WW II Tank shells (ammo)

B

Biggfoot44

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
2,060
Reaction score
1,596
I am reading a history of Battle of Bulge that featured the viewpoints of a large number of service members , US, and also some German.

One who was a gunner on a Sherman talked at length about the panzers having somkeless ammo , and how the US shell didn't, and had large muzzle flash and clouds of smoke , thus giving advantage to Germans , and disadvantage to US .

This this correct ? Did we really have black Powder loaded 37mm and 75mm shells in 1945 ? Or was it smokless , but with poorly developed flash retardents ?
 
Register to hide this ad
On a tangent...

This surfaced in another book (John McManus' The Deadly Brotherhood) albeit in reference to infantry rifles. Funny enough, I thought it was a great reference until I got to the point where one vet recalled the big disadvantage the U.S. Army being that it hadn't started using smokeless powder yet whereas the Germans had.

I have some pretty significant doubts that ANY self-loading rifle or pistol would run long on blackpowder. I seem to recall an experiment on one of the cowboy-action shooting boards a few years back where somebody tried it with a 1911 and got two or three magazines in before the gun was completely out of commission.

I don't know that I'd ever make a point of it to a World War II vet who said as much, but...it's a good reminder to check your sources and be aware that human memory is probably the least reliable of all.

It may have been dirty ammo - that I'd buy. But I highly doubt it was other than smokeless.
 
I have no knowledge of this specific subject, but I will say this. I highly doubt that the U.S was using black powder in their tank munitions, since the British most definitely were using cordite in WWI and the inter-war years (I don't know what the U.S.was using) and I believe the U.S was using some single-base or double-base smokeless propellant during WWII. More likely it was as you suggested...the German shells may have possessed better powder that exhibited less of a signature during firing than the equivalent U.S. shells.

Keep in mind, stainless steel is not truly "stainless", silencers aren't truly "silent", and smokeless powder is not truly "smokeless"...but rather it does, smoke-less, than its predecessor, black powder.

Tim
 
Look for videos of Mosin M44s firing using "smokeless" ammo. Barrel lenght can be as big a factor as type of powder. In the Pacific the Garand had a reputation of leaving a slight puff of smoke when fired. it may have been the powder and it may have been the humidity. I've seen more than one period account talking about one advantage of the 6.5x50 Japanese round is that in the long barreled T38 it did not have a tell-tale smoke puff when fired.
 
I know the large Battleship guns in WWII used black powder. It was put into the breach of the gun in silk bags. I think the brass shells of the smaller guns on the ships were loaded with smokeless powder though. I have a 5" Mk48 empty dated 1944 and the inside looks like any modern smokeless round after being fired. If it was fired with black powder and never cleaned it would be corroded on the inside.
 
Llando88 said:
Thanks for the correction.

Must have been thinking about the T-34 KV-1 etc. Weird the German Army never came up with a diesel engine.
Click to expand...

It is strange because they were leaders in maritime diesels. The pocket battleships had them to increase their range.
 
alde said:
I know the large Battleship guns in WWII used black powder. It was put into the breach of the gun in silk bags. I think the brass shells of the smaller guns on the ships were loaded with smokeless powder though.
Click to expand...
Better check that again.
The Navy actually had a patent issued in 1897 for smokeless powder, and began manufacturing it for their own use around 1900.
Being "bag charges" does not mean it is blackpowder.
The land artillery and mortar rounds in Viet Nam all had bag charges, including the 105mm which still had a brass or steel case. You pulled the projo, which was loose in the case, grabbed the stringed together bags labeled 1 through 7 as I recall, and tore off the ones you did not want. In other words, if FDC said "Charge 5", you tore off 6 and 7 and put 1-5 back in the case, set the projo on, slide it in, close breech, yank lanyard and smoke Chuck. ;) Assuming the gunner had aimed the gun. :D

Sometimes, I saw troops on firebases try to use the discarded powder to heat C's and coffee. Results were very speedy, but also very poor, unless you like the taste imparted by the powder. Trust me here- NOBODY would like that taste. :eek:
It also made a helluva sooty mess of your canteen cup. :D
 
Last edited:
handejector said:
Better check that again.
The Navy actually had a patent issued in 1897 for smokeless powder, and began manufacturing it for their own use around 1900.
Being "bag charges" does not mean it is blackpowder.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.:) I do love the videos of the big guns firing a broadside.:D:D
 
zzzippper said:
It is strange because they were leaders in maritime diesels. The pocket battleships had them to increase their range.
Click to expand...

Saw a photo from a 1930s engineering manual. The cylinders on those diesels were roughly 20 feet high (probably a metric msmt) and almost 3 feet wide. Can you imagine the noise in those engine rooms?

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

P.S. Apparently, some powders/rounds burn "dirtier" than others. The 3" gun on our M10 tank destroyers produced a great deal of smoke. TDs would often quickly back away after firing as the enemy would have an aiming point. Heard this many years ago from a former TD crewman.
 
Shortly before the final US Battleships went out of commision , there was lots of intrest , and multiple articles on the Big Guns. All the accounts consistantly reported they used Black Powder for the main charges ( in the bags ). I also recall that up until the end all the charges remained WW II era specification , if not 1940's production. That was the main factor to have me consider that BP might have been used in other ordanace in WW II .
 
If you look at color film of the big sixteen-inch rifles firing, the huge flashes appear to show the red-brown tinge of nitric oxide, which one would expect from a more chemically complex propellant than black powder. There is smoke emitted, but not nearly as much as I would expect from enough huge bags of black powder to propel one of the huge sixteen-inch shells over twenty miles.

Just a WAG based on watching the films.
 
Hello, I've read about this once or twice but haven't really made it much of a research item. Usually it is referred to regarding small arms and the German's gunpowder produced less of a tell tale discharge. The powder isn't smokeless vs. black powder, it is smoke vs. less smoke. Perhaps it was the state of German chemical technology or something else but I believe it was enough of an issue that the higher ups studied it somewhat post war IIRC. Thanks
 
Wasn't cordite the forerunner of "smokeless" powders, I believe they used to use a term "gun cotton" to describe it. It is probably a formulation of cellulose.
I remember the large diesel engines on a 100ft ocean going tug I worked on that used the engine room as the intake manifold. They were two stroke diesels and worked very much like the old school airplane engines we all remember from back in the day. There was a slot at the base of the engine block where you could watch the piston slide up or down, it must have been 4-6" tall and the width of the cylinder which was at least 36". The thing I remember was when it got to the bottom of the stroke you could feel the pressure fluctuation in your eardrum, it had enough suction to possibly suck an empty styrofoam coffee cup from a good foot or so away. It was a six cylinder engine and wearing earplugs was mandatory if you spent anytime down there. The engines on the latest container ship my FIL captained were the largest diesel engines in the world at the time, they were manufactured by Hundai and were two stories tall, I seem to remember that they were five cylinder engines and at least 50 ft long if not longer. On a ship as long as three football fields it was amazing that there were only a dozen crewmembers, all the engineers could do on the engine was monitor the gauges and make corrections, if something broke they had to ship mechanics out for repair. I remember huge air wrenches hanging from chain lifts with nut drivers on them the size of a yardstick. A friend of my FIL was one of those guys that got airlifted out to fix those engines, he kept a suitcase loaded with coveralls ready to go at a minutes notices at anytime day or night, made enough money in one venture to cover his nut for the year.
 
Biggfoot44 said:
Shortly before the final US Battleships went out of commision , there was lots of intrest , and multiple articles on the Big Guns. All the accounts consistantly reported they used Black Powder for the main charges ( in the bags ). I also recall that up until the end all the charges remained WW II era specification , if not 1940's production. That was the main factor to have me consider that BP might have been used in other ordanace in WW II .
Click to expand...

I have toured the Missouri on two different occasions. Both times I was told that the powder charge on the 16 inchers was black

In fact if I remember correctly when that sailor blew up that turret (BB Iowa) in 1989 it was said that they were still using black powder.

When I was in the Navy my ship had missiles not cannons and I doubt the missiles had black powder!:)
 
Last edited:
I think as far as the battleship guns go we are all right. Doing further research it looks like they used duplex loads. The main charge was smokeless (cordite) with a small charge of black powder used as an igniter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
A Soldier's Account
Replies
0
Views
344
Recusant
R
swsig
WW II letter from Aunt Elizabeth: Military Secrets Revealed!
Replies
12
Views
887
Ogandydancer
Ogandydancer
acco40
Memoirs/Stories From Our Veterans
Replies
0
Views
536
acco40
acco40
shaggist
Lucas Replacement Smoke Kit
Replies
2
Views
1K
Rustyt1953
Rustyt1953
Kyjames
Sharing a little history and a libation recipe for the KY Derby
Replies
2
Views
538
Rangerpat
Rangerpat

Latest posts

Back
Top