"Blue Nose" .50

[Ruy Horta]

A few weeks ago I finished reading Het Vergeten Squadron, written by René Wittert who, at one stage of the war, was CO of NEIAF 18 Squadron operating from North-Western Australia against the Japanese.

Amongst many surprising little details, he mentioned the fact that the dutch regarded .50 "Blue Nose" incendiary ammunition as factually being explosive rounds.

Could someone please enlighten me?

(edit: he described them as Blue Nose not Tip)

[paul peters]

Hello Ruy,
Go to www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/50.htm and your question is answered (I hope 8)
paul

[Ruy Horta]

Thanks, but this page only repeats the official designation, as in Incendiary , but could this not be simply a misleading euphemism?

Might the incendiary .50 in fact have been comparable in effect to an explosive HMG round?

This reminds me of the fact that, as far as I know, the USA had NOT accepted the Geneva Conventions over war, before and during WW II, and could do as they wished, for ex. use explosive ammunition below the otherwise "legal" caliber of 20 mm. I discussed exactly this point with Adolf Galland about his knee wound during his last fight on a 262. He got some shrapnell into his knee, from a .50 caliber shell it seems. I'm not quite sure, you often get shrapnell from non-explosive missiles.

Tony Wood! Help! Did the USA use explosive .50 ammunition during WW II? Was it common practice and were they normally mixed into machine-gun belts?

[Paul]

I think the .50 API would answer this question...

8) Paul

[Tony Williams]

Sorry for the delay, just seen this one....

When incendiaries were first used in WW1, they were generally of the type which ignited on firing and burned all the way to the target. This had the advantage of leaving a smoke trail so they were effectively 'incendiary/tracers' and sometimes described as such. The British had these in use in the BoB (as the B.IV) alongside the new 'De Wilde' (B.VI) which was different in that it burst into flame on impact with the target. This was obviously more efficient as it didn't waste the incendiary compound. It also helped that the ignition caused a bright flash on impact, so you knew when you were scoring hits.

The US .30 and .50 incendiary ammo was based on the British 'De Wilde'. They were purely filled with incendiary compound - no HE - but the fact that they burst violently into flame on impact gave them the appearance of explosive rounds.

There were some US explosive .50 rounds developed in WW2 but they remained experimental and were never used. The Soviets, Italians, Germans and Japanese all used HE shells in 12.7-13 mm calibre weapons (the Japanese used them in rifle-calibre MGs as well).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk][/color]website and discussion

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/] [/color]forum

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

The US .30 and .50 incendiary ammo was based on the British 'De Wilde'. They were purely filled with incendiary compound - no HE - but the fact that they burst violently into flame on impact gave them the appearance of explosive rounds.

Isn't the difference not a bit "fuzzy"?

When a bursting round is explosive or incendiary, it may have some differences, but also many similarities.

Please note that I am not aiming for the final word (You are the expert!!! - although I have a couple of titles on the shelf and a number of documents I am far from knowledgable on the subject), but I've read about De Wilde being "incendiary" (sorry, no source), and this annecdote by a dutch commanding officer surprised me. Wouldn't he know the difference as well, especially considering his long and active service, still he wisely used "explosive" instead of HE. Again pointing towards a "fuzzy" distinction.

Perhaps we now look upon Incendiary ammuntion as being of the "De Wilde" type, yet those of pre-war training saw it for what is actually (?) was, a round bursting violently upon contact, sort of explosive in effect, but without true (legal) explosive content?

Am I mistaken, or is "De Wilde" not sometimes discussed when it comes to its true function/effect?

Just questions.

[Tony Williams]

I think that there may be a difference between the technical and popular descriptions. The 'De Wilde' definitely contained no explosives in the accepted sense of any of the various HE natures (TNT, PETN, Hexogen etc), the content was purely classified as 'incendiary'. Technically, the difference would have been in the rate of burning of the material: gas from an explosive expands extremely violently causing a shattering effect (brisance), incendiaries burn relatively slowly even when they appear to burst instantly into flame, and have no brisance.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition
website and discussion
forum