WW2 question - Roechling Bunker buster -- Hohlladung
NotSure
very deep bunker and came to rest STILL IN ONE PIECE!!
PHOTO: http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/2002-neufchateau/lg_x20020721-15h13m45s-K.html
... how does it work? Is it a kind of super-alloy?
more photos: http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/2002-neufchateau/
The only reference I can find is in french:
Sous l’occupation allemande, le fort d’Aubin-Neufchâteau fut utilisé
comme place d’expérimentation pour une arme secrète d’Hitler «l’obus
Röchling ».
Translation: Under the German occupation, the fort-Aubin Neufchâteau
was used as an experiment for a secret weapon of Hitler "Röchling
shell."
I think that the projectile was dropped from an aircraft at high
altitude. The Rochling Shell mentioned in wikipedia (V3) was cannon-
launched.
+++ stop press +++ I found an old posting where BOB explains a bit.. I
have put it on the neufchateau photo page..
Which brings me to my next question about hollow charges at EBEN EMAEL
http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/200108_ebenemael/ has pictures of
the fort at eben emael (Belgium+NETHERLANDS) where germans landed at
night with gliders and used hollow charges break into the huge bunker
and forced surrender.
This picture
http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/200108_ebenemael/lg_x20010825-16h01m34s-T.html
shows a "not so improvised" explosive device (the secret weapon called
Hohlladung - "hollow charge")
How secret was it? Didn't all armies have them? How come the Iraqi
and Afghan resistance can amputate thousands of US volunteers with
such low-tech weapons?
Rob Arndt
Germany had "bunker busters" in WW2. Ever heard of the Rochling
anti-concrete shell? It was developed by 1940 but not used until
after
France and Belgium had fallen to test its capabilities. The shell
could
pass through 3 meters of earth, 36 meters of concrete, a layer of
broken stone, a gun casement, and into the floor beneath with ONE
shot!!!
The Germans amassed 8,000 of these secret chrome-vanadium steel
shells
but few were used out of fear of one falling into the hands of the
Allies and copied. Yet several were fired against the fortress at
Brest-Litovsk with devastating results. After that, only Hitler could
give permission to use the weapon or not.
The design was passed on to Peenemunde which then turned to
windtunnel
testing for a higher velocity shell which turned into the Arrow Shell
or PPG. Meanwhile, Conders took the Rochling and used it as the basis
for the shell used by the V-3 of whoch two small-caliber guns fired
from a railway flatcar and a second from Hermeskeil to hit Antwerp in
December 1944. The Allies only learned after the war where the
mystery
shells originated from.
The Peenemunde PPG was used with the 28cm K-5 railgun bored-out to
31cm
(K-5 Glatt) to fire the PPG shells with a maximum range of 93.83
miles
and load of 55.13 lb. The K-5 was one of the greatest railway guns of
all time.
So, all in all, the Rochling served very well itself and as
inspiration for two other shells that were also fired in anger.
It's amazing how the US can just come up with the term "bunker
buster"
when Germany had them in WW2. Second, NONE of the US bunker busters
penetrated the German Superbunker Q4 in Baghdad, nor any of the other
80 tons of munitions dropped on it. As a weapon against THAT
German-built target the bunker buster was a failure. And the designer
even gave interviews BEFORE the air war that NO WEAPON of the US
would
penetrate HIS design. He was right.
Rob
BTW, both the Tallboy and Grand Slam weapons were largely used
against
bridges and viaducts. When they occasionally hit a German sub pen
they
only broke through one section of the concrete roof and caused little
more than huge piles of rubble inside as the pens remained standing.
Even after WW2 most German concrete bunkers, towers, and sub pens
remain standing as they were 64 yrs ago. Some were dynamited from
inside, but to most nations the cost and effort of destroying these
monsters was too much. Ironically, however, Tallboys were used
against the V-3 sites that would have fired Rochling type shells 280
km
against Britain!
So the answer is yes, the Germans DID have the first bunker busters
that were designed to be used against the Maginot Line. But since the
Germans bypassed it through the Ardennes, it was not militarily
needed.
The tests of 1940 proved its value but was a danger to Germany itself
if copied by the Allies.
Rob
Regarding Haft-hohlladung:
http://www.lexpev.nl/grenades/europe/germany/hafthohlladung33kilo.html
Rob
Rob Arndt
could penetrate 68 feet of concrete :)
Rob
damarkley
concrete? Is that rebar reinforced concrete?
Dean
Orval Fairbairn
<05684eae-7a09-41e7...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
NotSure <DoNotRe...@gmx.net> wrote:
> This amazing projectile went through several underground stories of a
> very deep bunker and came to rest STILL IN ONE PIECE!!
>
> PHOTO:
> http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/2002-neufchateau/lg_x20020721-15h13m45s-K.
> html
> ... how does it work? Is it a kind of super-alloy?
>
> more photos: http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/2002-neufchateau/
Bunker busters are not really that difficult to build.
All you need:
1. a very robust structure
2. high velocity
3. large mass
4. a means of determining when to detonate
5. precision delivery
Items #1-#3 were widely available in WW-II and did not take genius to
figure out.
Item #4 takes figuring and could have been done then.
Item #5 takes robust electronics to guide the weapon to target and was
not available until several decades later.
If you dropped enough penetrators, you could eventually hit the target
via random hits, which was the theory behind saturation bombing in WW-II.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re-posted source:
This comes from the concisive book by Ian Hogg "German Artillery of
World War II" (1997) ISBN 1-85367-261-0 Appendices One: Ammunition
page 268. What targets? Maginot Line and Belgian fortress complexes.
In
Russia I listed Brest-Litovsk which is on page 269. Other pages for
the
Peenemunde Arrow Shell pages 269-270 and for the V-3 88-90, K-5 Glatt
pages 132-134.
If you remember correctly the massive 800mm Dora smashed through 30m
of
or earth and bunker to destroy an underground magazine at Severnaya
Bay
and that was with a 4.73 ton shell. Rochling was a small shell
equivalent to Hanslers electric gun 40mm experimental shells (based
on
the Rochling). Big difference wouldn't you say?
Rob
Dan
When did it do so in actuality?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
You trotted this garbage out a few years ago and never proved any of
it, can you do so now?
Dan
If you do a google search you'll find all references point back to
aren't herself.
o...@uakron.edu
> >> Rob
>
> > Rob, what is your source for those penetration numbers? 36 METERS of
> > concrete? Is that rebar reinforced concrete?
>
> > Dean
>
>
If you read William Manchester's :"The Arms of Krupp":, you'll find
that one of the uses of Krupp's "WIDIA" tool steel, was bunker buster
shell tips, and the figure is a few meters of concrete. WIDIA was a
trade secret, it was tungsten carbide/steel matrix. At the time , it
vastly cut the time required for manufacturing things using machine
tools.
The Krupp family and the Krupp company historians helped Manchester
write the book, and you'll find that Manchester is very accurate and
there will be no exotic claims of performance for Krupp's weapons
systems, even for the Big Bertha cannons.
Steve
Alan Dicey
> This amazing projectile went through several underground stories of a
> very deep bunker and came to rest STILL IN ONE PIECE!!
>
> PHOTO: http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/2002-neufchateau/lg_x20020721-15h13m45s-K.html
>
> more photos: http://www-2.net/y23.stock.pictures/2002-neufchateau/
>
> The only reference I can find is in french:
>
> Sous l’occupation allemande, le fort d’Aubin-Neufchâteau fut utilisé
> comme place d’expérimentation pour une arme secrète d’Hitler «l’obus
> Röchling ».
>
> Translation: Under the German occupation, the fort-Aubin Neufchâteau
> was used as an experiment for a secret weapon of Hitler "Röchling
> shell."
>
> I think that the projectile was dropped from an aircraft at high
> altitude. The Rochling Shell mentioned in wikipedia (V3) was cannon-
> launched.
Ian V Hogg, "The Guns 1939-1945" : -
"The 21cm Mörser 18 was one of the few weapons for which a special
'Röchling' shell was produced. These shells were based on the theory of
increase in sectional density to give better penetration. They were
fin-stabilised, long (102 inches) and thin, made from chrome-vanadium
steel and had thick walls to withstand penetration shocks. The rear end
of the shell carried four spring steel vanes which were normally wrapped
round the body and retained by a sleeve. The shoulders of the shell were
supported in the bore by a full-calibre sabot. On leaving the muzzle,
the sabot and sleeve fell clear, allowing the four vanes to spring out
and stabilise the flight of the shell. Due to the heavy metal and thin
section concentrating the impetus into a small area, the penetration
into reinforced concrete was of the order of twelve to fourteen feet,
and supplies of these shells were provided for battering through the
fortifications on the Polish, French and Russian frontiers."
http://www.prov-liege.be/tourisme/brochure2008/uk/fortsuk.pdf
"The Röchling shell was designed by the Germans to perforate the mass of
reinforced concrete of the fort galleries. A howitzer, set in place 5
miles away, “experimentally” delivered the projectile upon a fort. It
first climbed up extremely high, then took a nosedive and finally fell
on the fort, penetrating deep and causing terrible damage. One can still
see how severe the damage was!."
damarkley
Dean
Bill Shatzer
> BTW, the largest shaped-charge was the Mistel bomber component that
> could penetrate 68 feet of concrete :)
Assuming this to be correct - and doubts abound - whatever targets did
the Allies have which might have required penetrating 68 feet of concrete?
Seems like typical German overkill and a waste of (scarce) resources to
develop a warhead that specialized without some sort of specific target
in mind.
Cheers,
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not so and anyways I DID give a cite if you bothered to read the
previous posts in order:
This comes from the concisive book by Ian Hogg "German Artillery of
World War II" (1997) ISBN 1-85367-261-0 Appendices One: Ammunition
page 268. What targets? Maginot Line and Belgian fortress complexes.
In
Russia I listed Brest-Litovsk which is on page 269. Other pages for
the
Peenemunde Arrow Shell pages 269-270 and for the V-3 88-90, K-5 Glatt
pages 132-134.
Ian Hogg was a biased bastard when it came to German secret weapons,
but this only adds to the validity of his Rochling and German
artillery reports. He was, after all, a world arms expert. Everything
listed above is fact.
Rob
p.s. Also, please provide any proof that the US penetrated the Baghdad
Q4 Superbunker of Saddam. The USAF used bunker bunkers on it to no
effect at all plus a total of 80 tons of ordnance. The German designer
said BEFORE the war that no weapon in the USAF inventory short of an
atomic bomb direct hit could touch it. He was right. Prove otherwise.
Dan
<snip>
>
> p.s. Also, please provide any proof that the US penetrated the Baghdad
> Q4 Superbunker of Saddam. The USAF used bunker bunkers on it to no
> effect at all plus a total of 80 tons of ordnance. The German designer
> said BEFORE the war that no weapon in the USAF inventory short of an
> atomic bomb direct hit could touch it. He was right. Prove otherwise.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. You are famous more
for lying and making outrageous claims than anything else. So, where is
your proof?
Rob Arndt
I just proved you a liar on the Rochling shell with a valid cite and
now you want more cites?
YOU ARE THE LIAR, YOU SWINE!
Rob
Dan
How did I lie? All I said was the burden of proof is on the person
making the claim then proceeded to point out how well known you are for
lying and making outrageous claims. I'd list a few, but you have proven
time and again you don't care that people are aware your credibility and
integrity are nil.
Keith Willshaw
"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:gm4un0$2cn$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> BTW, the largest shaped-charge was the Mistel bomber component that
>> could penetrate 68 feet of concrete :)
>
>
> Assuming this to be correct - and doubts abound - whatever targets did the
> Allies have which might have required penetrating 68 feet of concrete?
>
Well the French and Belgians had some pretty heavy duty fort installations
in 1940 and the vSoviets put a lot of faith in heavy duty concrete
installations in
the Crimea. There were few high priority hardened installation in Britain.
The cabinet war rooms are reasonably well known but in many ways
more vital were the Admiralty bunker at Oxgate, the Whitehall citadel
The upper levels of the Oxgate citadel are now used for commercial storage
but there are still remnants of the original use on the lower floors
including
crates of spare gas filters with the date 1939 stencilled on them.
The navy had the famous underground tunnels in Dover but there
were also major underground installations in other areas such as Portland.
The Army built an underground HQ complex at Broadwater Down just
outside Tunbridge Wells , Montgomery had his HQ there in 1941 when
he was responsible for home defence.
Keith
Rob Arndt
The answer to the OP question on Mistel warhead able to penetrate 68
ft of concrete, the idea was to use them on the Eastern Front against
Soviet fortifications. But development time meant that the Dora and
other German heavy artillery got there first and did the job. The
Germans tested the Mistels against conquered installations in the same
way they tested the Rochling shells against the Maginot Line. In 1945
there was the planned attack on the USSR power grid by Mistels that
failed and against occupied former German fortifications, bridges, and
other structures now held by the Allies on the Western Front. Mistels
were too slow and were mercilessly picked-off by Allied fighters.
Those launched against bridges had only minor success.
Rob
Rob Arndt
Gustav and type of round:
If you remember correctly the massive 800mm Dora smashed through 30m
of
or earth and bunker to destroy an underground magazine at Severnaya
Bay
and that was with a 4.73 ton shell. Rochling was a small shell
equivalent to Hanslers electric gun 40mm experimental shells (based
on
the Rochling). Big difference wouldn't you say?
Correction from same source pgs 138-140:
Regarding the "Gustav" 800 mm gun and concrete penetrator rounds:
"After its test firing 'Gustav' was sent to join the seige of
Sevastopol. It fired its first service round on 5 June 1942 from
Bakhchisary, some 16km north of Sevastopol and fired 48 shots at
various targets, all of which were very thoroughly destroyed. The most
spectacular shot was one which penetrated 30m of earth to detonate
inside an underground magazine at Severnaya Bay."
That was with the standard 4.73 ton 80cm Sprgr: fuzed Hgbr Z 40K,
weight 4800kg (10584 lb/4.73 tons)
The concrete penetrator shell was the 80cm Gr Be: fuzed Bd Z C/38,
weight 7100kg (15656lb/6.99 tons)
Performances:
4.73 ton HE shell:
velocity: 2690fps
range: 29.20 miles
explosive content: 882 lbs
6.99 ton anti-concrete shell
velocity: 2330fps
range: 23.61 miles
explosive content: 441 lbs
Rob
Rob Arndt
Actually that test round went 44m after passing through 3m of earth,
36m of concrete, a layer of broken stone, into the gun casement and 5m
through that floor into the earth!!!
Rob
WaltBJ
Mk 84 2000# bombs, which were not semi-armor piercing. Why? No need.
The first so-called bunker busters were old 8 inch cannonbarrels
filled with HE and adapted for Laser-spot homing. Later on bunker
busters of course were developed. I should add that post-WW2 the
bunker buster then in the inventory was the Mk 8 penetrating nuke
dervied from Little Boy. It was stricken from the inventory around
1960 or so. BTW we did have the 43000 pound T12 armor-piercing bomb
but in test form only. A non-HE one is standing on its nose in front
of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Admin Building today. Google 'T-12' and
it should show up. I do know a bit about it because my brother in law
helped out in the drop tests at Edwards.
And, yes, there are vastly improved precision-guided bunker-
busters available today. FWIW they can 'keep on knocking'.
Walt BJ
Paul J. Adam
<3ce68134-69a0-40ff...@m22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
WaltBJ <walt...@mindspring.com> writes
>Actually prior to Desert Storm the USA had NO bunkerbusters other than
>Mk 84 2000# bombs, which were not semi-armor piercing. Why? No need.
Nitpick - there was a 2000lb penetrator bomb, the BLU-109/B. The GBU-28
was developed for the few targets too hard for that to crack.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Rob Arndt
Re-post from June 26, 2003:
I posted several times before and during OIF on Saddam's Q4 bunker,
located near the Tigris. It was apparently hit by 80 tons of
ordnance,
including the latest "bunker-busters"- but to no avail.
A palace is built over it and the bunker itself is 300 feet below
that, so whatever the USAF dropped would have to penetrate the
palace,
its grounds, then down beyond the 300 feet into the heavily-
reinforced
concrete roof. Even if one did penetrate, there are compartments
inside
with thick blast doors and overpressure release mechanisms. Some
parts
of the German bunker are designed to collapse up to a certain point
and defeat shock waves. The bunker is also crammed full of back-up
systems, NBC systems, and heavy electronic shielding (even from HPM
weapons). Lastly, it has two entrances that are protected by
automated
MG nests and an underground escape tunnel under the Tigris that I've
heard (splits into three routes, interconnecting with other Baghdad
bunkers).
But according to the top Iraqi officials that have been captured,
Saddam did not stay in the bunker for any length of time- he shuttled
between bunkers only to emerge here and there for unscheduled video
tapings and a few appearances in the streets in Baghdad. From all
reputable accounts Saddam is still in Baghdad. There are over 60
miles
of tunnels under Baghdad alone, so it's quite possible that he is
still eluding the special forces sent to track him.
As for the bunker, be assured it is still in one piece. During OIF,
the British hit his yacht in three airstrikes and failed to sink
it...
and that was above ground, an easy target!
Rob
Since that time there were/are no reports that the Q4 Superbunker was
penetrated at all. The German designer gave interviews before and
after OIF and said that his claim that no USAF weapon could penetrate
the bunker was validated. IF anything would have penetrated the Q4
Superbunker then it would be all over the news and certainly part on
any online resource for the success of bunker-buster weapons and
success by the USAF. There are no refs to this effect AFAIK.
Archaeopteryx
Let's see now:
> Since that time there were/are no reports that the Q4 Superbunker was
> penetrated at all.
Which is utterly meaningless. More indicative that no one on the intel
side figured it was necessary to waste the ordinance required to bust
the structure when they knew the rat they were after wasn't in that
particular hole anyway. That, and the notion that any contents of
value would be easier to sift through if they didn't have to dig them
out first.
>The German designer gave interviews before and after OIF and said that his claim that >no USAF weapon could penetrate the bunker was validated.
Ach! Zo! Herr Arndt's point at last!
Balderdash.
"But Esser said "bunker busting" bombs like the one dropped on Friday
would fail to penetrate the bunker because they first have to get
though the palace built directly above it.
"The presidential palace above gives natural protection so the bunker
can only be cracked by ground troops or a tactical nuclear bomb," said
Esser."
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/03/58276
All of which ignores the even-then openly discussed tactic of timed
salvo-ing any number of BLU-113s to arrive at the same hole in rapid
succession for cumulative effect. IOW, whether Saddam's Mercedes of
all ratholes could be cracked wasn't the issue, merely if they wanted
it badly enough.
Since then, newer toys like the MOP:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mop.htm
...and the "Deep Digger"
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002177.html
have rendered even that point moot.
Ultimately, there's no such thing as a rat - even a German rat - that
can burrow so deep that a properly designed bit of pyrotechnics can't
smoke him out.
[cue Arndt "There's no rat like a German Rat!" rant]
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Poor bird-boy... fact is that the Q4 is still there untouched by USAF
ordnance of any kind. The 80 tons and bunker-busters failed miserably
and your only response is to introduce newer weapons- so what? It's
like the braggarts who claim that Tallboy and Grand Slam could
penetrate any German defenses. Guess what? You can visit the intact
Atlantic Wall AND the sub pens along the French coast today- 64 yrs
later!!!
A few bombs collapsed a single section with minimal damage to the
actual U-boat pen below it. Big deal, the majority failed to really
scratch the pens. Warships also battled German gun batteries of the
Atlantic Wall and they are still there regardless.
No one penetrated Hitler's bunker in Berlin and no one penetrated
Saddam's German (with Yugoslavian participation) Q4 bunker.
Archaeopteryx is a poor excuse-maker- even the Russians admit it would
take 10x 10MT direct nuclear hits on Cheyenne Mountain to pentrate the
bunkers there. Try your bunker-busters and new non-nuclear ordnance
there fool. or the Russian equivalent- wouldn't be worth the effort at
all. Yet the USAF guys thought they could penetrate the Iraqi Q4 and
FAILED- key word. Not only did it take ground troops to infiltrate the
empty bunker, but they got lost when they hit the tunnel network
underneath and had to explore for weeks!!!
Again, fuck you Birdbrain!
Rob
Archaeopteryx
Pure poetry, as usual.
Never mind that the point regarding your idolatry of the Q4 was that
destroying a structure you're going to capture intact anyway is kind
of pointless.
But then, that's a Herr Gröfaz specialty, isn't it?
[cue Arndt profanity-laced spittle fest]
Rob Arndt
>
> [cue Arndt profanity-laced spittle fest]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go ahead and keep posting.
You are not making a name for yourself, but an ass out of yourself.
Now you go redirecting and apologizing for the USAF FAILURE to
penetrate the Q4 bunker by insisting that they wanted it "intact"
anyway! Moronic! WHY then would they drop bunker-busters and 80 tons
of ordnance on it to kill Saddam??? For fun???
They clearly wanted to destroy it and prove the German designer wrong.
They FAILED completely as he foretold.
You certainly make no sense, but keep up the steady supply of
excuses!
US history writers are excellent in that regard ;)
... and what's with the [cue} bullshit? Is that you pathetic SIG?
Rob
Archaeopteryx
A line for the ages:
> You are not making a name for yourself, but an ass out of yourself.
>
We, the mere mortal readers of RAM, can only aspire to the example
you've provided so generously provided us.
> ... and what's with the [cue} bullshit? Is that you pathetic SIG?
Nope.
It merely provides you with a handy push-off point for your next load
of gibberish.
Stanley Moore
"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:gm4un0$2cn$1...@news.motzarella.org...
I think the Fuhrer had a fear of air attack on his Wolf's Lair command
center on the eastern front and made the walls and roof very thick. The
Military Channel had a series on Hitler's Bodyguard which mentioned that for
some reason the allies never bombed the WL, possibly because that der
Fuhrer's conduct of military operations was a bigger detriment to German
advantage than not. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad