Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
SeaQuest_

Pretty interesting about Battleships shells

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

12,713
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
19,325 posts

He mentioned tumbling damage. This is how the US and NATO were able to find a loophole in the Hague Convention ban on expanding or exploding bullets. Just like the AP rounds of the battleship above, a 5.56 mm bullet has a dense core capped by a soft pointed jacket. These jackets have a tenancy to bend and begin the bullet tumbling upon entering the body, thus creating a much larger wound path. In this way the "civilized" military powers were able to stay within the letter of the law while still using a highly-damaging projectile.

So how can the US military now justify the use of hollow-point bullets? The do so by first by reminding everyone that the US never actually signed Article IV, which anyway states that the ban on hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories and secondly by and invoking the Martens Clause which implies that the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas, pirates, or terrorists. Finally, since the "workaround" full metal jacket bullets already were causing a lot of suffering in and of themselves, the US Special Operations Command was able to receive a judgement that hollow-point bullets didn't actually cause any more suffering and thus should be allowed.

So, how can the .50 BMG, which oftentimes fires right-out explosive bullets, be justified under the Convention? Well, by simply saying that it's not really being used to shoot at people, just the "material" they might be operating (or maybe carrying "we weren't actually trying to kill the soldiers, just disable their rifles").

Essentially, conventions are mostly a way for the winners to justify hanging the losers for "war crimes."

APShellFullamHart.jpg?v=1552665238.jpg

 

8.jpg

Armor-piercing small-arms bullets are pretty much identical to armor-piercing artillery shells, just without the explosive.

27a3166af03709b458056fbcd63246db912beda6

 

 

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,222
[-TRM-]
Members
5,566 posts

I have a treasured battle report from the War College somewhere on the computer where the New Jersey fired danger close at the Chinese Hordes in Chosin Korea. Danger Close being 1000 yards. The Rounds came over the US Marines sounding like the steam era boxcars at high speed as they passed over. Hit right about a thousand meters give or take with a deep thud you felt in your bones. Then detonated with a pause that shook the very ground. No one said specifically if that particular fire mission solved the Chinese attack coming in but it was very good that it happened that day.

 

I witnessed a Iowa BB, likely the New Jersey again firing on Sryian Artillery in the hills east of Lebanon one morning on Live TV during the Today Show. It was about 2 miles from the camera on the beach, it would shoot and there is this time period until the blast wave reached it. THUMP! BOOOM. This would be about 1983 roughly the time we lost the Marines in the Bombings by Iran.

Motivating.

 

Those days are gone forever. Because new weapons would just kill the 3000 aboard that old obsolete rolled plate steel very easily. Like a hot knife in butter. The ships never featured any air defense to speak of.

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,111
[WPORT]
Members
20,653 posts
22,604 battles
Spoiler
1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

He mentioned tumbling damage. This is how the US and NATO were able to find a loophole in the Hague Convention ban on expanding or exploding bullets. Just like the AP rounds of the battleship above, a 5.56 mm bullet has a dense core capped by a soft pointed jacket. These jackets have a tenancy to bend and begin the bullet tumbling upon entering the body, thus creating a much larger wound path. In this way the "civilized" military powers were able to stay within the letter of the law while still using a highly-damaging projectile.

So how can the US military now justify the use of hollow-point bullets? The do so by first by reminding everyone that the US never actually signed Article IV, which anyway states that the ban on hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories and secondly by and invoking the Martens Clause which implies that the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas, pirates, or terrorists. Finally, since the "workaround" full metal jacket bullets already were causing a lot of suffering in and of themselves, the US Special Operations Command was able to receive a judgement that hollow-point bullets didn't actually cause any more suffering and thus should be allowed.

So, how can the .50 BMG, which oftentimes fires right-out explosive bullets, be justified under the Convention? Well, by simply saying that it's not really being used to shoot at people, just the "material" they might be operating (or maybe carrying "we weren't actually trying to kill the soldiers, just disable their rifles").

Essentially, conventions are mostly a way for the winners to justify hanging the losers for "war crimes."

APShellFullamHart.jpg?v=1552665238.jpg

 

8.jpg

Armor-piercing small-arms bullets are pretty much identical to armor-piercing artillery shells, just without the explosive.

27a3166af03709b458056fbcd63246db912beda6

 

 

 


The 55 grain projectile of the 5.56NATO cartridge has been tested quite a bit, over the years, and its' capability for tumbling is one of its' "features".
(By comparision, the 62 grain projectile of the 5.56NATO cartridge is reputed to zip straight through flesh without tumbling.  Which, given its' steel-core "penetrator" within the projectile, makes sense.)

But the British were on that tumbling train of thought long beforehand, with their .303 British Cartridge.
The link below offers some informal testing and some interesting pictures.
https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-37-the-deadly-303-british-and-the-box-o-truth/

I like The Battleship New Jersey's youtube channel, too, by the way.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[WOLF1]
Members
376 posts
27,146 battles
2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

He mentioned tumbling damage. This is how the US and NATO were able to find a loophole in the Hague Convention ban on expanding or exploding bullets. Just like the AP rounds of the battleship above, a 5.56 mm bullet has a dense core capped by a soft pointed jacket. These jackets have a tenancy to bend and begin the bullet tumbling upon entering the body, thus creating a much larger wound path. In this way the "civilized" military powers were able to stay within the letter of the law while still using a highly-damaging projectile.

So how can the US military now justify the use of hollow-point bullets? The do so by first by reminding everyone that the US never actually signed Article IV, which anyway states that the ban on hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories and secondly by and invoking the Martens Clause which implies that the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas, pirates, or terrorists. Finally, since the "workaround" full metal jacket bullets already were causing a lot of suffering in and of themselves, the US Special Operations Command was able to receive a judgement that hollow-point bullets didn't actually cause any more suffering and thus should be allowed.

So, how can the .50 BMG, which oftentimes fires right-out explosive bullets, be justified under the Convention? Well, by simply saying that it's not really being used to shoot at people, just the "material" they might be operating (or maybe carrying "we weren't actually trying to kill the soldiers, just disable their rifles").

Essentially, conventions are mostly a way for the winners to justify hanging the losers for "war crimes."

APShellFullamHart.jpg?v=1552665238.jpg

 

8.jpg

Armor-piercing small-arms bullets are pretty much identical to armor-piercing artillery shells, just without the explosive.

27a3166af03709b458056fbcd63246db912beda6

 

 

Agree, war conventions are a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,842
[TDRB]
Members
7,351 posts
16,186 battles
4 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

He mentioned tumbling damage. This is how the US and NATO were able to find a loophole in the Hague Convention ban on expanding or exploding bullets. Just like the AP rounds of the battleship above, a 5.56 mm bullet has a dense core capped by a soft pointed jacket. These jackets have a tenancy to bend and begin the bullet tumbling upon entering the body, thus creating a much larger wound path. In this way the "civilized" military powers were able to stay within the letter of the law while still using a highly-damaging projectile.

So how can the US military now justify the use of hollow-point bullets? The do so by first by reminding everyone that the US never actually signed Article IV, which anyway states that the ban on hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories and secondly by and invoking the Martens Clause which implies that the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas, pirates, or terrorists. Finally, since the "workaround" full metal jacket bullets already were causing a lot of suffering in and of themselves, the US Special Operations Command was able to receive a judgement that hollow-point bullets didn't actually cause any more suffering and thus should be allowed.

So, how can the .50 BMG, which oftentimes fires right-out explosive bullets, be justified under the Convention? Well, by simply saying that it's not really being used to shoot at people, just the "material" they might be operating (or maybe carrying "we weren't actually trying to kill the soldiers, just disable their rifles").

Essentially, conventions are mostly a way for the winners to justify hanging the losers for "war crimes."

APShellFullamHart.jpg?v=1552665238.jpg

 

8.jpg

Armor-piercing small-arms bullets are pretty much identical to armor-piercing artillery shells, just without the explosive.

27a3166af03709b458056fbcd63246db912beda6

 

 

There is a lot of difference between a 50 cal machine gun round, sometimes a sniper round &  a 16" battleship round. The rules governing war are even different for each. Tanks use a non-exploding AP round to destroy other tanks. The solid missile it fires generates a massive amount of heat as it penetrates armor.

Battleships needed a armor piercing warhead to reach the critical areas of the ship and a explosive charge for maximum damage.  The 1000lb AP bomb had a 140lb explosive charge. The 16" AP heavy shell weigh in at 2700 pound with only 35 pounds of explosives. 

When hitting human flesh, a FMJ or AP bullet usuall punches clean through without expanding.

Police departments are concerned about bullet expansion. Too much and heavy clothing can become "bullet proof". The WW1 era 9x19 round was stopped by the wool clothing Allied soldiers wore. The Germans complained about it. Modern powders have increase the power of the 9mm. Over penetration is also a problem. Too much penetration and the bullet passes through the human body and has killed innocent bystanders. When a team loads out for a mission they arm themselves with what they believe is necessary to complete the mission. Today they try to avoid collateral damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[ARRSE]
Members
233 posts
1,532 battles
7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 



But the British were on that tumbling train of thought long beforehand, with their .303 British Cartridge.
The link below offers some informal testing and some interesting pictures.
https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-37-the-deadly-303-british-and-the-box-o-truth/
 

 

The tumbling of the British MkVII bullet was a purely unintended and incidental outcome of the main purpose of the tip filler, which was to rebalance the bullet after the move from a 215gn round nose to a 174gn spitzer/pointed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,111
[WPORT]
Members
20,653 posts
22,604 battles
5 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

@Snargfargle "I was trying to disable that guy's backpack strap with the .50."

"I was aiming at their canteen."  :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,111
[WPORT]
Members
20,653 posts
22,604 battles
42 minutes ago, Turbogerbil said:

 

The tumbling of the British MkVII bullet was a purely unintended and incidental outcome of the main purpose of the tip filler, which was to rebalance the bullet after the move from a 215gn round nose to a 174gn spitzer/pointed.

 

Unintentional, but not unknown.  They didn't remove the "feature" after creating it.
Just ot be clear, I wasn't stating/accusing anyone of doing anything intentionally, I'm stating that the British were aware of the properties of their projectiles and that the tumbling phenomena has been around for decades, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,854
[ARR0W]
Members
6,139 posts
32,876 battles

In general, a wounded soldier is a greater logistical burden to the enemy than a dead one, so deadlier small arms ammunition isn’t actually desirable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,713
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
19,325 posts
2 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

In general, a wounded soldier is a greater logistical burden to the enemy than a dead one, so deadlier small arms ammunition isn’t actually desirable. 

Well, yes and no. It depends on who the enemy is. America and most of its allies will try to recover a wounded soldier at all costs. Other cultures, however, may place less value on any one individual's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,111
[WPORT]
Members
20,653 posts
22,604 battles
33 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

In general, a wounded soldier is a greater logistical burden to the enemy than a dead one, so deadlier small arms ammunition isn’t actually desirable. 

I'm with @Snargfargle on this (see below \/\/\/\/).

26 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Well, yes and no. It depends on who the enemy is. America and most of its allies will try to recover a wounded soldier at all costs. Other cultures, however, may place less value on any one individual's life.

Yep.

Plus, when it is "them or us", I want to stop "them" as fast as possible with the fewest shots fired, especially before they shoot me or my friendly comrades in arms.
So, personally, I want effective ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,842
[TDRB]
Members
7,351 posts
16,186 battles
2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Unintentional, but not unknown.  They didn't remove the "feature" after creating it.
Just ot be clear, I wasn't stating/accusing anyone of doing anything intentionally, I'm stating that the British were aware of the properties of their projectiles and that the tumbling phenomena has been around for decades, at least.

The British were more concerned about controlling their colonies than fighting wars in Europe. Rules of war did not apply when policing your colonies.

 Drawings of the bullet path from the autopsy shows the bullet that killed the Red Baron took a path that indicates the bullet was tumbling. The Germans complained about the British 303 violating the Hague rules in WW1.

Intentional is always debatable but the British clearly did not care they were in violation of the rules of war.

Me, I agree that the rules of war are only to justify the victor executing "war criminals" of the loosing side.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758
[UN1]
Members
1,497 posts
4,854 battles

This is an armor penetration simulation of a Yamato shell hitting Iowa's armor.  Location of armor shown in video, but keep in mind the author didn't realize that the spot he chose was below the waterline.  Still interesting nontheless:

You can see the tumbling action even on an enormous 18" shell against Iowa's armor, even though let's be real here, that Yamato shell is doing horrific damage to the Iowa. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,782
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,749 posts
15,646 battles
On 1/29/2022 at 7:34 AM, Pugilistic said:

In general, a wounded soldier is a greater logistical burden to the enemy than a dead one, so deadlier small arms ammunition isn’t actually desirable. 

This is a myth.

Numerous stories from the US side alone of soldiers being wounded and continuing to fight on, wounding or killing multiple enemies. A wounded solider can continue to fight, a wounded solider can continue to support their squad, a wounded solider is still dangerous.

The reason for smaller, lighter cartridges is for logistical reasons. Most shots are misses, so by increasing the amount of ammunition a solider can carry, while maintaining a reasonable level of lethality, the number of hits can be increased. The smaller and lighter the ammunition, the more that can be supplied by a logistics truck. If ammunition had no weight, the primary infantry weapon would be a 40mm grenade launcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,842
[TDRB]
Members
7,351 posts
16,186 battles
1 hour ago, HazardDrake said:

The reason for smaller, lighter cartridges is for logistical reasons. Most shots are misses, so by increasing the amount of ammunition a solider can carry, while maintaining a reasonable level of lethality, the number of hits can be increased. The smaller and lighter the ammunition, the more that can be supplied by a logistics truck. If ammunition had no weight, the primary infantry weapon would be a 40mm grenade launcher.

I'm not so sure that is the reason. While one of the benefits of a smaller cartridge is to carry more rounds without increasing the weight, long range rifle battles of 400 meters or more aren't part of today's battle plans. There is no need for rifles with this capability.  Weapons & tactics evolve.

BTW, It is my understanding the US Marines love their Mk 19 auto grenade launcher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,872 posts
3 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

The reason for smaller, lighter cartridges is for logistical reasons. Most shots are misses, so by increasing the amount of ammunition a solider can carry, while maintaining a reasonable level of lethality, the number of hits can be increased. The smaller and lighter the ammunition, the more that can be supplied by a logistics truck. If ammunition had no weight, the primary infantry weapon would be a 40mm grenade launcher.

Wasn't there also an observation after WWII that most infantry engagements happened at less range than anticipated, so the long-range accuracy and effectiveness of larger calibers was not required? I mean, it is probably a combination of multiple factors, like logistics (as you stated), high-velocity lighter calibers means flatter arc and thus easier to aim for the average soldier, plus lighter yet controllable weapons.

Regarding the design of the AP shells on naval artillery, I found this a while ago (many more short interesting sections on that page as well): http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-055.php

Basically, the what would be really interesting to see in the simulation is how the AP cap interacts with the decapping plate above/at the waterline, since the AP cap is very important for armor penetration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,111
[WPORT]
Members
20,653 posts
22,604 battles
1 hour ago, shinytrashcan said:

Wasn't there also an observation after WWII that most infantry engagements happened at less range than anticipated, so the long-range accuracy and effectiveness of larger calibers was not required? I mean, it is probably a combination of multiple factors, like logistics (as you stated), high-velocity lighter calibers means flatter arc and thus easier to aim for the average soldier, plus lighter yet controllable weapons.

Regarding the design of the AP shells on naval artillery, I found this a while ago (many more short interesting sections on that page as well): http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-055.php

Basically, the what would be really interesting to see in the simulation is how the AP cap interacts with the decapping plate above/at the waterline, since the AP cap is very important for armor penetration.

 

I suspect it was "during" instead of "after".
Hence the creation of rifles such as the Stg. 44 and the AK-47 with their intermediate-length cartridges. 
Stronger than a pistol cartridge, but not quite as strong a recoil as a larger rifle cartridge like the 7.62x54R.  Yet able to satisfy a "zero-to-300-meters" engagement criteria.

Cartridge development and adoption by a large nation is also affected by the number of cartridges currently in inventory.
The .276 Pederson was considered ideal for the M-1 Garand rifle.  But the U.S. had a lot of .30-06 cartridges still in inventory and didn't want the extra logistics hassle of a new cartridge.  So the M-1 Garand prototypes were changed to work with the .30-06 cartridge.

Naval Guns have fewer projectiles in inventory, but each is more expensive than an infantry rifle cartridge.  So logistics are still a consideration, but not the only one.
Was the criteria of "how much ammo can a soldier carry?" a consideration in the adoption of the 5.56NATO and the 5.45x39mm cartridges?  Yes, it was.

Conditions of a planned engagement also affect the choice of equipment. 
Long-range combat encounters in Iraq and Afghanistan caused the U.S. to deploy the "designated marskman" rifles.
Jungle fighting versus desert fighting, eh?  And what about cold-weather climate conditions?   But, a nation's equipment needs to work effectively everywhere it will be deployed, right?

Getting back to ships.  Drachinifel did an interesting video on ship armor development over the course of time, and one tidbit was that the metallurgy of armor was being affected by temperature.
Armor, that peformed well when ships were in the warm tropical climes, was failing and shattering when put to the test in colder areas, such as the North Atlantic.
Once the British figured out what was going on (temperatures affecting armor performance) they worked to solve the problem.

And the armor versus projectile competition continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,854
[ARR0W]
Members
6,139 posts
32,876 battles
On 1/29/2022 at 8:41 AM, Snargfargle said:

Well, yes and no. It depends on who the enemy is. America and most of its allies will try to recover a wounded soldier at all costs. Other cultures, however, may place less value on any one individual's life.

Although the quality of provision for the treatment of wounded varies, to not make an effort is very bad for morale. The Japanese had field hospitals, however rudimentary, and the Soviets' system improved markedly in the latter half of the Great Patriotic War, although this was as much a recognition of their severe manpower problems as anything else. 

Also, their manpower problems led to an evolution of tactic whenever possible. As early as Operation Koltso, Rokossovsky used methods that leaned towards the expenditure of munitions over men in reducing the Stalingrad pocket, though the Soviets never quailed from tipping the scales with blood whenever necessary. 

Edited by Pugilistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,854
[ARR0W]
Members
6,139 posts
32,876 battles
6 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

[excerpted]

Numerous stories from the US side alone of soldiers being wounded and continuing to fight on, wounding or killing multiple enemies. A wounded solider can continue to fight, a wounded solider can continue to support their squad, a wounded solider is still dangerous.

 

Which is a temporary situation. Any wounded with more than minor wounds eventually require treatment, evacuation, and recovery, whether they ever return to duty or not. The US Army Green Books went into this in considerable length. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×