Why germans didnt use tungsten?

M Hofbauer · January 12, 2001

RexBellator: LOL!

jasoncawley: very interesting! I got very interested in this topic years ago, and was never abvle to figure out exactly what the tungsten was needed for, what was more important than the vitzal, desperately needed PzGr.40 to warant re-manufacturing/delaborating/disasembling them to extract the few grams tungsten in a somewhat complicated process.

does the book mention exactly what those other purposes were, and does it give numbers?

btw, a small amount of "indogenious" tungsten existed in germany, during the war there was some tungsten mining going on in Mitersill, Austria, obviously more like a token efort.

now to the ethymology, as there seems to have been some confusion: the german equivalent for tungsten is Wolfram. Tungsten is an english / swedish word from the swedish "tung" (heavy) and "sten" (stone). I think that _if_ the term tungsten is used in germany (wehich it hardly is, it almost always is "Wolfram"), then as a synonym for Wolfram, not to designate another form / the ore etc. of the metal. The word Wolfram comes from the late-medieval word "Wolfsschmutz" for Wolfram-ore, because it tended to "eat up" (hence "Wolf") the tin in the foundry process (medieval german "ram" ~ dirt, soot).

rexford: tungsten is mined in Canada indeed, only one but quite a big reservoir in Flat Bed, Mac Tung; the only considerable site in the USA is Climax, Henderson; the french have (or used to have?) a small mine in Salau; in the UK, tungsten is mined in Cornwall. The Austrians still do some mining in Mittersill; the famous Portugese site is in Panasqueira, but rather small when compared to the CAN and US sites. Russia has a small mine in Tyry Auz, which is east of the Black Sea, and some rather large sites in Primorskiy Kray in the extreme south-east near China/Korea/Japan and in Chitinskaya on the mongolian border. Thailand has a decent resource in Phuket. Australia too has two reservoirs of tungsten which are mined, a small one at Mt. Carbine, and a larger mine on (I think) Tasmania.

One of the world's largest tungsten mines (if not THE largest) is China's mine in Guangdong; another respectable site there is in Hunan-Guangxi; South Korea has respectable resources of tungsten, too, which are mined in the large tungsten mine ofSangdong, a smaller one is in Songjong. Myanmar (Birma) has two large sites in Merqui and Mawchi.

Small sites are in Algeria, Dem.Rep. of Congo, Rwanda, Kazakhstan, Turkey (Gemlik).

Mind you, that's where it is mined _today_ according to what I could dig up (I had always been interested to find that out).

Mattias · January 12, 2001

Would it be correct to compare the use of tungsten with that of the (much debated) depleted uranium today?

Do they serve the same purpose I mean, imparting weight to the projectile, or did tungsten have some further use?

M.

M Hofbauer · January 12, 2001

Mattias,

in short, yes, it serves the same purposes, and in fact most armies all over the world use tungsten for the same job the US and a few select other countries prefer DU for.

But it's not mainly about a lighter projectile, if that's what you imply; although the lighter weight makes for a higher Vo which is desirable it's actually kind of a drawback on long-distance shots (due to reduced Eo), but the trick is the higher density, heat-resistance "hardness" of the material.

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 01-12-2001).]

January 13, 2001

Try making a Pak-Front test secnario and give the Germans about 5 50mm ATGs with all T and HE rds and maybe one 75mm ATG. Then give the US forces about 10 shermans put the Flag just behind your ATGs and wait. Then distract the tanks with a Gun on a Flank and then open up on them. T rds get lots of penetrations sometimes 3 before you knock out a sherman. Gives you a nice feel for early war ATG-Tank duels.

WolfLord · January 13, 2001

Density of Uranium ~ 18.91 g/cc

Density of Tungsten ~ 19.5 g/cc

As a comparison...d of Mercury ~ 13.8 g/cc

Wolfram is the old, obsolete term for tungsten. No longer used as it places emphasis on wolframite. I still have a periodic table in the lab with tungsten marked as wolfram(nice bit of history). Also tungsten has the highest melting point of all metals (elemental) @ 3683K

Tungsten can be extracted from scheelite (calcium tungstate) or Wolframite (ferrous-manganous tungstate). Leading tungsten producers: China and Russia...US at no. 4.

jasoncawley@ameritech.net · January 13, 2001

In response to one fellow's questions about the uses of it, I quote from the other fellow's web article -

"Tungsten carbide, the hardest metal made, was essential for tough, heat resistant steel and high speed cutting tools that could machine military equipment 10 to 15 times faster than normal tools. Steel hardened by alloys like tungsten was a vital war commodity. Altogether there were more than 15,000 tungsten applications. Its most important military uses were in armor plate and the carbide cores of high velocity armor piercing projectiles. The Germans had been the first to use tungsten this way, and no practical substitutes were available."

The short answer is that it is all about alloys.

The most important use was the machine tools, because as mentioned tungsten hardened tools could work much faster, being both harder and far more heat resistent than other alloys. Making lots of tanks, planes, etc means cutting a lot of steel into complicated shapes in mass production fashion.

The second use was in steel plate, to face-harden it, make it less brittle, and more heat tolerant (since penetrating rounds melt the armor along their flight-path from the friction of the contact). There the Germans were able to engineer a number of substitutes, to reduce the tungsten content of the alloys used for steel plate. But there were limits on such measures, because all of the substitutes were tight too, as well as less effective for the same amount (nickel is an example, as in stainless steel - also important for bearings and such).

The Germans had enough tungsten from the Spanish and Portugese supply that they did not suffer shortages in the critical machine-tool area - though they still had to economize on the amount of tool work and cutting overall. (Incidentally, that is one reason assault guns were favored - no turret means fewer and simpler parts).

They had tungsten left for the armor alloys but tried to sustitute other metals in the alloys whenever possible. The armor quality is going down as the war progressed, though, ton for ton, because the stuff going into it is not perfect mixes by good-enough ersatz measures. In 44 that still wasn't too bad, but by the end of 44 and early 45 it was a real issue.

Meanwhile, all of the above - Portugese supplies and economy in alloy use of it for armor and not overbuilding the machine tools, left some for shells. But not a lot. And the highest priority use of the stuff that could be allocated to shells was the marginal AT weapons that would be effective with its aid, but would be obsolete without it.

They were not trying to make the best round for the best tank to have in 2 battles. They were trying to solve a complicated anti-tank problem - how to stop hordes of T_34s and Shermans from the limited machinery and engineering and raw materials base they had to work with. Which means they were in the business of cutting it close.

The priority was 50mm AT rounds, because there were thousands of perfectly good 50mm AT guns already in existence from earlier in the war. There was no realistic prospect of replacing every one of them with a 75 ATG, let alone an 88. The best guns had to go into the tanks and TDs anyway. That meant hundreds of infantry divisions with their indigenous AT battalions and a few attached StuGs had to stop the Allied armor on both fronts with what they had.

So it was obvious, as a measure of economy, that 50mm APCR was the stuff to make. It would give the infantry a fighting chance. And Russia was the place to send it too, because the heaviest enemy tanks would be faced there, and more important because the most common tank that would be faced there by the line infantry - the T-34 - was more heavily armored than the Shermans faced in the west.

They had tried the same idea earlier with guns as small at the 28mm ATG. But even with APCR, it was hopeless. Some APCR was used with those guns in North Africa, against the lighter tanks often faced before El Alamein - Stuarts and Crusaders for example. But there were also Valentines and Matildas in the desert, and some Grants and Shermans too, and it was hopeless to try to keep the 28mm ATG soldiering along.

They also have many 37mm ATGs, the generation between the 28s and the 50s. They made APCR ammo for those too, as well as experimenting with HEAT rounds for them. Again a stopgap measure. 37mm APCR might occasionally hole the tanks encountered in North Africa, or T-34s from the side, but it was not going to let scores of line infantry divisions defeat massive Soviet armor attacks. The 50mm APCR therefore was the place to use the tungsten that was available for shells.

75s and 88s could be counted on to do their work without additional help, and the smaller guns soon proved inadequate even with APCR help and thereby a waste of the stuff. But high velocity 50mm guns with APCR could act as real ATGs, while without it they could not.

Cutting it close is what economics is about - enough, not too much, because too much here means not enough there, which could have been better supplied.

Does that mean every 50mm ATG in Russian had a regular supply of the stuff? No, certainly not. But that was the place to use what they did have, and mostly that is where it was used.

Tabano · January 13, 2001

Hey Illo, glad to see you here!

When my CM copy arrives, I would like to play some PBEMs with you!

Salute,

Tabano

StellarRat · January 13, 2001

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
Mattias,

in short, yes, it serves the same purposes, and in fact most armies all over the world use tungsten for the same job the US and a few select other countries prefer DU for.

But it's not mainly about a lighter projectile, if that's what you imply; although the lighter weight makes for a higher Vo which is desirable it's actually kind of a drawback on long-distance shots (due to reduced Eo), but the trick is the higher density, heat-resistance "hardness" of the material.

I just read the Janes info about DU and they mentioned nothing about it being a particularly "hard" material. I believe the density certainly helps it to carry more energy to the target, but I'm going to have to hear more before I believe that it actually helps to penetrate because it's "hard."

In fact, other people in this forum have indicated that the main reason it is used because has a low "burning" point and tends to light the target on fire after penetration.

Based on what I've read the ideal AT round would be diamond-tipped, tungsten cased round with a core of DU! Besides the expense am I on the mark??

Can anyone clarify this?

von Lucke · January 13, 2001

Depleted Uranium is spent nuclear fuel --- hence the depleted in the title. It's one of the densest materials (if not the most) available. Picture it this way: The atomic structure of DU becomes compressed (denser --- less space between atoms) as it's spare electrons are thrown off (radiation --- what makes nuclear power plants run), causing it's atomic structure to shrink as the nuclei decay. Density = Hardness = Good Penetration. DU rounds (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) are just big metal arrows that punch holes in armor through kinetic energy alone.

As far as German and wolfram goes, I was under the impression they got most of their stockpile from China before 1941. Nationalist China and Germany had a very close economic and military relationship in the 1930's. Germany equipped and trained many of Chiang Kai-shek's troops --- and not for free.

WolfLord · January 13, 2001

High density doesn't necessarily equal greater hardness. Mercury and lead have relatively high density. Sorry...can't seem to track down an exact density of DU as it is not a "pure" substance(varying degrees of isotopes and decay products)...I posted U earlier.

January 13, 2001

Just a point about the 28mm AT Gun - it was not a precursor to the 37mm, it was the first of a range of entirely unique AT weapons.

The bore of hte 28mm shrank from 28mm to 21mm. This gun was designed solely to fire a type of APCR (or HVAP if you prefer) round with a tungsten core and an soft (aluminium?) exterior. The exterior was squeezed as the round traveled up the bore, but the pressure behind the ropund remained high, imparting a very high muzzle velocity.

The 28/21mm was followed by 42/29mm (actually 40.5mm - don't know why it was designated 4.2cm) used by Paratroops from 1941 (the book includes a photo of one in action in Rome in 1943), and a 75/55mm version, of which only 150 were made. All of these were scrapped or converted to "normal" calibres when their ammo ran out.

The 75/55 version had penetration of 171mm @ 500 yds @ 30 deg, vis 106 for the standard AP rd for the Pak 40 7.5cm - a very formidable weapon indeed! Barrel life was somewhat restricted by the nature of hte beast, to about 400 rds.

I don't know if HE rounds were made - if they were then they would have been considerably less effective than those for "normal" weapons of the same major calibre.

Data from "Anti-Tank WEapons" WW2 FactFile series, Chamberlain & Gander, pub McDonalds & Janes.

January 13, 2001

There was something about the first designs for the Tiger favoring one of the squeeze bore tungsten ammo'd guns, which would have resulted in a much smaller tank than the Tiger ended up to be. Lack of tungsten meant the massive 88 had to be used instead...therefore the massive Tiger version was developed.

jasoncawley@ameritech.net · January 13, 2001

Yes, you are right about the 28mm being a squeeze bore and the rest. In fact the 37 was standard earlier. Both had trouble penetrating heavier allied tanks (particularly the Brit Matilda), even early in the war.

On the other fellow's DU question, I can explain some of the issues as I know them. DU is used primarily for its density, but it also has other useful properties. To understand all the reasons, you have to know a bit about modern composite armor.

On a tank like the M-1, the armor is a sandwich of different layers, designed to defeat different aspects of penetrating rounds. First there is a plate of face hardened steel, thick enough to stop small arms and HE effects but which most anti-tank rounds can easily get through.

Behind it is a thin layer of a special ceramic held in place by a titanium mesh. This is designed to shatter rapidly and thus to carry away energy from the point of impact around half of the tank. It is also heat resistent, and less dense than the steel ahead of it. It essentially crumbles into powder barely held in place by the mesh, and in doing so it makes room for molten bits of metal from the initial penetration, and tends to spread and isolate them in a sort of "sand" that resists heat.

Behind the ceramic is another thick steel plate. A penetrating round has to bore through this, it is not enough to produce spalling behind it by a shock-wave of pressure through the armor, because there are further layers still ahead. Behind this second steel plate is the DU layer, about an inch thick, sandwiched into the middle of the armor. It is much, much denser than the steel plate ahead of it, which the penetrator still has to bore through.

Well, boring through something is actually pushing that something back into the thing behind to make room. If the stuff behind is as rigid or more so, it is possible to just transmit the shock wave through the material without displacing it - a column through the armor acts like a nail, with the round the hammer pounding it further into the tank. Clear enough. But a denser but not as rigid layer behind makes this much harder to achieve.

See, moving stuff out of the way is a function of density. Driving a shockwave through the armor itself is a function of rigidity. The ideal thing in the armor itself at this point, is very dense but with some "give" to it in hardness terms (ability to melt and compress e.g.). That is what the DU provides. It is then backed up with a last rigid plate, so that its give does not break into the tank.

DU rounds will defeat such specialized armors better than non DU rounds. DU is very dense but not heat resistent and hard like tungsten is. It is comparatively softer. But even in liquid form it is much denser than solid steel.

DU going through an armor plate will move between cracks in more seperated, less dense materials. (You can think of it as how "sharp" it is, heated). It is good at pushing stuff out of the way. When DU gets to another DU layer, it moves it relatively easily, but with some spreading out of the area of the impact. If the inward-moving DU is strong enough in total momentum terms it will break through the plate behind, as unable to hold up its weight in effect, rather than shattering off a small piece of the inward face.

What happens when very rigid rounds hit this kind of armor? They get to the DU layer and then they cartwheel off. It is easier for the round to tear through the upper layers of steel moving sideways (rear of the "arrow" rotating upward) than to push the DU out of the way straight ahead. The round is not defeated by "out-hard-ing" it and causing it to shatter, but by making the way into the tank less easy for pushing stuff out of the way, than a deflection that cuts a groove in the upper armor. The rigidness of the round is not all gain.

Understand, the kinetic energy of the round is enourmous, and it is going to go somewhere. There are only a limited number of candidate places for it to go. The best of them is to remain kinetic energy of that round while not passing through the interior of the tank. Next best is spread over as much of the tank as possible, or converted to heat over a wider area. The thing one wants to avoid is all of the kinetic energy staying focused right along the initial direction of flight, because there is enough energy there to vaporize (if heat) a thin column of armor, or accelerate that column of armor into the tank, or both - with lots to spare inside if the energy does not spread out.

Conversely, what one wants in a round is super high kinetic energy to start with of course (and dense helps that), enough hardness to not shatter, and a minimum cross section not just at the point of impact (the thinness of the arrow) but through the whole length of the widdening cone made down into the armor.

The chief thing keeping that "focusing" there, is just the inertia of the round. It is going so fast it doesn't "want" to change direction easily. But whether it meets anything denser than itself along the way will also effect that, as will "room" or give it meets, etc.

That is about as much as I know about it. Undoubtedly there are parts missing.

For what it is worth...

illo · January 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tabano:

Hey Illo, glad to see you here!

When my CM copy arrives, I would like to play some PBEMs with you!

Salute,

Tabano<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure Nice to see you here. Just E-mail me when you get your copy of CM.

StellarRat · January 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net: