7.62X51 Explosive Ammo?

[Van Owen]

I was watching a vid on YouTube of some guys shooting WWII German and Soviet explosive ammo, that was supposed to be used as spotting ammunition, but at some point, it got pressed into service by snipers of both sides against personnel. I was wondering if postwar, any of this stuff was made in 7.62 NATO for the same use, presumably spotting, and if it would be as destructive against a human target as the stuff the guys in this video are shooting? Of course, I know that using that kind of thing against actual human targets is banned, but the .50 Raufoss on occasion gets to have its way with the odd jihadist...

 

Here is the original vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXaaybiRiYY

[Van Owen]

Looking on the web, I haven't been able to find any evidence for the existence of this, alas.

[sunday]

I found HEI in 7.62x39, and 7.62x54R. Not easy to find it on 7.62 NATO.

 

https://essentialgearoutfitters.com/product/7-62-x39-phoenix-rising-hei-incendiary-ammunition/

 

https://www.cdvs.us/product/7-62x54r-hei-black-tip-ammo-with-data-sheet/

[Van Owen]

I found those too, including a video of the 7.62x39, but it's nothing in effect like the explosive 7.62x54. Seems to really just create a brief puff of smoke and fire, without the actual explosive effect of the stuff in the vid.

[shep854]

Ah, those InRange boys; always finding mischief...

[DB]

Taofledermaus had some 7.62x39 embedded in diabolo shaped slugs in a recent video. They were old, I suspect, and initiated about 50/50 on metal targets. Not sure how likely they would be to explode if they only hit tissue.

[Mr King]

From the InRange video they indicated that Hitler forbid the use of the explosive ammunition on Western Allied troops, why was that? I have my speculations, but I am not sure.

[Van Owen]

Probably a variety of reasons, such as Russia might have started doing it first, and the Germans were just giving tit for tat, the idea that the Slavs were subhuman, and "civilized" rules of warfare didn't apply to them, or it might be that Russia simply didn't abide by relevant treaties to begin with, so Germany didn't see the need to bother, or a combination of all of those.

[Mr King]

Thanks!

[rmgill]

Hitler was a monster but he'd also been a soldier. It's not unthinkable that he had some odd principles.

Edited February 14, 2019 by rmgill

[Panzermann]

Hitle was a monster but he'd also been a soldier. It's not unthinkable that he had some odd principles.

 

For one becasue of his own experiences no gas was used, luckily. Then he had this idea of being chivalric towards the west allies to bargain a peace agreement. See for example the halting before Dunkirk instead of crushing the BEF.

 

And the soviets used the BZ cartridge (explosive 7,62*54 R) on the ground as well, so tit for tat in that case I guess.

[wendist]

 

Hitle was a monster but he'd also been a soldier. It's not unthinkable that he had some odd principles.

 

For one becasue of his own experiences no gas was used, luckily. Then he had this idea of being chivalric towards the west allies to bargain a peace agreement. See for example the halting before Dunkirk instead of crushing the BEF.

 

And the soviets used the BZ cartridge (explosive 7,62*54 R) on the ground as well, so tit for tat in that case I guess.

 

I know this is going of topic a bit but is the bolded statement not considered a myth today? AIUI it was von Rundstedt that first stopped the advance because he believed the armoured units were better used elsewhere and Hitler only got involved when von Rundstedt contacted the OKW to ask them to confirm his order, which they did (at least for a while).

[R011]

There were also supply, maintenance, and terrain issues. They would have found it very difficult indeed to prevent the evacuation. The rear guard, mostly French, would have had something to say about it if they had tried.

[wendist]

Well they did try, did they not? But it was Army group B that was supposed to do the job while von Rundstedt would turn south with his forces as soon as they reached the Channel coast. Hitler probably sided with von Rundstedt because von Rundstedt as commander of Army group A wanted to stick to the plan. Maybe von Rundstedt was wrong or maybe his junior generals were but it was his call, not Hitlers. Hitler possibly had considerable trust in his, much respected, army group commanders judgement.