front, in a forest. Such a weapon might be a fair A-T weapon, although the muzzle velocity must have been fairly low. Again, a proper A-T round would be useful. Considering the low velocity, a shaped charge would have been good, but I think that that would have been in the future.

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

Having checked the original source referred to, I see that Trevor Pidgeon in "The Tanks at Flers" says that there was evidence that reversed rounds had greater penetrating power than rounds fired point first, but this seems to have got no further than experimentation. He says that as far as he is aware, no reversed ammunition was used in actual fighting on the Somme. He says that the S.m.K. round - fired point first - was the small arms round found to be most effective against tanks on the Somme.

This is what he says,

"Difficult though it is to believe, tests in Germany had shown that bullets fired backwards had a greater penetrating power than bullets fired point first, at least over short distances. British tests confirmed this: there are photographs in the Imperial War Museum taken at the time which demonstrate very clearly the impact made by reversed ammunition. Moreover, the specification of Mother's armour given to the dignitaries at the Hatfield trials refers to the increased thickness of nickel steel plate required as defence against reversed bullets as opposed to bullets fired first. (At 10 yards range this was 12mm against concentrated fire of reversed bullets, 10mm against reversed single shots, 8mm against ordinary bullets. As far as the author is aware, no reversed bullets were used in actual fighting on the Somme, the German S. m.K bullet - a pointed projectile - being the small arms round found most effective against the tanks."

Tom

Tom;

Interesting. At least we have a concrete narrative.

However, this still does not indicate that a simple reversal of a bullet would be useful on the battle field. The earlier suggestion that this might be related to the effectiveness of the "discarded sabot" A-T shell design might well be correct. I am not an expert, although I have always been interested in armor (I considered a career as an armor officer in the 1960's), and only became aware of discarded sabot rounds in the 1960's or 1970's. If the S. m. K. round had a hardened steel core, the blunt end might have stabilized the core when the round impacted the armor, and might have transferred more of the kinetic energy of the lead core and steel jacket to the hardened core as it attempted to pierce the armor.

But a simple reversed S. m. K. round would still have had terrible areodynamics, and at any practical range (10 yards is a bit close to the tank, to my taste) the round would have lost a lot of energy. A test at 50 or 100 yards would certainly be different. And the round might start to tumble, which it wound not be able to do to any extent at 10 yards. If you were able to zing 8 mm rounds into a Mark IV, I would think that on average you would only have a say 15% probability that a given round would do something serious, like hit a crew member, and perhaps only a 2% chance of a truly crippling or destroying effect, like hitting the fuel tank. Trying to put 20 or 30 or 40 rounds into a M IV at a range of 10 yards with a bolt action G 98 would probably be a bad career choice.

A reversed round, IMHO, would have a much higher chance of feeding from a belt-fed MG 08/15 than from the magazine of a G 98 into the chamber. A proper discarding sabot 8 mm round should probably have a streamlined nose-cone jacket for feeding and areodynamics.

Incidentally, an e-friend of mine has a working and fully licensed MG 08/15, and has flown with it across the US to go to re-enactors' meets, where he is a real hit, I gather. I assume that that sort of travel must be complicated. I met him when I saw him purchase a post card of a two-man crew loading an Austrian 37 mm trench gun on e-Bay, and I e-mailed him a translation of an inscription on the card in Slovene in Suetterlin: "More work for the gravediggers." The PC dealer thought that the inscription was Czech. He has the trench gun also and wanted the card as a guide to his restoration of the piece.

American primary sources from the AEF in 1918 often mention receiving fire from German 37 mm trench guns; I am 99% sure that the Germans did not have such a weapon, and it was an example of "the fog of war". There is a very famous photo of two "doughboys" firing one on the Western Front, in a forest. Such a weapon might be a fair A-T weapon, although the muzzle velocity must have been fairly low. Again, a proper A-T round would be useful. Considering the low velocity, a shaped charge would have been good, but I think that that would have been in the future.

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

Sorry, odd. Only launched this once, it hung up, and then for some reason double-posted.

[Cnock]

Hello ,

Referring to Bob his argumentation, I believe neither the story of reversed SmK bullets used against tanks.

Early 1915, at Boezinge French soldiers caught Germans with reversed bullets in their ammo pouches.

French officers had to prevent their men from executing these Germans, because these bullets caused terrible wounds. The German prisoners said they used the reversed bullets to destroy barbed wire, as the bullets tipped over during flight. (not a stable trajectory if You ask me)

One thing is sure, tanks had then not been made.

The S.m.K. (point with core) had a blunter point, and was LONGER than the S-bullet. although the portion projecting out of the cartridge had the same lenght.

The Tank-gewehr could in theory penetrate 20 mm of armour plate at a range of 500 meters.

It was not popular by the German soldier, because of the severe blow-back.

Regards,

Cnock

[Simon R]

British manufacturers of body armour seem to have been testing their products (generally made of 12% manganese steel as per British Brodie specification) against reversed German service ammunition. So they, at least, believed that it had some armour piercing capability. Or perhaps they were testing it against the kind of bullet that soldiers were most worried about - a round that wouldn't pass cleanly through (well...) but would deform, spread and tear open the body. After all, they were paying quite a lot of money for these armour plates (Dayfield, Daigre etc) so I guess the PBI would quite like them to actually work...

[Simon R]

British manufacturers of body armour seem to have been testing their products (generally made of 12% manganese steel as per British Brodie specification) against reversed German service ammunition. So they, at least, believed that it had some armour piercing capability. Or perhaps they were testing it against the kind of bullet that soldiers were most worried about - a round that wouldn't pass cleanly through (well...) but would deform, spread and tear open the body. After all, they were paying quite a lot of money for these armour plates (Dayfield, Daigre etc) so I guess the PBI would quite like them to actually work...

[Simon R]

British manufacturers of body armour seem to have been testing their products (generally made of 12% manganese steel as per British Brodie specification) against reversed German service ammunition. So they, at least, believed that it had some armour piercing capability. Or perhaps they were testing it against the kind of bullet that soldiers were most worried about - a round that wouldn't pass cleanly through (well...) but would deform, spread and tear open the body. After all, they were paying quite a lot of money for these armour plates (Dayfield, Daigre etc) so I guess the PBI would quite like them to actually work...

[Cnock]

Hello,

Size German 13 mm anti tank round compared with 7,92 mm rifle round

[Cnock]

Headstamp on 13 mm round Tank Gewehr

Manufactured by Polte, Magdeburg in 1918

Regards,

Cnock