If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PetaPixel)   Amazing cross-section photos of ammunition from WWII   (petapixel.com) divider line 129
    More: Cool, cross-sections, Sabine Pearlman, crash test dummy  
•       •       •

20714 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2013 at 2:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-06-21 09:18:24 PM
Shame they didn't have info on the make and caliber.
 
2013-06-21 09:18:33 PM
This would be a lot more interesting if there were explanations of the bullet designs.
 
2013-06-21 10:14:10 PM
Rounds for everyone!
 
2013-06-21 11:46:01 PM

NFA: Shame they didn't have info on the make and caliber.


h2ogate: This would be a lot more interesting if there were explanations of the bullet designs.


These

/I could guess the what of a few, but not the why
 
2013-06-21 11:57:10 PM

NFA: Shame they didn't have info on the make and caliber.


h2ogate: This would be a lot more interesting if there were explanations of the bullet designs.


Exactly.
 
2013-06-22 12:10:32 AM
cdn.petapixel.com

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.
 
2013-06-22 12:11:09 AM
I don't see no cordite

i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-22 12:12:59 AM
My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.  I got your cross sections right here.
 
2013-06-22 12:17:38 AM
They would have never posted this inside information on the Internet during WWII.
 
2013-06-22 12:19:01 AM
Let's try that again.
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 12:20:46 AM
ghertnergenealogyblog.garyghertner.com
 
2013-06-22 12:52:44 AM

Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.


Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.
 
2013-06-22 01:24:06 AM

RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.


The Eighth.  Mine too.  Did you get his jacket?
 
2013-06-22 01:33:54 AM

Marcus Aurelius: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.

The Eighth.  Mine too.  Did you get his jacket?


Nah, he came back, and rarely said anything about it. We have a couple of photos of him in uniform, but that's about it. But he kept in touch with his crew, and their captain put together the logs of all their missions and sent everyone copies -- that's pretty interesting reading, especially, IIRC, sightings of the ME-163, and after the war his aircraft traveling through Libya. But that's about all we have.

After the war he wouldn't get into another plane until the 70s when my mom convinced him to fly in a 727 back and forth to Vegas with her.
 
2013-06-22 01:38:14 AM
Doing some quick googling, I thought he was the navigator, but he may have been the Flight Engineer. I know he had this split role and was also the top turret gunner and google suggests that means he was the Flight Engineer.
 
2013-06-22 02:32:07 AM

RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.



John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?
 
2013-06-22 02:38:07 AM
I want to know what these are, especially the blue one and the one with the three metal spikes!
 
2013-06-22 02:39:07 AM
I question the authenticity of this World War II ammo.  I mean, basemetal posts a picture of a glaser safety slug and some sort of WSSM.  I'm not sure how many plastic rounds they used for training during WWII, either.
 
2013-06-22 02:40:59 AM

Molavian: I question the authenticity of this World War II ammo.  I mean, basemetal posts a picture of a glaser safety slug and some sort of WSSM.  I'm not sure how many plastic rounds they used for training during WWII, either.


Yeah, I was thinking that, too.  Most of these seem a hell of a lot more recent than WWII.
 
2013-06-22 02:41:40 AM

basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.


Doesn't look terribly safe to me
 
2013-06-22 02:45:21 AM

AndreMA: basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.

Doesn't look terribly safe to me


Depends on if you are directly in front of it or have a wall between you and it. Whereas a regular JHP it doesn't matter if there is a wall between you and it.

/I think that is the "safety" portion of these. Supposed to be safer in home defense or something.
 
2013-06-22 02:46:42 AM

RatMaster999: Molavian: I question the authenticity of this World War II ammo.  I mean, basemetal posts a picture of a glaser safety slug and some sort of WSSM.  I'm not sure how many plastic rounds they used for training during WWII, either.

Yeah, I was thinking that, too.  Most of these seem a hell of a lot more recent than WWII.




Yup, most of it looks modern to me. Also, the stick powder looks more looks more modern too.
 
2013-06-22 02:48:12 AM
Why are most of them stuffed with coffee beans?
 
2013-06-22 02:49:09 AM

NFA: Shame they didn't have info on the make and caliber.


Glad it wasn't just my aspergers that needed that. The utter lack of any detail on the (otherwise rather gorgeous) photographs, distressed me so much, it almost gave me a nosebleed.

:-/
 
2013-06-22 02:49:51 AM
Some of those straight up can't be military small arms ammo. There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round). So I guess those are either larger fixed case weapons like autocannon ammo or artillery shells, some of them are civilian ammo, or the author is talking out of their arse.
 
2013-06-22 02:53:06 AM
The cross-sections reveal a hidden complexity and beauty of form, which stands in vast contrast to the destructive purpose of the object. It is a representation of the evil and the beautiful, a reflection of the human condition.

Oh for god's sake. You took a picture of bullets. It's not a deep, spiritual journey through the human experience. At least not without a sepia or black and white filter applied.

It's really interesting to see the differences inside the bullets, though.
 
2013-06-22 02:54:58 AM

amindofiron: or the author is talking out of their arse


On the internets? No wai!
 
2013-06-22 02:56:05 AM

Mock26: I want to know what these are, especially the blue one and the one with the three metal spikes!


Dunno for sure, but I have fired thousands of blue low powered .50 caliber slugs that looked similar. Come daylight, I'll go out to the shed and see if I can find one (I have a few spent casings) to compare to the image. Almost the entire round is plastic except for the primer enclosure.

We used them because the FMJ rounds will travel five or so miles, and every fifth (if I remember correctly) round is a tracer.  We built a bullet trap at our local public range out of railroad timbers in an A-frame that was 30 feet deep, filled with earth because shooting them into the hillside cause ricochets that we received complaints about.

They look like this:

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 02:56:19 AM

RoyBatty: After the war he wouldn't get into another plane until the 70s when my mom convinced him to fly in a 727 back and forth to Vegas with her.


My dad mentioned he used to work with an aeronautical engineer, who flew on the big mission to bomb the oil refineries at Ploiesti Romania.  He made it back, but suffered PTSD and never flew again.
 
2013-06-22 02:56:42 AM

amindofiron: There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).


She said it was a Swiss WWII bunker. She didn't say the contents of the bunker were all from WWII. Even if she had, would you mind taking a stab at whether the Geneva Convention and all those Hague treaties happened before or after WWII? Go ahead, guess.
 
2013-06-22 02:57:46 AM

RoyBatty: Doing some quick googling, I thought he was the navigator, but he may have been the Flight Engineer. I know he had this split role and was also the top turret gunner and google suggests that means he was the Flight Engineer.


If you haven't already read it, you might find John Comer's "Combat Crew" to be interesting.
 
2013-06-22 02:58:55 AM
Forgot to say, John Comer was a top gunner/flight engineer.
 
2013-06-22 03:03:33 AM

AndreMA: basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.

Doesn't look terribly safe to me


 They break into a cloud of little particles on initial impact. This makes them not so nice for the people they explode inside of, but they are "Safety" rounds as they were apparently originally designed not to penetrate aircraft fuselages when used onboard aircraft, not to ricochet off hard surfaces like pavement and hit bystanders, and not to overpenetrate and exit original target and hit adjacent secondary targets like hostages.
 Safety slugs are cool, they minimize most possibilities of collateral damage in crowded close quarters engagements around numbers of noncombatants.
 They do cost a couple of bucks per round, but are worth it.
 
2013-06-22 03:05:50 AM

HotWingAgenda: amindofiron: There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).

She said it was a Swiss WWII bunker. She didn't say the contents of the bunker were all from WWII. Even if she had, would you mind taking a stab at whether the Geneva Convention and all those Hague treaties happened before or after WWII? Go ahead, guess.


Hague conventions where called in 1899 and 1907 respectively and the Geneva conventions where called in 1906, 1929 and 1949 respectively, what's your point? As to your other point, the article's title was "AMMO: Cross Section Photos of Bullets Used During WWII". I suppose you could quibble and claim that some of them where used in the civilian market during the same time but...
 
2013-06-22 03:14:59 AM
Seeing these in cross section kinda makes makes me go: GAH! I can sort of get what a simple "slow" slug can do to a body, but some of these look like they're designed to make burger meat. Does anybody know what's up with that flechette?
 
2013-06-22 03:19:20 AM

DreamyAltarBoy: Seeing these in cross section kinda makes makes me go: GAH! I can sort of get what a simple "slow" slug can do to a body, but some of these look like they're designed to make burger meat. Does anybody know what's up with that flechette?


If you mean the needle looking thing with the fins, the only thing I've ever seen that looked like that where armor piercing discarding sabot anti-tank shells. But because there isn't any scale I have no idea how big it is and thus, no actual clue.
 
2013-06-22 03:21:20 AM

NFA: Shame they didn't have info on the make and caliber.

h2ogate: This would be a lot more interesting if there were explanations of the bullet designs.


these
 
2013-06-22 03:26:00 AM
amindofiron:  There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).

Because that's binding :P

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

"The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power."

Basically, as soon as any non signatory joins either side, that clause means nah-thing
 
2013-06-22 03:29:56 AM

HotWingAgenda: amindofiron: There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).

She said it was a Swiss WWII bunker. She didn't say the contents of the bunker were all from WWII. Even if she had, would you mind taking a stab at whether the Geneva Convention and all those Hague treaties happened before or after WWII? Go ahead, guess.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907 ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Conventions

you are both right and wrong
there were geneva conventions before and after WW2

and in the end, none of it really mattered.
so we couldnt use chemical weapons? no problem, what about NUKES?!

FFS hague banned the use of balloons and other flying things to drop weapons.
Evidently no one paid attention to that part during WW2
 
2013-06-22 03:31:27 AM

Tawnos: Basically, as soon as any non signatory joins either side, that clause means nah-thing


When did the Geneva Conventions get updated to include everyone on the planet and not just people who signed on?
 
2013-06-22 03:32:16 AM

amindofiron: HotWingAgenda: amindofiron: There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).

She said it was a Swiss WWII bunker. She didn't say the contents of the bunker were all from WWII. Even if she had, would you mind taking a stab at whether the Geneva Convention and all those Hague treaties happened before or after WWII? Go ahead, guess.

Hague conventions where called in 1899 and 1907 respectively and the Geneva conventions where called in 1906, 1929 and 1949 respectively, what's your point? As to your other point, the article's title was "AMMO: Cross Section Photos of Bullets Used During WWII". I suppose you could quibble and claim that some of them where used in the civilian market during the same time but...


My bad. Generally, everyone born after WWII means the most recent (1949) convention when they are talking about "THE Geneva Convention". Sort of like how when someone mentions "THE president" they're not talking about Taft. You must be extremely long lived. As for whether the photographer says they were WWII ammunition, I can't help you. She deliberately says the subjects were photographed inside a WWII bunker, and does not say they are WWII ammunition. What kind of f*cked up unit would have 900 different types of rounds in one bunker?
 
2013-06-22 03:33:29 AM

amindofiron: DreamyAltarBoy: Seeing these in cross section kinda makes makes me go: GAH! I can sort of get what a simple "slow" slug can do to a body, but some of these look like they're designed to make burger meat. Does anybody know what's up with that flechette?

If you mean the needle looking thing with the fins, the only thing I've ever seen that looked like that where armor piercing discarding sabot anti-tank shells. But because there isn't any scale I have no idea how big it is and thus, no actual clue.


If thats the round I am thinking it is, that is actually a standard flechette as used in a beehive round. About 1.5 inches or so long. A single one was used like that to allow for a handgun cartridge to fire a projectile with enough cross-sectional density to penetrate armor. Problem was, that amount of cross-sectional density also meant it kept right on going, delivering little of its energy to the target and causing little tissue damage and no hydrostatic shock.
 
2013-06-22 03:34:53 AM
These samples were just stored in a WWII-era bunker, not FROM WW2.
Most are modern designs not even invented at the time. Oldest stuff in that spread are Cold-War era.
 
2013-06-22 03:35:10 AM

Tawnos: amindofiron:  There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).

Because that's binding :P

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

"The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power."

Basically, as soon as any non signatory joins either side, that clause means nah-thing


yaaaah, not so much: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp
 
2013-06-22 03:42:41 AM
photographing 900 different "specimens" of cross sectioned ammunition. Her resulting photo series, AMMO,

Her next project, cross sections of adult toys, DILDO.
 
2013-06-22 03:45:38 AM

Mock26: I want to know what these are, especially the blue one and the one with the three metal spikes!


"Metal spikes" looks like a flechette round.
 
2013-06-22 03:50:36 AM

amindofiron: Tawnos: amindofiron:  There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).

Because that's binding :P

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

"The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power."

Basically, as soon as any non signatory joins either side, that clause means nah-thing

yaaaah, not so much: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp


img.fark.net

 "Do not speak to me of rules. This is war! This is not a game of cricket! "
 
2013-06-22 04:03:31 AM

Nill: These samples were just stored in a WWII-era bunker, not FROM WW2.
Most are modern designs not even invented at the time. Oldest stuff in that spread are Cold-War era.


Came here to say this.

I'm curious about the pistol rounds with the giant almost cubical powder grains. What pistol uses powder that burns so slowly? Is it meant as a rifle load?
 
2013-06-22 04:03:56 AM

amindofiron: yaaaah, not so much: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp


I'm not even sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I'll go with the better option. You bastard. ;)
 
2013-06-22 04:05:54 AM
How does one safely saw a bullet in half?
 
2013-06-22 04:09:06 AM
I assume the ones with the wood slugs are training rounds of some kind?
 
2013-06-22 04:11:41 AM

DreamyAltarBoy: Seeing these in cross section kinda makes makes me go: GAH! I can sort of get what a simple "slow" slug can do to a body, but some of these look like they're designed to make burger meat. Does anybody know what's up with that flechette?


it was designed to replace carrier pigeons, but you already knew that.
 
2013-06-22 04:33:50 AM
That flechette ammo, isn't that from the recent experimental Steyr ACR?
 
2013-06-22 04:39:55 AM

HotWingAgenda: amindofiron: HotWingAgenda: amindofiron: There are international treaties (the Hague conventions specifically) that ban the use of expanding/hollow point ammo in warfare and the Geneva convention's ban on weapons that are expressly designed to maim (in this case that thing that looks like a glazer safety round).

She said it was a Swiss WWII bunker. She didn't say the contents of the bunker were all from WWII. Even if she had, would you mind taking a stab at whether the Geneva Convention and all those Hague treaties happened before or after WWII? Go ahead, guess.

Hague conventions where called in 1899 and 1907 respectively and the Geneva conventions where called in 1906, 1929 and 1949 respectively, what's your point? As to your other point, the article's title was "AMMO: Cross Section Photos of Bullets Used During WWII". I suppose you could quibble and claim that some of them where used in the civilian market during the same time but...

My bad. Generally, everyone born after WWII means the most recent (1949) convention when they are talking about "THE Geneva Convention". Sort of like how when someone mentions "THE president" they're not talking about Taft. You must be extremely long lived. As for whether the photographer says they were WWII ammunition, I can't help you. She deliberately says the subjects were photographed inside a WWII bunker, and does not say they are WWII ammunition. What kind of f*cked up unit would have 900 different types of rounds in one bunker?


The Fightin' Fifth Aspergers Museum and Photography Unit, SIR!
 
2013-06-22 04:57:07 AM
I believe that the flechette round is a XM 144 Flechette round.

I believe that round that has the darts inside the bullet is a 9mm 'high safety ammo' round, meant to be something like the Glaser safety slug.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 04:59:02 AM

HotWingAgenda: She deliberately says the subjects were photographed inside a WWII bunker, and does not say they are WWII ammunition. What kind of f*cked up unit would have 900 different types of rounds in one bunker?


Looking at the site, the photographer is an Austrian expat living in LA. Personally I'm going for English as a second language for $200. Actually the language she's writing in is AGB, or Art Gallery Bullshi'it.
 
2013-06-22 05:00:08 AM
looks like the leading cause of death may have been from silver poisoning.

/vs.
 
2013-06-22 05:00:33 AM

RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.

The Eighth.  Mine too.  Did you get his jacket?

Nah, he came back, and rarely said anything about it. We have a couple of photos of him in uniform, but that's about it. But he kept in touch with his crew, and their captain put together the logs of all their missions and sent everyone copies -- that's pretty interesting reading, especially, IIRC, sightings of the ME-163, and after the war his aircraft traveling through Libya. But that's about all we have.

After the war he wouldn't get into another plane until the 70s when my mom convinced him to fly in a 727 back and forth to Vegas with her.


My grandfather was a B17 pilot, 8th AF 303BG. He also never flew again after the war. The 303rd has a site with mission reports, pictures and other material. I starting reading the reports and then a few books in my mid twenties, changed my perspective when pretty much every member of the crews mentioned were younger than I was.
 
2013-06-22 05:12:00 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Nill: These samples were just stored in a WWII-era bunker, not FROM WW2.
Most are modern designs not even invented at the time. Oldest stuff in that spread are Cold-War era.

Came here to say this.

I'm curious about the pistol rounds with the giant almost cubical powder grains. What pistol uses powder that burns so slowly? Is it meant as a rifle load?


I don't think those are pistol, those look like 40mm grenades. How she got them cut in half without touching off the primers is the question.
 
2013-06-22 05:26:39 AM

vossiewulf: Mock26: I want to know what these are, especially the blue one and the one with the three metal spikes!

"Metal spikes" looks like a flechette round.


There's one further down with a single nail-like projectile. I'd call that one a flechette round.
The one next to it looks especially interesting. Four stacked projectiles.
 
2013-06-22 05:34:27 AM
It's interesting what effect ammo can have. The original cannon for the MKV Panther used a tungsten cored round that was very effective. However, after the tank design was started, the Germans realized they didn't have enough tungsten to manufacture all the rounds they would need. As a result, they substituted a different cannon which used a conventional round. This cannon was larger, so the turret size was increased. The original turret fit between the tracks in the chassis, but the new one was too large, so it had to be placed with some overhang over the tracks, and the hull was modified into a t shaped cross section to accomodate the greater turret diameter. This added a lot of weight to the design. However, the drive train was not upgraded to match on the first models, and many broke down.

 In 1943 no panzer unit equipped with Panther D and early model Panther A tanks were able to sustain an operational readiness rate above 35%. More Panthers were lost to mechanical problems in 1943 than to enemy combat. The transmission system was also poor as 5 percent broke within 100km and almost 90 percent broke down within 1,500km. The final drive on the Panther D was so bad that it could not even turn the tank while backing up. It fuel pumps were also a huge problem, they would often leak and cause massive engine fires. The Panther D and A tanks were so prone to breakdown that they had to transport them by train along with the Tiger I. When some Panther A tanks were first being distributed to the SS-Leibstandarte in Italy, September 1943, they were so poor that every one was rejected for service. In summary, the Panther D was a 45 ton tank running on a chassis built for a 24 ton vehicle with very poor mobility and reliability.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/22672-the-panther-tanks-bad-reliability/

Another interesting story involves ordinance fuses. Krupp, a german company, developed a hand grenade fuse prior to WWI. During the war, Vickers used the design in munitions fo the for the British army which killed many Germans. After the war, Krupp sued Vickers for royalties on the fuses, and Vickers settled the claim in Krupp's favor.

http://greatwar.nl/frames/default-merchants.html

"The Arms of Krupp" makes for an interesting read if you are into this sort of thing

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0316529400
 
2013-06-22 06:21:00 AM

NFA: Shame they didn't have info on the make and caliber.


^^^^

A couple of them are really strange and interesting.
 
2013-06-22 06:33:38 AM

basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.


The one on the left looks like a marriage round, you can tell by the blue ball.
 
2013-06-22 06:41:53 AM

Lt_Ryan: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.

The Eighth.  Mine too.  Did you get his jacket?

Nah, he came back, and rarely said anything about it. We have a couple of photos of him in uniform, but that's about it. But he kept in touch with his crew, and their captain put together the logs of all their missions and sent everyone copies -- that's pretty interesting reading, especially, IIRC, sightings of the ME-163, and after the war his aircraft traveling through Libya. But that's about all we have.

After the war he wouldn't get into another plane until the 70s when my mom convinced him to fly in a 727 back and forth to Vegas with her.

My grandfather was a B17 pilot, 8th AF 303BG. He also never flew again after the war. The 303rd has a site with mission reports, pictures and other material. I starting reading the reports and then a few books in my mid twenties, changed my perspective when pretty much every member of the crews mentioned were younger than I was.


Thank you for what your Grandfather and Father did.

I would say it was one of the most dangerous posts of the war.

Grandfather was 1 Dywizja Pancerna.

Nobody survived without scars, some ran deeper than most.
 
2013-06-22 06:54:34 AM

RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.


My dad was a navigator on Halifax bombers, apparently also known as "20-mm magnets." Like the Lancs, although they were a structurally strong bird, they had damn little armour and zero protection from underneath and only some popgun mg's for protection from the top and rear.
 
2013-06-22 06:56:22 AM

realityVSperception: It's interesting what effect ammo can have. The original cannon for the MKV Panther used a tungsten cored round that was very effective. However, after the tank design was started, the Germans realized they didn't have enough tungsten to manufacture all the rounds they would need. As a result, they substituted a different cannon which used a conventional round. This cannon was larger, so the turret size was increased. The original turret fit between the tracks in the chassis, but the new one was too large, so it had to be placed with some overhang over the tracks, and the hull was modified into a t shaped cross section to accomodate the greater turret diameter. This added a lot of weight to the design. However, the drive train was not upgraded to match on the first models, and many broke down.

 In 1943 no panzer unit equipped with Panther D and early model Panther A tanks were able to sustain an operational readiness rate above 35%. More Panthers were lost to mechanical problems in 1943 than to enemy combat. The transmission system was also poor as 5 percent broke within 100km and almost 90 percent broke down within 1,500km. The final drive on the Panther D was so bad that it could not even turn the tank while backing up. It fuel pumps were also a huge problem, they would often leak and cause massive engine fires. The Panther D and A tanks were so prone to breakdown that they had to transport them by train along with the Tiger I. When some Panther A tanks were first being distributed to the SS-Leibstandarte in Italy, September 1943, they were so poor that every one was rejected for service. In summary, the Panther D was a 45 ton tank running on a chassis built for a 24 ton vehicle with very poor mobility and reliability.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/22672-the-panther-tanks-bad-reliability/

Another interesting story involves ordinance fuses. Krupp, a german company, developed a hand grenade fuse prior to WWI. During the war, Vickers used the design in munitions fo t ...


Tank design throughout WW2 is full of mistakes, cockups and short sightedness. Every tank seemed to be under armed until the end of the war with the M4 being a great example. If the all the M4s that landed on Normandy had the 17pounder then there would be a lot more Americans, Brits and Canuks alive today. The only reason why the Tiger had the 88 was Hitler had his super weapon hardon after hearing about the effect of it in North Africa
 
2013-06-22 07:17:53 AM
HotWingAgenda:  What kind of f*cked up unit would have 900 different types of rounds in one bunker?

The Tea Party?
 
2013-06-22 07:23:57 AM

realityVSperception: In 1943 no panzer unit equipped with Panther D and early model Panther A tanks were able to sustain an operational readiness rate above 35%. More Panthers were lost to mechanical problems in 1943 than to enemy combat.


Many things in the German war machine were being made by forced labor and that forced labor often sabotaged things. Get the heat treat wrong on gears, over-tighten or under-tighten bolts, plug up lubrication passageways, things purposefully assembled wrong, and so on.

I remember on one of the shows where they were restoring old military vehicles that the restorer said every German WW2 tank he's examined had signs of sabotage by those who built it.
 
2013-06-22 07:49:44 AM

Norfolking Chance: realityVSperception: It's interesting what effect ammo can have. The original cannon for the MKV Panther used a tungsten cored round that was very effective. However, after the tank design was started, the Germans realized they didn't have enough tungsten to manufacture all the rounds they would need. As a result, they substituted a different cannon which used a conventional round. This cannon was larger, so the turret size was increased. The original turret fit between the tracks in the chassis, but the new one was too large, so it had to be placed with some overhang over the tracks, and the hull was modified into a t shaped cross section to accomodate the greater turret diameter. This added a lot of weight to the design. However, the drive train was not upgraded to match on the first models, and many broke down.

 In 1943 no panzer unit equipped with Panther D and early model Panther A tanks were able to sustain an operational readiness rate above 35%. More Panthers were lost to mechanical problems in 1943 than to enemy combat. The transmission system was also poor as 5 percent broke within 100km and almost 90 percent broke down within 1,500km. The final drive on the Panther D was so bad that it could not even turn the tank while backing up. It fuel pumps were also a huge problem, they would often leak and cause massive engine fires. The Panther D and A tanks were so prone to breakdown that they had to transport them by train along with the Tiger I. When some Panther A tanks were first being distributed to the SS-Leibstandarte in Italy, September 1943, they were so poor that every one was rejected for service. In summary, the Panther D was a 45 ton tank running on a chassis built for a 24 ton vehicle with very poor mobility and reliability.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/22672-the-panther-tanks-bad-reliability/

Another interesting story involves ordinance fuses. Krupp, a german company, developed a hand grenade fuse prior to WWI. During the war, Vickers used the desi ...


Tank design throughout WW2 is full of mistakes, cockups and short sightedness. Every tank seemed to be under armed until the end of the war with the M4 being a great example. If the all the M4s that landed on Normandy had the 17pounder then there would be a lot more Americans, Brits and Canuks alive today. The only reason why the Tiger had the 88 was Hitler had his super weapon hardon after hearing about the effect of it in North Africa

I agree with your basic point. That said, the M4 Sherman was designed to go against the MKIV, which it was a decent match for though. The thing to remember is the timeframe these were designed, tooled up, and deployed in. Can you imagine going from a blank sheet of paper to production delivery in 18 months or less?  The logistics behind that are astounding. I've wandered the halls of today's pentagon and spent more time than that just trying to get the f*****g phone bills paid. Remember that the Americans committed to a single design, built in volume, and won, while the Germans built a plethora of incrementally upgraded designs and lost. And also one can't just look at tank vs tank, as allied overall strategy was built around air superiority. Allied ground attack planes decimated the panzercorps far more effectively than tank vs tank duels could ever have, while having many abeit inferior tanks available allowed Allied forces to sweep across France in '44. Would you want more 17lber Shermans if it ment fewer P47's? When you look at Allied tank+plane vs German tank+plane strategy, the Allies overall strategy beat the Germans at their own blitzkrieg game.

Also, the tiger has a backstory too. Hitler and Porche were buddies, and Porche was suppose to get the tiger tank contract. Henschel's prototype was just suppose to be a fig leaf to cover the fact that the tiger contract was rigged at the highest level. In fact Porche & co. were so sure they would win, they already had about 200 chasss under construction before the contract was awarded. Low and behold, when the prototypes went head to head, Henschel's design was so much better, even Hitler had to admit they should get the contract. The Porche chassis were converted into assault guns called Elephants, which had (to put it politely) a poor record. If you get the military channel, they run "Tank Overhaul" every now and then, and they cover restoring an Elephant captured in Italy in an episode.
 
2013-06-22 08:21:07 AM

RocketCarHead: vossiewulf: Mock26: I want to know what these are, especially the blue one and the one with the three metal spikes!

"Metal spikes" looks like a flechette round.

There's one further down with a single nail-like projectile. I'd call that one a flechette round.
The one next to it looks especially interesting. Four stacked projectiles.


I thoght so too. I looked around a bit. I think its exactly what it appears to be, three slugs stacked in one casing.

They appear to be called duplex or triplex rounds. Also described as salvo sqeeze bore. Here's a 30-06 version

http://cartridgecollectors.org/?page=cotm/30-06-SALVO

And here's a 9mm version

http://gigconceptsinc.com/Colt-SSB.html

Here's a thread with some more cutaways

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=274739

And I found this post

It was called "Salvo Squeeze Bore" developed by a former Armalite Engineer named Russell Robinson.

Russell was my mother's neighbor in Tucson until he passed away about 8 years ago.

We talked about it one time, he showed me some of the test guns and several boxes of ammo.

The idea was quite interesting; working on the concept that deformation at the base of a bullet has an effect on the bullet's flight, hence point of impact. By swaging the bullet from .50 cal down to .30 (also from .30 to .223) the bullet base is deformed, by stacking two or three bullets in a cartridge the deformation is going to be different on each bullet causing a dispersion down range increasing hit probability as the bullets hit within a 3" circle.

Realize that a machine gun has a natural dispersion of shots due to the barrel harmonics caused by the previous shot; by adding Salvo Squeeze bore the downrange density is increased dramatically.


http://www.gunforums.com/forums/showtopic.php?tid/4354/

Since the bottom slug isn't cut away, its tough to tell what it is. Maybe a tracer or possiblty an incendiary ment to add insult to injury?

Also, here is more info on .50 rounds with some cutaways and with descriptions

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/50.htm
 
2013-06-22 08:38:27 AM
cdn.petapixel.com

Image on the right was called a "buddy bullet": three rounds in one.  Not very cost-effective.
 
2013-06-22 08:59:46 AM
Can't believe they left out this little gem from WWII:

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 09:07:48 AM

Spanky McStupid: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x489]

Image on the right was called a "buddy bullet": three rounds in one.  Not very cost-effective.


And the one in the middle...is that a NEEDLE in it?  Wierd.
 
2013-06-22 09:17:50 AM

Lt_Ryan: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.

The Eighth.  Mine too.  Did you get his jacket?

Nah, he came back, and rarely said anything about it. We have a couple of photos of him in uniform, but that's about it. But he kept in touch with his crew, and their captain put together the logs of all their missions and sent everyone copies -- that's pretty interesting reading, especially, IIRC, sightings of the ME-163, and after the war his aircraft traveling through Libya. But that's about all we have.

After the war he wouldn't get into another plane until the 70s when my mom convinced him to fly in a 727 back and forth to Vegas with her.

My grandfather was a B17 pilot, 8th AF 303BG. He also never flew again after the war. The 303rd has a site with mission reports, pictures and other material. I starting reading the reports and then a few books in my mid twenties, changed my perspective when pretty much every member of the crews mentioned were younger than I was.


Many years ago, I worked with a guy who flew B17s over Europe (based in Italy IIRC).  He told he was 20 and weighed about 110 pounds (he was under 5 foot 5) and the plane would bounce him silly.  When returning from a mission he was showing off and rather than a long landing approach, he flew near the end of the runway at about a thousand feet of altitude, did a hard left bank and flattened out right before touchdown and landed safely.  Only then did they notice they'd been hit, which damaged the main wing strut.  He said, "I was just a snot-nosed kid".  That's a different kind of flying altogether.
 
2013-06-22 09:18:16 AM

realityVSperception: Also, the tiger has a backstory too. Hitler and Porche were buddies, and Porche was suppose to get the tiger tank contract. Henschel's prototype was just suppose to be a fig leaf to cover the fact that the tiger contract was rigged at the highest level. In fact Porche & co. were so sure they would win, they already had about 200 chasss under construction before the contract was awarded. Low and behold, when the prototypes went head to head, Henschel's design was so much better, even Hitler had to admit they should get the contract. The Porche chassis were converted into assault guns called Elephants, which had (to put it politely) a poor record. If you get the military channel, they run "Tank Overhaul" every now and then, and they cover restoring an Elephant captured in Italy in an episode.


IIRC, didn't the Porsche Tiger prototype catch fire during it's first test run? And it was so under-powered it couldn't climb hills without a running start?

 How does one safely saw a bullet in half?

Very, very carefully...
 
2013-06-22 09:20:29 AM

CliChe Guevara: amindofiron: DreamyAltarBoy: Seeing these in cross section kinda makes makes me go: GAH! I can sort of get what a simple "slow" slug can do to a body, but some of these look like they're designed to make burger meat. Does anybody know what's up with that flechette?

If you mean the needle looking thing with the fins, the only thing I've ever seen that looked like that where armor piercing discarding sabot anti-tank shells. But because there isn't any scale I have no idea how big it is and thus, no actual clue.

If thats the round I am thinking it is, that is actually a standard flechette as used in a beehive round. About 1.5 inches or so long. A single one was used like that to allow for a handgun cartridge to fire a projectile with enough cross-sectional density to penetrate armor. Problem was, that amount of cross-sectional density also meant it kept right on going, delivering little of its energy to the target and causing little tissue damage and no hydrostatic shock.

I remember hearing flechettes were banned because once they were in the body they would easily warp and then ping around the inside basically guaranteed killing the person. Can't remember exact details of it though
 
2013-06-22 09:28:19 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Spanky McStupid: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x489]

Image on the right was called a "buddy bullet": three rounds in one.  Not very cost-effective.

And the one in the middle...is that a NEEDLE in it?  Wierd.



Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot. (APFSDS) It's a modern kinetic kill anti-tank round. The idea is to get maximimum energy into the minimum possible area, so the best possible shape is a long thin dart. Wrap it in a sabot to fit into a much larger gun barrel so you can put more propellant behind it. But you can't spin stabilize a rod like shorter bullets, so you need to stabilize it with fins. The penetrator is something very hard and dense, usually either tungsten carbide or (in the case of the US) depleted uranium.
 
2013-06-22 09:28:19 AM

basemetal: NFA: Shame they didn't have info on the make and caliber.

h2ogate: This would be a lot more interesting if there were explanations of the bullet designs.

Exactly.

This.

God-is-a-Taco: The cross-sections reveal a hidden complexity and beauty of form, which stands in vast contrast to the destructive purpose of the object. It is a representation of the evil and the beautiful, a reflection of the human condition.

Oh for god's sake. You took a picture of bullets. It's not a deep, spiritual journey through the human experience. At least not without a sepia or black and white filter applied.


This is why artists should never talk about their art, ever. STFU and make with the pretty pictures, lady.
 
2013-06-22 09:29:47 AM
Either me or subby fail at reading comprehension -- article says the photos were taken in a WWII bunker, but not that the ammo is from WWII.  That thing that looks like a sabot round for a hand gun has to be modern, doesn't it?
 
2013-06-22 09:29:58 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Spanky McStupid: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x489]

Image on the right was called a "buddy bullet": three rounds in one.  Not very cost-effective.

And the one in the middle...is that a NEEDLE in it?  Wierd.


That's a humanitarian bullet.  It delivers a dose of anesthetic with the bullet.
 
2013-06-22 09:52:04 AM
There is one cut away that appears to be stacked bullets. Looks like the Squeezebore 50 Caliber rounds used in Vietnam Nam.
 
2013-06-22 09:55:07 AM

amindofiron: DreamyAltarBoy: Seeing these in cross section kinda makes makes me go: GAH! I can sort of get what a simple "slow" slug can do to a body, but some of these look like they're designed to make burger meat. Does anybody know what's up with that flechette?

If you mean the needle looking thing with the fins, the only thing I've ever seen that looked like that where armor piercing discarding sabot anti-tank shells. But because there isn't any scale I have no idea how big it is and thus, no actual clue.


There are .50 cal machinegun rounds that are discarding sabot that the USMC (and presumably the rest of the US military) uses.
 
2013-06-22 10:13:37 AM

rkiller1: Many years ago, I worked with a guy who flew B17s over Europe (based in Italy IIRC).  He told he was 20 and weighed about 110 pounds (he was under 5 foot 5) and the plane would bounce him silly.  When returning from a mission he was showing off and rather than a long landing approach, he flew near the end of the runway at about a thousand feet of altitude, did a hard left bank and flattened out right before touchdown and landed safely.  Only then did they notice they'd been hit, which damaged the main wing strut.  He said, "I was just a snot-nosed kid".  That's a different kind of flying altogether.


If anyone is looking for a good book on the 8th, I can highly recommend 'Half a Wing, 3 Engines and a Prayer'. More or less uses the memoirs/interviews with a singe B-17 crew through their tour over Germany, with some segues for the major operations of the war that the specific crew wasn't involved in.

Lots of interesting details in it that I didn't know about the day to day operation of the 8th. For instance a crew would sometimes fly a different ship than their assigned one, if that plane was down for repairs of maintenance. From the documentaries I'd always assumed they would always fly 'their' plane (Memphis Belle, etc.) every mission. I recall the pilot commenting that everyone hated flying the 'spare' plane for their squadron, because it was an 'ancient' B-17D/E(?) that was held together with 'bailing wire and prayer'.

The crews would also be combined/moved around for injuries/sickness of personnel (more obvious).
 
2013-06-22 10:19:42 AM

Glockenspiel Hero: The penetrator is something very hard and dense, usually either tungsten carbide or (in the case of the US) depleted uranium.


DU isn't hard. It is, however, pyrophoric. AFAIK it's used inside, not as the whole penetrator.

Anyways, ever see WWII footage with all the black puffs around airplanes? They used mechanical clocks as timers in the anti-aircraft shells to get them to blow up at the right time. Except that is was the wrong time 99.9% of the time... It took thousands of shells to hit one plane. Then along came this:

img.fark.net

It's an electronic proximity fuze. A battery and a radar that could withstand 100000G acceleration and 20000RPM... with vacuum tubes. Suddenly the shells became terrifying. It was also useful against ground targets, blowing up over your target is much more effective that blowing up at ground level.

This is not "ammo" itself, sure, but it is amazing.
 
2013-06-22 10:35:49 AM
Maybe subby meant the Iraq Wars? Most of that ammo is post-Nam.
 
2013-06-22 10:43:29 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: DU isn't hard. It is, however, pyrophoric. AFAIK it's used inside, not as the whole penetrator.


Adding some extra M to the whole MA=F equation helps too. Used to work with portable radiography equipment shielded by DU...that shiat is very dense...which I why it makes good shielding. It's also an Alpha emitter, which is why it's bad for the troops when fired. (The US is transiting to tungsten perpetrators partly for this reason)
 
2013-06-22 10:46:53 AM

Skunkwolf: Lt_Ryan: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.

The Eighth.  Mine too.  Did you get his jacket?

Nah, he came back, and rarely said anything about it. We have a couple of photos of him in uniform, but that's about it. But he kept in touch with his crew, and their captain put together the logs of all their missions and sent everyone copies -- that's pretty interesting reading, especially, IIRC, sightings of the ME-163, and after the war his aircraft traveling through Libya. But that's about all we have.

After the war he wouldn't get into another plane until the 70s when my mom convinced him to fly in a 727 back and forth to Vegas with her.

My grandfather was a B17 pilot, 8th AF 303BG. He also never flew again after the war. The 303rd has a site with mission reports, pictures and other material. I starting reading the reports and then a few books in my mid twenties, changed my perspective when pretty much every member of the crews mentioned were younger than I was.

Thank you for what your Grandfather and Father did.

I would say it was one of the most dangerous posts of the war.

Grandfather was 1 Dywizja Pancerna.

Nobody survived without scars, some ran deeper than most.


My grandfather was actually at the airbase during the war.  He wasn't a pilot, but he had the morbid job of cleaning out the planes after return trips.  Before his Alzhheimers set in, heard some of those stories and it was gruesome.  I didn't envy anyone involved with that.  But the amazing thing about that generation was they just "did".  My grandfather felt less than his brothers because he didn't see actual combat.  Hell, the horrors he saw were probably worse than some of his brothers saw.  But regardless he woke up everyday and cleaned blood and sometimes worse out of those planes.
 
2013-06-22 10:47:59 AM

special20: HotWingAgenda:  What kind of f*cked up unit would have 900 different types of rounds in one bunker?

The Tea Party?


Wow, you are mind-numbingly unfunny.
 
2013-06-22 11:28:49 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Glockenspiel Hero: The penetrator is something very hard and dense, usually either tungsten carbide or (in the case of the US) depleted uranium.

DU isn't hard. It is, however, pyrophoric. AFAIK it's used inside, not as the whole penetrator.

Brinell hardness of 2400 doesn't count as hard? Iron's around 500, tungsten is about 2600. You won't find many common metals higher up on the list. It's used for four basic reasons
1) It's very dense. 19 g/cc, and you want a lot of mass in a small area
2) It's hard
3) As you note, it's pyrophoric- it throws flaming chips of metal all over the place. Back in Armor school they showed us the interior of a tank where they'd put plywood sillouettes of a crew and then run a DU sabot round through the turret. Pretty spectacular.
4) It's cheap. We've got tons and tons of the stuff since it's a mostly useless byproduct of U235 enrichment.
Since it's basically harmless unless you vaporize it and get it in your lungs (alpha emitter) or eat it (heavy metal poison) it's a good choice. The latest versions of the M1 use it as part of the front glacis armor on tbe turret as well
 
2013-06-22 11:29:47 AM

Flatus: special20: HotWingAgenda:  What kind of f*cked up unit would have 900 different types of rounds in one bunker?

The Tea Party?

Wow, you are mind-numbingly unfunny.


funny or not, he is however quite accurate.

/we have a local church here with around 2 million rounds+ stored in the basement and growing. its like a doomsday cult of fox news, bibles, and not very well veiled racism.
 
2013-06-22 11:33:33 AM

RyansPrivates: Skunkwolf: Lt_Ryan: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: RoyBatty: Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.

Hey, mine too. 8th Air Force England.

The Eighth.  Mine too.  Did you get his jacket?

Nah, he came back, and rarely said anything about it. We have a couple of photos of him in uniform, but that's about it. But he kept in touch with his crew, and their captain put together the logs of all their missions and sent everyone copies -- that's pretty interesting reading, especially, IIRC, sightings of the ME-163, and after the war his aircraft traveling through Libya. But that's about all we have.

After the war he wouldn't get into another plane until the 70s when my mom convinced him to fly in a 727 back and forth to Vegas with her.

My grandfather was a B17 pilot, 8th AF 303BG. He also never flew again after the war. The 303rd has a site with mission reports, pictures and other material. I starting reading the reports and then a few books in my mid twenties, changed my perspective when pretty much every member of the crews mentioned were younger than I was.

Thank you for what your Grandfather and Father did.

I would say it was one of the most dangerous posts of the war.

Grandfather was 1 Dywizja Pancerna.

Nobody survived without scars, some ran deeper than most.

My grandfather was actually at the airbase during the war.  He wasn't a pilot, but he had the morbid job of cleaning out the planes after return trips.  Before his Alzhheimers set in, heard some of those stories and it was gruesome.  I didn't envy anyone involved with that.  But the amazing thing about that generation was they just "did".  My grandfather felt less than his brothers because he didn't see actual combat.  Hell, the horrors he saw were probably worse than some of his brothers saw.  But regardless he woke up everyday and cleaned blood and sometimes worse out of those planes.


You hear how bloody places like Iwo Jima and Tarawa were, but overall the 8th air force had more men killed than the marines lost in the entire war. About 20K marines vs 26K 8th airforce personnel.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm

http://www.8af.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4632
 
2013-06-22 11:36:28 AM

Marcus Aurelius: My father was a B-17 navigator out of northern Italy.  I got your cross sections right here.


Funny you should mention that. When I read this in the article...

FTA: ... [a] beauty of form, which stands in vast contrast to the destructive purpose of the object. It is a representation of the evil and the beautiful, a reflection of the human condition.

... the first thing I thought of was this:

img.fark.net

/have an actual B-17 gunsight mounted on the dash of my WWII themed VW van
 
2013-06-22 11:40:30 AM

realityVSperception: You hear how bloody places like Iwo Jima and Tarawa were, but overall the 8th air force had more men killed than the marines lost in the entire war. About 20K marines vs 26K 8th airforce personnel.


I'd rather be shot than fall to death, too.
 
2013-06-22 11:59:58 AM
To answer the question  of how these rounds were sectioned up so prettily, they were cut up as components and then glued together.
 
2013-06-22 12:33:29 PM
Thanks everyone, for all the interesting stories about ammo, tanks, the air force, and fusing.

I often learn tons from FARK threads.
 
2013-06-22 12:51:37 PM

realityVSperception: I agree with your basic point. That said, the M4 Sherman was designed to go against the MKIV, which it was a decent match for though. The thing to remember is the timeframe these were designed, tooled up, and deployed in. Can you imagine going from a blank sheet of paper to production delivery in 18 months or less? The logistics behind that are astounding. I've wandered the halls of today's pentagon and spent more time than that just trying to get the f*****g phone bills paid. Remember that the Americans committed to a single design, built in volume, and won, while the Germans built a plethora of incrementally upgraded designs and lost. And also one can't just look at tank vs tank, as allied overall strategy was built around air superiority. Allied ground attack planes decimated the panzercorps far more effectively than tank vs tank duels could ever have, while having many abeit inferior tanks available allowed Allied forces to sweep across France in '44. Would you want more 17lber Shermans if it ment fewer P47's? When you look at Allied tank+plane vs German tank+plane strategy, the Allies overall strategy beat the Germans at their own blitzkrieg game.

Also, the tiger has a backstory too. Hitler and Porche were buddies, and Porche was suppose to get the tiger tank contract. Henschel's prototype was just suppose to be a fig leaf to cover the fact that the tiger contract was rigged at the highest level. In fact Porche & co. were so sure they would win, they already had about 200 chasss under construction before the contract was awarded. Low and behold, when the prototypes went head to head, Henschel's design was so much better, even Hitler had to admit they should get the contract. The Porche chassis were converted into assault guns called Elephants, which had (to put it politely) a poor record. If you get the military channel, they run "Tank Overhaul" every now and then, and they cover restoring an Elephant captured in Italy in an episode.


While the stock M4 with its 75mm was ok against the III and IV against the Tiger and Panther it was next to usless. The Tiger was just starting to get deployed and a few were in North Africa before the Germans were pushed out. You can even see one of the captured North Africa Tigers in the Bovington Tank Museum. So its not like the Tiger came as a supprise during Normandy.

Keeping the logistics pipeline as simple as possible with simple and rugged tanks (the British army had a hell of a problem in North Africa keeping tanks going, with most of the Matilda 2's and Crusaders being lost to mechanical problems and not enemy fire) was a great idea but the M4's (and Cromwells) should of been up gunned before Normandy because they knew Tigers would be used and the 75mm guns would not be any good. It wouldn't of any real effort to re-tool the American production lines to produce Fireflys.

The Normandy landings needed to be in the summer of '44 and you always fight wars with the equipment you have not what you need but it was not a massive change and it could of made a big differance.

/The Russians also knew the T34 was undergunned
//They just didn't care.
 
2013-06-22 12:52:51 PM
HotWingAgenda: blah blah blah
She deliberately says the subjects were photographed inside a WWII bunker, and does not say they are WWII ammunition. What kind of f*cked up unit would have 900 different types of rounds in one bunker?


Special Needs Forces???

You can always tell by the clean windows.
 
2013-06-22 01:01:43 PM

Glockenspiel Hero: 2) It's hard


Huh, look at that. I always assumed it was more like lead.

Glockenspiel Hero: 4) It's cheap. We've got tons and tons of the stuff since it's a mostly useless byproduct of U235 enrichment.


I heard that too. Not just cheap, free even.
 
2013-06-22 01:16:16 PM

basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.


The one on the right looks like a .22TCM, a 9mm cartridge necked down to .223.
 
2013-06-22 01:52:05 PM
From the comments:

From left to right, top to bottom on the above page, the cartridges are:

1. "M860" .50BMG tracer (range training cartridge).
2. Unknown dummy,
3. Wood bullet load (hard to tell caliber, these are not to scale),
4. HSA "Cobra" multi-dart 9x19mm AP load (British, and short-lived),
5. Israeli 9x19mm shot load in resin matrix, for riot use, or anti-skyjack use,
6. Unknown ball load, looks like .32acp or .25acp (not in scale),
7. Personal Protection Systems "MSC" Solid brass hollow point in .25acp made by Hi-Vel,
8. "ZM75" 7.62 Czech short-range tracer loaded into .32acp case for use in the RPG-75 launcher,
9. Glaser Safety slug (blue, #12 shot) - probably .38spl,
10. Probably a .224 BOZ, or a .225 JAWS,
11. 4.6x30mm RUAG "DM11",
12. probably an XM216 flechette,
13. Colt .308 project SALVO experimental,
14. probably a .455 Webley ball load,
15. Speer plastic indoor training load - .38 cal.
*** These photos are excellent, but when shown side-by-side are often out of scale relative to the neighboring cartridge. Only a couple of these were around for WWII, but perhaps many of the photos taken but not shown were from that era. The sections were most likely done by Paul Smith or Reinhold Peschke for whomever the Swiss collector is (maybe Reinhold himself) - fantastic sections!
 
2013-06-22 02:17:24 PM

CliChe Guevara: AndreMA: basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.

Doesn't look terribly safe to me

 They break into a cloud of little particles on initial impact. This makes them not so nice for the people they explode inside of, but they are "Safety" rounds as they were apparently originally designed not to penetrate aircraft fuselages when used onboard aircraft, not to ricochet off hard surfaces like pavement and hit bystanders, and not to overpenetrate and exit original target and hit adjacent secondary targets like hostages.
 Safety slugs are cool, they minimize most possibilities of collateral damage in crowded close quarters engagements around numbers of noncombatants.
 They do cost a couple of bucks per round, but are worth it.



I like your style.
 
2013-06-22 02:17:35 PM

Molavian: I'd rather be shot than fall to death, too.


I think a lot of air men were shot then fell to their death on fire.

Norfolking Chance: but the M4's (and Cromwells) should of been up gunned before Normandy because they knew Tigers would be used and the 75mm guns would not be any good. It wouldn't of any real effort to re-tool the American production lines to produce Fireflys.


I've read bits and pieces that say that the Americans solution was to use tank destroyers against tanks and tanks for infantry support. Essentially for the most part the US Army had no intention to pit tanks against tanks.  I think on the Soviet side the T-34 had the advantage of being fast, reliable, with a low silhouette. I think a big criticism of American tanks were they were too tall since strangely enough tank warfare involved a lot of hiding.
 
2013-06-22 02:28:51 PM
figuring out better/cheaper/more efficient ways to kill people is so neat.
 
2013-06-22 02:37:10 PM

MegaUngawa: I don't think those are pistol, those look like 40mm grenades. How she got them cut in half without touching off the primers is the question.


Ah. It's really hard to tell what's what without any sense of scale. Grenade and cannon rounds look pretty much the same as small arms ammo if you can't see that they're ginormous.

The Smails Kid: God-is-a-Taco: The cross-sections reveal a hidden complexity and beauty of form, which stands in vast contrast to the destructive purpose of the object. It is a representation of the evil and the beautiful, a reflection of the human condition.

Oh for god's sake. You took a picture of bullets. It's not a deep, spiritual journey through the human experience. At least not without a sepia or black and white filter applied.

This is why artists should never talk about their art, ever. STFU and make with the pretty pictures, lady.


I fail to see what's so pretentious about this. It's frankly a little astonishing how, on the one hand, war is such a horrible, dirty, disgusting thing, yet on the other hand many of the implements we design for slaughtering our fellow humans in war are in themselves aesthetically equal to any work of art. It's a poignant statement. You can think of it in terms of either "humans make art even when they're killing each other" or "we're so violent even our art is weaponized", I suppose. The pictures are subtle but they say a lot about mankind.

I mean maybe she's overselling the language a bit, but it's really just translating "them bullets is purty even though they kills folks" into the language of art snobs.
 
2013-06-22 02:43:37 PM

Linux_Yes: figuring out better/cheaper/more efficient ways to kill people is so neat.


Indeed.
 
2013-06-22 02:59:35 PM

realityVSperception: You hear how bloody places like Iwo Jima and Tarawa were, but overall the 8th air force had more men killed than the marines lost in the entire war. About 20K marines vs 26K 8th airforce personnel.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm

http://www.8af.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4632


Thank you for this.
 
2013-06-22 03:29:20 PM

Norfolking Chance: realityVSperception: I agree with your basic point...


While the stock M4 with its 75mm was ok against the III and IV against the Tiger and Panther it was next to usless. The Tiger was just starting to get deployed and a few were in North Africa before the Germans were pushed out. You can even see one of the captured North Africa Tigers in the Bovington Tank Museum. So its not like the Tiger came as a supprise during Normandy.

Keeping the logistics pipeline as simple as possible with simple and rugged tanks (the British army had a hell of a problem in North Africa keeping tanks going, with most of the Matilda 2's and Crusaders being lost to mechanical problems and not enemy fire) was a great idea but the M4's (and Cromwells) should of been up gunned before Normandy because they knew Tigers would be used and the 75mm guns would not be any good. It wouldn't of any real effort to re-tool the American production lines to produce Fireflys.

The Normandy landings needed to be in the summer of '44 and you always fight wars with the equipment you have not what you need but it was not a massive change and it could of made a big differance.

/The Russians also knew the T34 was undergunned
//They just didn't care.


You might find this wiki interesting. It has some interesting info about US army doctrine that was in effect at the time the Sherman was designed. Note that the Sherman was not intended to be used in tank vs tank combat.

 Neither was the M4 primarily intended for tank versus tank action. The field manual covering the use of the Sherman (FM 17-33, "The Tank Battalion, Light and Medium" of September 1942) devoted one page of text and four diagrams to tank versus tank action (out of 142 pages).This early armored doctrine was heavily influenced by the sweeping initial successes of the German blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately, by the time M4s reached combat in significant numbers, battlefield demands for infantry support and tank versus tank action far outnumbered the occasional opportunities for cruiser tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#cite_note-6

The US army did develop other AFVs that were designed to go head to head with enemy armor, which did have better main weapons for tank killing. For example, look at the M-18 Hellcat-

Notable battles

On September 19, 1944, in the Nancy Bridgehead near Arracourt, France, the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion was attached to the 4th Armored Division. Lt. Edwin Leiper led one M18 platoon of C Company to Rechicourt-la-Petite, on the way to Moncourt. He saw a German tank gun muzzle appearing out of the fog 30 feet away, and deployed his platoon. In a five-minute period, five German tanks of the 113 Panzer Brigade were knocked out for the loss of one M18. The platoon continued to fire and destroyed ten more German tanks while losing another two M18s. One of the platoon's M18s commanded by Sgt Henry R. Hartman knocked out six of the German tanks, most of which were the much-feared Panthers.

The M18 Hellcat was a key element during World War II in the Battle of the Bulge. On December 19-20, the 1st Battalion of the 506th PIR was ordered to support Team Desobry, a battalion-sized tank-infantry task force of the 10th Armored Division (United States) assigned to defend Noville[3] located north-northeast of both Foy and of Bastogne just 4.36 miles (7 km) away. With just four M18 tank destroyers of the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion to assist, the paratroopers attacked units of the 2nd Panzer Division, whose mission was to proceed by secondary roads via Monaville (just northwest of Bastogne) to seize a key highway and capture, among other objectives, fuel dumps-for the lack of which the overall German counter-offensive faltered and failed. Worried about the threat to its left flank in Bastogne, it organized a major joint arms attack to seize Noville. Team Desobry's high speed highway journey to reach the blocking position is one of the few documented cases wherein the legendary top speed of the M18 Hellcat (55 miles per hour (89 km/h), faster than today's M1A2 Abrams) was actually used to get ahead of an enemy force.

The attack of 1st Battalion and the M18 Hellcat tank destroyers of the 705th TD Battalion near Noville together destroyed at least 30 German tanks and inflicted 500 to 1000 casualties on the attacking forces, in what amounted to a spoiling attack. A Military Channel historian credited the M18 destroyers with 24 kills, including several Tiger tanks, and believes that in part, their ability to "shoot and scoot" at high speed and then reappear elsewhere on the battlefield, confused and slowed the German attack, which finally stalled, leaving the Americans in control of the town overnight.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat

So the alternative argument could be made that strategically more tank destroyers should have been built and deployed, and tactically been better used to engage enemy armor instead of Shermans. I believe both the actions cited above occured under Patton's command, by far the best tank general the Americans had. Perhaps other allied commanders just used ham fisted tactics that put Shermans in unwinnable situations, resulting excessive losses?

Again, I agree it would have been better if all the Shermans had better guns. I think you are downplaying the effort that would have taken, and are overlooking that the tank vs tank role was not suppose to be fought by the Sherman in the first place.

I'd also disagree with your comments about the T-34. The T34C with its 76mm gun shocked the Germans when it was 1st encountered, and the later T34-85's 85mm gun certainly was a match for later German armor. The T34's combat effectiveness was limited by other factors like lack of radios, no power turret transverse, poor sights, and the Russian practice of fighting 'buttoned up' reducing the commander's visability. Often overlooked, the Germans had superb optics for their sights, and by fighting with the commander exposed, could rapidly engage, hit and kill Russian tanks well before the Russians could return fire effectively.
 
Ehh
2013-06-22 03:40:29 PM
Befuddled:  I believe that round that has the darts inside the bullet is a 9mm 'high safety ammo' round, meant to be something like the Glaser safety slug.

I just love the idea of a "high safety" firearm round. Maybe made by the same company that makes "Bag of Broken Glass" children's play sets, or "Multipurpose" nuclear bombs.
 
2013-06-22 05:06:48 PM
That ammo isn't from WWII dumb-mitter. (photographer was in a WWII bunker)

Most of that ammo pictured is/was a violation of the "Geneva/Hague" convention and not allowed for use in warfare.

get facts straight dummy.
 
2013-06-22 05:07:16 PM

RatMaster999: Molavian: I question the authenticity of this World War II ammo.  I mean, basemetal posts a picture of a glaser safety slug and some sort of WSSM.  I'm not sure how many plastic rounds they used for training during WWII, either.

Yeah, I was thinking that, too.  Most of these seem a hell of a lot more recent than WWII.


I was thinking the same thing
 
2013-06-22 05:14:58 PM

CliChe Guevara: AndreMA: basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.

Doesn't look terribly safe to me

 They break into a cloud of little particles on initial impact. This makes them not so nice for the people they explode inside of, but they are "Safety" rounds as they were apparently originally designed not to penetrate aircraft fuselages when used onboard aircraft, not to ricochet off hard surfaces like pavement and hit bystanders, and not to overpenetrate and exit original target and hit adjacent secondary targets like hostages.
 Safety slugs are cool, they minimize most possibilities of collateral damage in crowded close quarters engagements around numbers of noncombatants.
 They do cost a couple of bucks per round, but are worth it.



I wish they sold them in packages of more than 6. I hated doing the math on how many packs I had to get to load a couple mags
 
2013-06-22 05:25:38 PM

Savoir-Faire: amindofiron: DreamyAltarBoy: Seeing these in cross section kinda makes makes me go: GAH! I can sort of get what a simple "slow" slug can do to a body, but some of these look like they're designed to make burger meat. Does anybody know what's up with that flechette?

If you mean the needle looking thing with the fins, the only thing I've ever seen that looked like that where armor piercing discarding sabot anti-tank shells. But because there isn't any scale I have no idea how big it is and thus, no actual clue.

There are .50 cal machinegun rounds that are discarding sabot that the USMC (and presumably the rest of the US military) uses.



SLAP rounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saboted_light_armor_penetrator
 
2013-06-22 05:39:32 PM

realityVSperception: So the alternative argument could be made that strategically more tank destroyers should have been built and deployed, and tactically been better used to engage enemy armor instead of Shermans. I believe both the actions cited above occured under Patton's command, by far the best tank general the Americans had. Perhaps other allied commanders just used ham fisted tactics that put Shermans in unwinnable situations, resulting excessive losses?

Again, I agree it would have been better if all the Shermans had better guns. I think you are downplaying the effort that would have taken, and are overlooking that the tank vs tank role was not suppose to be fought by the Sherman in the first place.

I'd also disagree with your comments about the T-34. The T34C with its 76mm gun shocked the Germans when it was 1st encountered, and the later T34-85's 85mm gun certainly was a match for later German armor. The T34's combat effectiveness was limited by other factors like lack of radios, no power turret transverse, poor sights, and the Russian practice of fighting 'buttoned up' reducing the commander's visability. Often overlooked, the Germans had superb optics for their sights, and by fighting with the commander exposed, could rapidly engage, hit and kill Russian tanks well before the Russians could return fire effectively.


I know how the Sherman was an "infantry" tank but by '43 it should of been clear that it was an out dated concept and that any tank that couldn't engage and destroy enemy tanks was a liability. This was shown in North Africa time and time again on both sides. Having to wait for tank destroyers/aircover while your tank and the supporting infantry are under fire from other tanks that you can't stop is not a good doctrine. And thats assuming there are any tank destroyers around.

The British army had a Firefly mixed in with Cromwells and Shermans and that gave a much better force mix as each tank platoon had a much better chance of dealing with what ever it met and didn't have to wait while under fire for support. The RTR wanted every tank it had to be Fireflys.

The Hellcat was a great support platform and could add extra firepower but if every M4 in Europe had the 90mm that the Hellcat had it wouldn't be needed. One action where the Hellcat excelled is the exception that proved the Infantry Tank/Tank Destroyer doctrine was a bad one.
 
2013-06-22 06:11:36 PM

realityVSperception: It's interesting what effect ammo can have. The original cannon for the MKV Panther used a tungsten cored round that was very effective. However, after the tank design was started, the Germans realized they didn't have enough tungsten to manufacture all the rounds they would need. As a result, they substituted a different cannon which used a conventional round. This cannon was larger, so the turret size was increased. The original turret fit between the tracks in the chassis, but the new one was too large, so it had to be placed with some overhang over the tracks, and the hull was modified into a t shaped cross section to accomodate the greater turret diameter. This added a lot of weight to the design. However, the drive train was not upgraded to match on the first models, and many broke down.

 In 1943 no panzer unit equipped with Panther D and early model Panther A tanks were able to sustain an operational readiness rate above 35%. More Panthers were lost to mechanical problems in 1943 than to enemy combat. The transmission system was also poor as 5 percent broke within 100km and almost 90 percent broke down within 1,500km. The final drive on the Panther D was so bad that it could not even turn the tank while backing up. It fuel pumps were also a huge problem, they would often leak and cause massive engine fires. The Panther D and A tanks were so prone to breakdown that they had to transport them by train along with the Tiger I. When some Panther A tanks were first being distributed to the SS-Leibstandarte in Italy, September 1943, they were so poor that every one was rejected for service. In summary, the Panther D was a 45 ton tank running on a chassis built for a 24 ton vehicle with very poor mobility and reliability.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/22672-the-panther-tanks-bad-reliability/

Another interesting story involves ordinance fuses. Krupp, a german company, developed a hand grenade fuse prior to WWI. During the war, Vickers used the design in munitions fo t ...


Thanks for the links. Fascinating reading.
 
2013-06-22 07:37:49 PM

CliChe Guevara: AndreMA: basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.

Doesn't look terribly safe to me

 They break into a cloud of little particles on initial impact. This makes them not so nice for the people they explode inside of, but they are "Safety" rounds as they were apparently originally designed not to penetrate aircraft fuselages when used onboard aircraft, not to ricochet off hard surfaces like pavement and hit bystanders, and not to overpenetrate and exit original target and hit adjacent secondary targets like hostages.
 Safety slugs are cool, they minimize most possibilities of collateral damage in crowded close quarters engagements around numbers of noncombatants.
 They do cost a couple of bucks per round, but are worth it.


 Sounds utterly nasty for the schlub that gets hit by them.  About the only way to make them worse it to impregnate the glass with a relatively long half-life alpha emitter.

If that type of round isn't a war-crime waiting to happen, it should be.
 
2013-06-22 07:50:35 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Thanks for the links. Fascinating reading.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-22 07:51:19 PM

Norfolking Chance: realityVSperception: So the alternative argument could be made that strategically more tank destroyers should have been built and deployed, and tactically been better used to engage enemy armor instead of Shermans. I believe both the actions cited above occured under Patton's command, by far the best tank general the Americans had. Perhaps other allied commanders just used ham fisted tactics that put Shermans in unwinnable situations, resulting excessive losses?

Again, I agree it would have been better if all the Shermans had better guns. I think you are downplaying the effort that would have taken, and are overlooking that the tank vs tank role was not suppose to be fought by the Sherman in the first place.

I'd also disagree with your comments about the T-34. The T34C with its 76mm gun shocked the Germans when it was 1st encountered, and the later T34-85's 85mm gun certainly was a match for later German armor. The T34's combat effectiveness was limited by other factors like lack of radios, no power turret transverse, poor sights, and the Russian practice of fighting 'buttoned up' reducing the commander's visability. Often overlooked, the Germans had superb optics for their sights, and by fighting with the commander exposed, could rapidly engage, hit and kill Russian tanks well before the Russians could return fire effectively.

I know how the Sherman was an "infantry" tank but by '43 it should of been clear that it was an out dated concept and that any tank that couldn't engage and destroy enemy tanks was a liability. This was shown in North Africa time and time again on both sides. Having to wait for tank destroyers/aircover while your tank and the supporting infantry are under fire from other tanks that you can't stop is not a good doctrine. And thats assuming there are any tank destroyers around.

The British army had a Firefly mixed in with Cromwells and Shermans and that gave a much better force mix as each tank platoon had a much better chance of dealing wi ...


First, I didn't make those decisions so please, don't bark at me personally. As I said before, there isn't anything wrong per se with your comments.

Here's the thing. The guys who made those decsions weren't idiots. Considering that they lived those times, they knew way way more on what was happening then than you or I ever will. So why did they make those choices?

Now maybe you want to just dismiss it as a mistake on their part. Personally, I prefer to put myself in their shoes and see what I would have come up with without the benefit of modern hindsight. Typically, as I start digging, I discover a bunch of factors I wasn't aware of. More often than not, I find what they accomplished with the time and materials avaliable is down right amazing. For example, I found the wiki on the M4 to be very interesting, and frankly the decisions that were made were not all that unreasonable.

Now you can complain that the sherman didn't have exactly the right ordinance. Here's what I see. Just a few years earlier, they were still using horses and training artillery was made out of wooden 4x4s.

For a number of years only about one fourth of the officers and one-half of the enlisted men of the Regular Army were available for assignment to tactical units in the continental United States. Many units existed only on paper; almost all had only skeletonized strength. Instead of nine infantry divisions, there were actually three. In May 1927 one of these divisions, a cavalry brigade, and 200 planes participated in a combined arms maneuver in Texas, but for the most part Regular units had to train as battalions or companies. The continued dispersion of skeletonized divisions, brigades, and regiments among a large number of posts, many of them relics of the Indian wars, was a serious hindrance to the training of Regulars, although helpful in training the civilian components. Efforts to abandon small posts continued to meet with stubborn opposition from local interests and their elected representatives in Congress. In the infantry, for example, in 1932 the 24 regiments available in the United States for field service were spread among 45 posts, with a battalion or less at 34. Most of the organic transportation of these units was of World War I vintage, and the Army didnot have the money to concentrate them for training by other means. Nor were there large posts in which they could be housed.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-19.html

And in the thirties, budget cuts were even deeper and any war preperation was a huge political liability to FDR. The 1940 election was a near run thing and almost won by the isolationists.

And yet 4 years later, we were pulling off D-Day and winning a two front war. Take a long hard look at what it took to make that happen.

My question to you is exactly who are the 'they' of which you speak that 'should have known' or 'been clear to'? The handful of officers that barely kept the army alive after the WWI demobilization and depression era budget cuts? Or the civilians who had no prior military background that found themselves up to their necks in a world war on Dec 8th, 1941? I just don't think you really grasp the overall size and scope of what needed to be done in very little time to create the american army. and navy. and air force. and marines.

Another good read is Bill Mauldin. Try his book 'The Brass Ring'. It's a great first person view from someone who was there. In it he has a story about a platoon in Italy (or maybe Sicily) in '43. They came across an abandoned Tiger in perfect condition. They promptly got out their bazooka and started bouncing shells off and into it to see where it was vunerable. Just after reducing it to a smoking ruin, an intel officer showed up with a transporter. He damn near broke down in tears because he had wanted to ship it back to the states for study.

The point being there is a huge difference between tangling with a tiger in '43 in africa and instantly 'knowing' what you will need in '44. It can take months just to get the specs or an example back to the states, months more to see what makes it tick, then get the info to the decision makers, then to the tank designers, manufacturers, army training units, shipped overseas, and integrated into combat. And then what? Are you going to ask the Germans for a time out while you retrain all your front line units of draftee soldiers to use your new equipment and revised tactical manuals?

Start putting together what it would actually take in every aspect to implement your ideas, and you might see for yourself why the same guys who were smart enough to create and deploy a world beating army from scratch in a couple of years chose not to do it.
 
2013-06-22 08:15:01 PM

Saberus Terras: CliChe Guevara: AndreMA: basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.

Doesn't look terribly safe to me

 They break into a cloud of little particles on initial impact. This makes them not so nice for the people they explode inside of, but they are "Safety" rounds as they were apparently originally designed not to penetrate aircraft fuselages when used onboard aircraft, not to ricochet off hard surfaces like pavement and hit bystanders, and not to overpenetrate and exit original target and hit adjacent secondary targets like hostages.
 Safety slugs are cool, they minimize most possibilities of collateral damage in crowded close quarters engagements around numbers of noncombatants.
 They do cost a couple of bucks per round, but are worth it.

 Sounds utterly nasty for the schlub that gets hit by them.  About the only way to make them worse it to impregnate the glass with a relatively long half-life alpha emitter.

If that type of round isn't a war-crime waiting to happen, it should be.


Which is more of a crime?
 1) Law enforcement using a round specifically designed to avoid collateral damage and -not- penetrate apartment walls (and potentially kill a sleeping child in the next unit over), and designed to -never- ricochet off pavement and kill a bystander a block down the street, or
 2) Law enforcement using a solid round that dependably goes through one or two walls and still retains killing power, and does ricochet quite easily, but statistically gives a somewhat greater chance of survival to a suspect they currently feel the need to use lethal force against?

Essentially, you can choose to give the suspects/combatants a slightly higher chance at survival if you are willing to trade away a certain amount of other innocent lives for it. You really want to go there?

/There is good reason they are called "Safety" slugs. Doesn't mean they need to be safer for the target. They indeed -are- far safer, for all non-involved parties anyway. Whether that is lack of ricochets and overpenetration, or lack of depressurizing aircraft or blowing something up nearby, there are a lot of civilians that wish these were used more often.
 
2013-06-22 08:25:09 PM
My wife carries a .380 with glasers, she doesn't want to lug around a huge gun and I figure that will give her enough internal damage to get her out of danger.

/i don't give a shiat about the perp
 
2013-06-22 09:21:12 PM

realityVSperception: The point being there is a huge difference between tangling with a tiger in '43 in africa and instantly 'knowing' what you will need in '44. It can take months just to get the specs or an example back to the states, months more to see what makes it tick, then get the info to the decision makers, then to the tank designers, manufacturers, army training units, shipped overseas, and integrated into combat. And then what? Are you going to ask the Germans for a time out while you retrain all your front line units of draftee soldiers to use your new equipment and revised tactical manuals?


Having down a bit of small scale design and development over the years, one things stands out is changes to existing systems costs.  If you re-upped Sherman tanks with bigger guns now you have a problem.  You have two machines that each need to be managed and supported by the manufacturing, supply, and maintenance networks. So yeah the Sherman isn't optimal, but where are you going to expend your resources?  Also given that back then the people in charge were on the back side of things trying to guess the future with a war fight.
 
2013-06-22 09:35:14 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Thanks for the links. Fascinating reading.

[img.fark.net image 184x280]


Thanks Q.A., I'll see if that's available for Nook. If so, that'll be my next book. If not, I'll check Amazon (no decent bookstores in this 10 cent town).
 
2013-06-22 11:10:12 PM
Let's face it, the Germans were locked in a no-holds-barred arms race with the Soviets from mid-41 on. They had to learn quick or die. While in the desert, the Allies were up against strictly the second team. The tiny contingent of Tigers Africa Corps got in 1942 did nothing to change minds that they needed harder-hitting tanks. The Eastern front got the bulk of the new equipment anyhow, very little by comparison going to North African and later Italian fronts.
So when they came out of the water at Normandy they got a rude shock, with just about every piece of German armour outclassing them in hitting power and at least equal in armour protection, and the dense bocage country of Normandy was perfect for ambush tactics by the big German cats.
 
2013-06-23 01:17:22 AM

Norfolking Chance: realityVSperception: I agree with your basic point. That said, the M4 Sherman was designed to go against the MKIV, which it was a decent match for though. The thing to remember is the timeframe these were designed, tooled up, and deployed in. Can you imagine going from a blank sheet of paper to production delivery in 18 months or less? The logistics behind that are astounding. I've wandered the halls of today's pentagon and spent more time than that just trying to get the f*****g phone bills paid. Remember that the Americans committed to a single design, built in volume, and won, while the Germans built a plethora of incrementally upgraded designs and lost. And also one can't just look at tank vs tank, as allied overall strategy was built around air superiority. Allied ground attack planes decimated the panzercorps far more effectively than tank vs tank duels could ever have, while having many abeit inferior tanks available allowed Allied forces to sweep across France in '44. Would you want more 17lber Shermans if it ment fewer P47's? When you look at Allied tank+plane vs German tank+plane strategy, the Allies overall strategy beat the Germans at their own blitzkrieg game.

Also, the tiger has a backstory too. Hitler and Porche were buddies, and Porche was suppose to get the tiger tank contract. Henschel's prototype was just suppose to be a fig leaf to cover the fact that the tiger contract was rigged at the highest level. In fact Porche & co. were so sure they would win, they already had about 200 chasss under construction before the contract was awarded. Low and behold, when the prototypes went head to head, Henschel's design was so much better, even Hitler had to admit they should get the contract. The Porche chassis were converted into assault guns called Elephants, which had (to put it politely) a poor record. If you get the military channel, they run "Tank Overhaul" every now and then, and they cover restoring an Elephant captured in Italy in an episode.

Whil ...


Saw some references to US generals not wanting larger guns in tanks prior to DDay.  Tank hunting was the job of Tank Destroyers, not tanks.  They didn't want to encourage tank crews to go hunting tanks.  After DDay, the request came for new tanks to be armed with 90 and 105mm guns (I think) in a 4 to 1 ratio.
 
2013-06-23 02:06:19 AM
Actually, I answered my own question as who 'should have known' the Shermans were under gunned. The whole TD strategy was championed by General Lesley James McNair. He was a highly decorated artillery officer in WWI who was the Chief of Staff of GHQ, U.S. Army from July 1940 to March 1942, and In March 1942, General McNair became Commanding General, Army Ground Forces. Not too suprisingly he favored anti tank guns and then tank destroyers over heavy tanks and thwarted several attempts to up gun the Shermans. He also made some poor choices in his subordinates, as one of his hand picked generals was responsible for Kasserine pass in Africa.

As a result of his belief in the tank destroyer doctrine, McNair was instrumental in obstructing the production of the M26 Pershing. McNair saw no need for a heavy tank and believed that tank versus tank duels were "unsound and unnecessary". McNair would agree only to the production of the 76mm M4 Sherman which he believed were capable of handling the Tiger I tank that had appeared in late 1942. Gen. Jacob Devers, the main proponent for the M26, had to go over McNair's head to Gen. Marshall to begin production of the M26.

He also caused problems in other areas like training. Here's the wiki link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_J._McNair
 
2013-06-23 04:53:08 AM

realityVSperception: Actually, I answered my own question as who 'should have known' the Shermans were under gunned. The whole TD strategy was championed by General Lesley James McNair. He was a highly decorated artillery officer in WWI who was the Chief of Staff of GHQ, U.S. Army from July 1940 to March 1942, and In March 1942, General McNair became Commanding General, Army Ground Forces. Not too suprisingly he favored anti tank guns and then tank destroyers over heavy tanks and thwarted several attempts to up gun the Shermans. He also made some poor choices in his subordinates, as one of his hand picked generals was responsible for Kasserine pass in Africa.

As a result of his belief in the tank destroyer doctrine, McNair was instrumental in obstructing the production of the M26 Pershing. McNair saw no need for a heavy tank and believed that tank versus tank duels were "unsound and unnecessary". McNair would agree only to the production of the 76mm M4 Sherman which he believed were capable of handling the Tiger I tank that had appeared in late 1942. Gen. Jacob Devers, the main proponent for the M26, had to go over McNair's head to Gen. Marshall to begin production of the M26.

He also caused problems in other areas like training. Here's the wiki link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_J._McNair


Sounds like McNair should've been awarded the Knights Cross, with oak leaves and clusters. By Hitler.
 
2013-06-23 09:02:33 AM

cynicalbastard: realityVSperception: Actually, I answered my own question as who 'should have known' the Shermans were under gunned. The whole TD strategy was championed by General Lesley James McNair. He was a highly decorated artillery officer in WWI who was the Chief of Staff of GHQ, U.S. Army from July 1940 to March 1942, and In March 1942, General McNair became Commanding General, Army Ground Forces. Not too suprisingly he favored anti tank guns and then tank destroyers over heavy tanks and thwarted several attempts to up gun the Shermans. He also made some poor choices in his subordinates, as one of his hand picked generals was responsible for Kasserine pass in Africa.

As a result of his belief in the tank destroyer doctrine, McNair was instrumental in obstructing the production of the M26 Pershing. McNair saw no need for a heavy tank and believed that tank versus tank duels were "unsound and unnecessary". McNair would agree only to the production of the 76mm M4 Sherman which he believed were capable of handling the Tiger I tank that had appeared in late 1942. Gen. Jacob Devers, the main proponent for the M26, had to go over McNair's head to Gen. Marshall to begin production of the M26.

He also caused problems in other areas like training. Here's the wiki link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_J._McNair

Sounds like McNair should've been awarded the Knights Cross, with oak leaves and clusters. By Hitler.


Sadly, he probably thought he was doing the right thing. His personal bravery is not in question, as he was decorated for bravery in WWI, and he died in action in Normandy (abeit by freindly fire). He was made a general at one of the youngest ages ever, again due to his outstanding WWI service.

It looks like he was trying to fight the previous war with the weapons he knew best, which is pretty common in military circles. It seems like a classic case of the 'Peter Principle' (where people are promoted to their level of incompetence) in action.
 
2013-06-23 09:14:11 AM

CliChe Guevara: Saberus Terras: CliChe Guevara: AndreMA: basemetal: [cdn.petapixel.com image 620x515]

The one on the left looks like a glaser safety slug.

Doesn't look terribly safe to me

 They break into a cloud of little particles on initial impact. This makes them not so nice for the people they explode inside of, but they are "Safety" rounds as they were apparently originally designed not to penetrate aircraft fuselages when used onboard aircraft, not to ricochet off hard surfaces like pavement and hit bystanders, and not to overpenetrate and exit original target and hit adjacent secondary targets like hostages.
 Safety slugs are cool, they minimize most possibilities of collateral damage in crowded close quarters engagements around numbers of noncombatants.
 They do cost a couple of bucks per round, but are worth it.

 Sounds utterly nasty for the schlub that gets hit by them.  About the only way to make them worse it to impregnate the glass with a relatively long half-life alpha emitter.

If that type of round isn't a war-crime waiting to happen, it should be.

Which is more of a crime?
 1) Law enforcement using a round specifically designed to avoid collateral damage and -not- penetrate apartment walls (and potentially kill a sleeping child in the next unit over), and designed to -never- ricochet off pavement and kill a bystander a block down the street, or
 2) Law enforcement using a solid round that dependably goes through one or two walls and still retains killing power, and does ricochet quite easily, but statistically gives a somewhat greater chance of survival to a suspect they currently feel the need to use lethal force against?

Essentially, you can choose to give the suspects/combatants a slightly higher chance at survival if you are willing to trade away a certain amount of other innocent lives for it. You really want to go there?

/There is good reason they are called "Safety" slugs. Doesn't mean they need to be safer for the target. They indeed -are- far safer ...


I wasn't referring to glaser rounds in general, as I can see the benefits of having no richochet or overpenetration in home defense or commercial airplanes.

I was referring to my additional nastiness to add to it, as bolded above.  Something like that definitely goes into the territory of 'causing undue or prolonged suffering of an enemy combatant' under my understanding of the Geneva/Hague convention. (which is based on what was printed in a US Army Field Training Manual that was printed in October of 1985)

Some might try to argue that a regular glaser falls under the same cloak, but I just don't see it... it's more like a very small shotgun round filled with glass or resin, so if it's fired into the center of mass, it's going to be as lethal as a regular bullet, so no real chance of the 'undue or prolonged' bit.
 
2013-06-23 10:04:35 AM

Saberus Terras: I wasn't referring to glaser rounds in general, as I can see the benefits of having no richochet or overpenetration in home defense or commercial airplanes.

I was referring to my additional nastiness to add to it, as bolded above. Something like that definitely goes into the territory of 'causing undue or prolonged suffering of an enemy combatant' under my understanding of the Geneva/Hague convention. (which is based on what was printed in a US Army Field Training Manual that was printed in October of 1985)


I'm pretty sure that glass fragments won't show on x-rays, making it harder to treat the wounded and potentially causing suffering years later from glass splinters working their way out of the body of the person on the receiving end of these.

I think it's likely that a round could be developed that has the anti-ricochet properties but doesn't have that drawback. Perhaps simply dissolving Barium Oxide in the molten glass during fabrication would introduce a useful amount of x-ray opacity. Or perhaps they already do this?
 
2013-06-23 11:05:50 AM

realityVSperception: cynicalbastard: realityVSperception: Actually, I answered my own question as who 'should have known' the Shermans were under gunned. The whole TD strategy was championed by General Lesley James McNair. He was a highly decorated artillery officer in WWI who was the Chief of Staff of GHQ, U.S. Army from July 1940 to March 1942, and In March 1942, General McNair became Commanding General, Army Ground Forces. Not too suprisingly he favored anti tank guns and then tank destroyers over heavy tanks and thwarted several attempts to up gun the Shermans. He also made some poor choices in his subordinates, as one of his hand picked generals was responsible for Kasserine pass in Africa.

As a result of his belief in the tank destroyer doctrine, McNair was instrumental in obstructing the production of the M26 Pershing. McNair saw no need for a heavy tank and believed that tank versus tank duels were "unsound and unnecessary". McNair would agree only to the production of the 76mm M4 Sherman which he believed were capable of handling the Tiger I tank that had appeared in late 1942. Gen. Jacob Devers, the main proponent for the M26, had to go over McNair's head to Gen. Marshall to begin production of the M26.

He also caused problems in other areas like training. Here's the wiki link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_J._McNair

Sounds like McNair should've been awarded the Knights Cross, with oak leaves and clusters. By Hitler.

Sadly, he probably thought he was doing the right thing. His personal bravery is not in question, as he was decorated for bravery in WWI, and he died in action in Normandy (abeit by freindly fire). He was made a general at one of the youngest ages ever, again due to his outstanding WWI service.

It looks like he was trying to fight the previous war with the weapons he knew best, which is pretty common in military circles. It seems like a classic case of the 'Peter Principle' (where people are promoted to their level of incompetence) in action.


I wasn't trying to berate you, i was trying to make the point you have made that the TD concept was flawed and proved to have been in the North Africa theatre. It was a doctrine that was created to make his personal branch of the US Army the most important at the expense of the most effective doctrine. If the Tiger hadn't been deployed in North Africa then its only hindsight that showed the M4 as under gunned. The allies had captured an intact Tiger in North Africa (its the one still running at the Bovington Tank muesium in England) so had all the technical data they needed. The armour was tested in America against the 75mm that the Sherman had and the gun was declaired ok. How the test was implemented was not recorded so we don't know if the test was flawed or was deliberatly fixed to show what McNair wanted.
 
Displayed 129 of 129 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report