Show Digging Up the Trenches, Sniper Question About "Reversed Projectiles"

albayo

albayo

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
603   0   1
Location
Born on PEI, Live in NB
I am not sure this is the correct thread but here goes.

If this has been discussed before can someone direct me the discussion.

I have been watching the show "Digging Up the Trenches" on the Military Channel.
They found a steel plate used for protection by snipers.

One thing that I was not aware of, reversing the bullet in in the cartredge case and shooting at the steel plade, causing splinters on the other side.
That is the only time I have heard of this?
 
During WW1, the Germans were very fond of using thick steel plates with small openings for snipers to shoot out of. On some plates the opening was covered by a hinged flap which provided an even greater means of protection. To counter these plates, the Brits started using large calibre hunting rifles to smash through the plates and kill or at least convince the German sniper to ply his trade somewhere else. The Germans got around this by using two plates spaced apart and filling the gap between them with hard packed dirt... pretty neat vintage spaced armour! Removing the bullet from the cartridge and firing it backwards does give the projectile an armour piercing capability. I cannot recall who thought it up first, but both sides are on record as employing this tactic to defeat armour. There is a very nice writeup on these plates and dealing with them in the book "Without Warning".
 
If a lead core bullet didn't penetrate metal going forward "WHY" would it do more damage going backwards?

Why not use Armour piercing ammunition?

Img023.jpg


Shape charge .303????????????????

IMGP6277.jpg
 
I call BS on the theory. If they want to defeat armour they need velocity and a small hard cross section. A reversed bullet produces neither. If they want spall on the reverse side of a steel plate it would not make a difference which way the bullet was oriented when striking (although at anything but point blank range the reversed bullet would be slower).
 
The use of reversed bullets is well documented as an AP measure. The German use of these against tanks is discussed in "Band of Brigands" , a history of British tanks in WWI.
A recent TV documentary showed that a reversed 7.9 "S" bullet easily penetrated armour equivalent to that on an early tank.
Why not use AP ammo? It was not available and reverseing a bullet was an easily done expedient.
 
cie said:
I call BS on the theory. If they want to defeat armour they need velocity and a small hard cross section. A reversed bullet produces neither. If they want spall on the reverse side of a steel plate it would not make a difference which way the bullet was oriented when striking (although at anything but point blank range the reversed bullet would be slower).
Click to expand...

you would be surprised ;)

try it :D
 
It seemed to work well enough on penetrating mild grade plate steel. Not sure about T1 steel. I know the Germans eventually figured this out when faced with halting the advance of british MkVI tanks during WW1.
 
AP would moosh into the metal, converting the energy to deformation. Blunt doesn't stick in, so the energy goes into a spalling whack. Apparently.
There were nice front helmet plates which would have reduced the spalling effect.
GG1014A-7.jpg

It wouldn't require a huge amount of spalling to discourage the recipient, since it is going straight into the face.
 
johnny rotten said:
During WW1, the Germans were very fond of using thick steel plates with small openings for snipers to shoot out of. On some plates the opening was covered by a hinged flap which provided an even greater means of protection. To counter these plates, the Brits started using large calibre hunting rifles to smash through the plates and kill or at least convince the German sniper to ply his trade somewhere else. The Germans got around this by using two plates spaced apart and filling the gap between them with hard packed dirt... pretty neat vintage spaced armour! Removing the bullet from the cartridge and firing it backwards does give the projectile an armour piercing capability. I cannot recall who thought it up first, but both sides are on record as employing this tactic to defeat armour. There is a very nice writeup on these plates and dealing with them in the book "Without Warning".
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that book Out of Nowhere :yingyang: - nice synopsis ! :cheers:
 
the back of the steel core bullet has more surface area to punch through the steel plate these plates where only mild steel now these bullets could punch through more then penetrate through the hope was to send fragments of steel at the sniper behind the plate

both sides used sniper plates but the backwards bullet was said to start with the germans

most ammo of the time had a steel core even the handgun rounds (mainly the germans used steel core handgun ammo) reason for this was to save lead witch had to be shiped from north america to the UK and the U-boats did a number on these ship's

the normal .303 round was a steel core with a small amount of lead around it then a alloy jacket
 
:bsFlag::bsFlag::bsFlag::bsFlag::bsFlag:

Okay, I am no ballistics expert. Let me say that. But I call BS.

Look at the steel he was shooting at with what looks like a mauser or springfield. 30:06 or 8mm mauser, who cares. I know for a fact (because I have done it), a 30:06 will burn through a plate of steel that thick at 100 yards let along the 25 feet they seemed to be using.

Have you actually ever seen the metal on a tank, I don't know about the WW1 ones, but if their armor was 1/4" thick a 303, 30:06 or 8mm will go through it at 100 yards. I have seen a few tanks in person up close at the Ottawa War museum and the one that impressed me the most was the German tank in the Italian campaign exhibit. The armor is about Two inches thick. You can see shell holes in the side of it.

Someone, much more knowledgeable about this than I will be able to chime in about how big the round has to be to go through a certain thickness of armor, (in WW2 perspectives)

So I say BS to what ever way the bullet faces, it is bullet mass, sectional density and velocity that count and being front facing or back facing is more a choice for the ladies. :HR::HR:

d:h:d:h::bsFlag::bsFlag::bsFlag:
 
SKScanuck said:
I know for a fact (because I have done it), a 30:06 will burn through a plate of steel that thick at 100 yards let along the 25 feet they seemed to be using.
Click to expand...

The sniper shield might actually have been toughened to stop the ammunition of the time. The hardening may have made it slightly brittle, increasing the spalling, I don't know.
I have a book "Tanks and Trenches" where the commander realises his Mk1 sponson gunners are all dead, the sponsons having thinner armour. He tied his legless Corporal to his belt and dragged him home across the ground. A different occasion: "The following day was spent counting the number of holes in each tank caused by armour-piercing bullets, one tank having between 20 and 30" - Arras, p.39.
WW2 is not WW1.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom