Back to front bullets?

[Triggermortis]

Whilst doing some family history research I came across a mention of soldiers removing rounds and seating them back to front to make them into a form of armour piercing round, anyone know any more about this or can explain the mechanics of it ?

 

[Apthorpe]

It sounds more likely they would have done that in an attempt to inflict messier injuries.

 

[bowji john]

I've heard of this in the recent Afghan conflict - I thought it was a bit unlikely but maybe it did / does happen

 

[Smellydog]

I have loaded fmj bullets backwards so they are more deadly on fox's.
Don't know about armour.

 

[Kalahari]

Certainly in the first world war the german infantry did this as at close range they had a better chance of penetrating a tank armour.

David.

 

[AN DU RU FOX]

I thought the geneva convention outlawed dum dum s in conflicts?

 

[Sampo]

Probably will cause more damage on soft flesh/ bones but against an armour, logic says it could be less effective. Also there could be an impact on the accuracy over long ranges due to it loosing its aerodynamic qualities. Would like to know if it does pierce any armour though.

Believe armour piercing rounds needs something seriously strong in the middle such as hardened steel or tungsten as lead would simply deform.

 

[Smellydog]

I thought the geneva convention outlawed dum dum s in conflicts?

It was....if the knew about it!

 

[Triggermortis]

Probably will cause more damage on soft flesh/ bones but against an armour, logic says it could be less effective. Also there could be an impact on the accuracy over long ranges due to it loosing its aerodynamic qualities. Would like to know if it does pierce any armour though.

Believe armour piercing rounds needs something seriously strong in the middle such as hardened steel or tungsten as lead would simply deform.

Your premise may not be quite right, armour piercing Artillery rounds have a copper cone in the centre, some of the ex forces members on here may be able to elaborate ?

 

[Dickie]

JFGI helps copper cone with the explosive behind it so it turns the copper molten and drives it through the steel well that’s the theory I believe.

 

[paul o']

This was very common found this its worth a read : The Box O' Truth #32 - Dum-Dum Bullets and the Box O'Truth - The Box O' Truth
and :
At their inception in 1916, the British Mark I tank proved nearly impregnable to standard rifle fire. The first attempt at boosting the power of German infantry rifles was the "reversed bullet". This utilized the same case and bullet as a normal round, except with the bullet seated backwards and more propellant added to the cartridge. When fired, the blunt end of the bullet hits the target first. The bullet does not break apart against armor plating like a normal bullet would.[1] When used against World War I tanks, it sometimes penetrated into the tank compartment, but often it severely distorted the plate armor of the tank. This caused a spray of metal fragments (spall) that hurt or killed the crew of the tank, making it just as effective as full penetration of the compartment.[2] At short range, armor required a minimum thickness of one-half inch in order to stop a reversed bullet.[1] The Germans also used reversed bullets at short ranges against French infantry.[3]

The reversed bullet sometimes damaged German rifles, often injuring its users. This made it unpopular with German infantry.[1] Later in World War I, the Germans developed the armor-piercing K bullet for use against heavier British tanks.

 

[Woodsmoke]

Your premise may not be quite right, armour piercing Artillery rounds have a copper cone in the centre, some of the ex forces members on here may be able to elaborate ?

Yes. They have a shaped copper alloy reverse-cone, and rely on the Munroe Effect to increase the effective power of the explosive charge. The Munroe Effect doesn't occur with a ballistic projectile though. It needs the explosive brisance for it to work.

As for the reversed bullets though, they were first used by the Germans against the MK1 tank. They also had to increase the charge though, and the results were often more effective against the shooter than his target. I think they very shortly afterwards came up with the 'K-bullet' which had a steel core and was far more effective against armour.

As for trying it myself? No, thank you

 

[Triggermortis]

Now that’s why I put the question on here!!!!
I knew someone would be able to explain

 

[Alantoo]

Now that’s why I put the question on here!!!!
I knew someone would be able to explain

So if you are grateful why the double finger icon?

Note the difference




You are not the first

Alan

 

[Triggermortis]

Found this :-

Reversed & K Bullets

Please consider supporting our videos on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/simplehistoryTanks were a nasty surprise for the Germans when they made their entranc...

www.google.com

 

[enfieldspares]

It's true. Think about it. The metal envelope holds the core better than if it struck the armour point on. As WOODSMOKE explains. Also as British tanks were made up unto mid-WWII by riveting steel sheets to a frame there was also potential if hitting a abutment of two plates that the lead would pass through that gap (no matter how small it was), hit the frame and shoot out at a 90 degree angle (as it was now past the armour of course) and so in any case injure the crew.

Anyone who has been sprayed by lead as a bullet crosses the gap between cylinder and barrel on a revolver will know that even a small gap is enough for that quite nasty surprise. So have no doubt that a reversed bullet actually hitting square on the gap would have plenty enough force for some of the lead to pass through the gap, then hit the frame behind and then squirt out at 90 degrees into tank.

For remember as I was told when at Lulworth that a tank (without a functioning crew inside it) in itself can't hurt you. Unless on a pitch dark night you walk into it an bang you head on it or its gun barrel. What hurts you is the crew inside. So the basic idea of an anti-tank weapon is actually a anti-crew weapon. To kill the crew. So the German reverse bullet idea worked as it caused casualties or wounding to the tank's crew.

 

[ejg]

I was lucky enough to have had a long chat to the guy who designed many of the US warheads of air to air surface to air etc missiles. He explained to me the importance of how breaching devices need to be designed to efficiently go through ships etc. Main thing is the sudden impact all at the same time. I presume the turned around bullet will deliver impact quicker/more sudden than forwards with similar to a crush zone in a car.
edi

 

[Woodsmoke]

Note the difference

View attachment 160226


You are not the first

Always makes me laugh!

 

[Andy RV]

Were the Germans using steel core bullets back then? Loaded backwards the bullet was probably also less likely to be deflected if not square to target.

 

[Woodsmoke]

Were the Germans using steel core bullets back then?

Yep. Here's an interesting wee cartoon . . .