Shrapnel

[Old Tom]

A couple of recent threads have referred to shrapnel. My limited knowledge of shrapnel is that the shrapnel ball or bullet (not sure of the proper term) varried in size from 41 to the pound to 27 to the pound and the quantity per shell from 234 for the 13 pounder to 7,766 for the 12" gun. Also that, in 1914, the BEF only had shrapnel shells (no HE) as they were not expecting to engage troops in trenches or block houses. I believe the designation of ball/bullet size by number per pound is a traditional/historic method, like shot guns e.g. if a 12 bore fired single balls there would be 12 balls per pound.

Gaps in my knowledge include the reasons for the use of different size of ball/bullet, the method of manufacture of balls/bullets ( shot tower?) and the tactical use of shrapnel by the larger pieces i.e those manned by the RGA. In 1914 the 60 pounders were part of the divisional artillery and would be used, more or less, as the field artillery and would be highly effective against troops in the open. As corps and army artillery emerged I have assumed that the major, if not only, role was bombardment of trenches and strong points and counter battery by HE shell although, I suppose 7,000 bullets arriving at a battery position would be highly unpleasant.

Is the term 'beaten zone' appropriate to shrapnel? I suppose such zones for guns would be larger than for howitzers and that the heavier bullets from the larger shells would carry further. But, I also assume that the shrapnel bullet is only effective against personnel although damage would be done to vehicles, particularly horse drawn.

Comments would be appreciated.

Old Tom

[auchonvillerssomme]

I have read somewhere and can't for the life of me remember where that the larger balls were useful against horse lines.

Mick

[truthergw]

Just a few thoughts Tom. Shrapnel would damage wooden buildings and also strip slate and tiled roofs in time. The different sizes, I would assume, represent a compromise between impact increasing with size and area of effect increasing with number of bullets. I generally associate beaten zone with a machine gun but I should think that the soixante-quinze firing shrapnel at its maximum rate would be delivering a tremendous amount of bullets in a short time and the local effect might resemble machine gun fire. The main difference being that the beaten zone of a machine gun is shaped like an exclamation mark with its point at the muzzle where as shrapnel will hit a near circle or box surrounding the target.

[Old Tom]

Thanks for those thoughts.

MG v Shrapnel - An 18 pdr firing 6 rds per minute could put 2000 bullets into an area while a single MG fired 500, but I'm not at all sure if the beaten zones would be the same.

Beaten zones for shrapnel - I think an howitzer firing shrapnel at a high angle would achieve a nearly circular beaten zone, but a gun firing at low angle would surely achieve a narrow ellipse like shape, albeit not symetrical with its wide end away from the gun.

Olod Tom

[TonyE]

Olod(?) Tom - I think the difference is that it would be much easier for an MG to traverse along a trench line or attack line to deliver its 500 bullets than for an 18 Pdr to be re-sighted whilst firing at 6 r.p.m. (although I thought Rate 4 was the rapid rate).

It is an interesting question though, whether it was more effective to bring a Vickers into action when a counter attack developed than to fire an SOS and wait for the shrapnel to arrive. I know some artillery units prided themselves on their response time to an SOS, so I suspect the answer was that both were equally well used.

Regards

TonyE

[ianjonesncl]

Is the term 'beaten zone' appropriate to shrapnel? I suppose such zones for guns would be larger than for howitzers and that the heavier bullets from the larger shells would carry further. But, I also assume that the shrapnel bullet is only effective against personnel although damage would be done to vehicles, particularly horse drawn.

Old Tom

The terminology for shrapnel would be the "Cone of Dispersion". When a shell expoldes in the air you can see a cone form from a point above the ground to a circle on the ground. It is in that cone of dispersion that the effects of the shelll are made.

The lethality of the fire would have depended upon the the frontage of the battery (affecting the overlap of cones), and the range (affecting the area covered by individual cones).

These are my notes on the use of Shrapnel from the Field Artillery Training Manual. It is a bit technical, but essentialy the battery comander would work out the size of the target, the frontage of the battery, do various calculations from the guns range tables and give the relevant firing data to the guns.

Shrapnel

Shrapnel shells contained a bursting charge to open the shell and release the bullets (round balls) and enough smoke to allow the burst to be observed. They were provided with both time and percussion fuzes.

The numbers of bullets contained within shells are (FAT 110);

· 13 pdr QF shell – weight 12 ½ pounds 236 bullets

· 18 pdr QF shell – weight 18 ½ pounds 375 bullets

The effectiveness of the shrapnel depends upon the nature of the target and the position of the burst. The bursting of the charge and the centrifugal force combine to project the bullets onto the target.

The guidance given within the Field Artillery Training Manual Section 110 para 9 to 14

Percussion Shrapnel

· Percussion shrapnel is used for ranging and in the case of the 18 pdr has given excellent results at targets placed behind a brick wall 24 inches thick. It may therefore be considered that the fire of percussion shrapnel will be effective against troops defending ordinary buildings

· Good effect has also been obtained with it against guns and personnel behind shields when direct hits are obtained.

Time Shrapnel

· Time shrapnel is used against living targets, against aircraft and balloons, and for ranging.

Distribution of Fire (FAT 214)

The average distance a time shrapnel shell bursts short of the target is 50 yards. The charge and the The lateral space covered by the cone of dispersion is 35 percent of the distance burst short.

A single gun would therefore cover 17 ½ yards giving the frontage covered as follows:

· 6 gun battery 105 yards

· 4 gun battery 70 yards.

The greater the range, the less area covered by the cone of dispersion. The frontage of the battery and the range will determine the density of bullets in a particular area.

The following figures are for the 18 pounder QF: (FAT 113)

· Range 2000 yards burst short 80 yards – cone of dispersion 28 yards

· Range 3000 yards burst short 70 yards – cone of dispersion 24 ½ yards

· Range 4000 yards burst short 60 yards – cone of dispersion 21 yards

· Range 5000 yards burst short 55 yards – cone of dispersion 19 yards

· Range 6000 yards burst short 50 yards – cone of dispersion 17.5 yards.

Consequently a battery of 6 guns firing parallel (deployed in a straight line) with a frontage of 100 yards would give 17 yards between guns, therefore covering the frontage at a range of 6000 yards, whilst at 2000 yards a greater density of bullets would be achieved.

The size of targets can be measured at different ranges:

· 2,000 yards 100 yards measures 3 degrees for a 6 gun battery

· 3,000 yards 100 yards measures 2 degrees for a 6 gun battery

· 4,000 yards 100 yards measures 1 ½ degrees for a 6 gun battery

· 5,000 yards 100 yards measures 1 degree 10 minutes for a 6 gun battery

· 6,000 yards 100 yards measures 1 degree for a 6 gun battery

If the target size is greater than the frontage of the battery, then the guns will be given an order to Distribute Fire, a smaller target would result in the Concentration of Fire.

[Mark Foxe]

A fascinating topic and one that, in the main, most individuals with an interest in WW1 do not fully understand or appreciate. This is especially the case given the percentage of troops killed and wounded by shrapnel.

While on the topic, are you aware of what sound/noise was associated with the approach of a shrapnel shell?

Mark

[ianjonesncl]

Olod(?) Tom - I think the difference is that it would be much easier for an MG to traverse along a trench line or attack line to deliver its 500 bullets than for an 18 Pdr to be re-sighted whilst firing at 6 r.p.m. (although I thought Rate 4 was the rapid rate).

It is an interesting question though, whether it was more effective to bring a Vickers into action when a counter attack developed than to fire an SOS and wait for the shrapnel to arrive. I know some artillery units prided themselves on their response time to an SOS, so I suspect the answer was that both were equally well used.

Regards

TonyE

Tony

One aspect to consider is that Machine Guns can switch to a target quicker than artillery. If the SOS fire is not effective and needs adjusting, there will be a delay, as calculations are made (although hopefully they have done this as a precaution) , and guns are re-laid. The machine gunners are more flexible.

It should also be noted that SOS fire is affected by the meteorological conditions. So unless met is up to date the SOS fire may not be accurate. It was not until 1917 that meteor was widely used. Consequently waiting for the shrapnel may not be advisable, it may be in the wrong place !!!

I would have thought that the machine guns would have been tied into the defensive fireplan. Hopefuly someone will provide a reference.

[ianjonesncl]

In 1914 the 60 pounders were part of the divisional artillery and would be used, more or less, as the field artillery and would be highly effective against troops in the open.

Tom

From the Field Artillery Training Manual 1914

"The long range fire of guns of this nature should be used to bring enfilade and cross fire to bear on the enemy's positions. The sites chosen should be such as to facilitate fire being brought to bear on as much ground occupied by the enemy as possible"

For this reason the 60 pounders could be deployed to the flanks in order to shoot across the divisional frontage, thereby providing enfilade fire.

[ianjonesncl]

As corps and army artillery emerged I have assumed that the major, if not only, role was bombardment of trenches and strong points and counter battery by HE shell although, I suppose 7,000 bullets arriving at a battery position would be highly unpleasant.

Old Tom

This Map of Harassing Fire provides quite a good insight as to the types of targets that would be engaged in depth. They include communications, HQ's, active locations as well as counter battery targets.

[Rockdoc]

What's the theoretical direction of ejection for shrapnel bullets? If there's a cone of dispersion, that suggests the initial direction is normal to the direction of flight. Blowing the nose off the shell and ejecting through the hole wouldn't give as great a degree of dispersion, would it?

I'm asking because I've always been curious about the use of shrapnel for AA work as it seems to be quite inefficient if the balls were ejected sideways. It would require the shell to explode quite close to the aircraft to have any chance of being effective and, inevitably, the great majority of the balls will fly away from the target and be completely wasted. The proportion of HE and shrapnel used by the various Sections in Salonika wasn't uniform, with some using more of one than the other and vice versa, suggesting that the type of shell used was down to the individual O/C.

Keith

[centurion]

I'm asking because I've always been curious about the use of shrapnel for AA work as it seems to be quite inefficient if the balls were ejected sideways. It would require the shell to explode quite close to the aircraft to have any chance of being effective and, inevitably, the great majority of the balls will fly away from the target and be completely wasted.

The whole idea of shrapnel as opposed to shell is that the balls continue traveling with essentially the same momentum as the shell and the bursting charge is just that; it bursts the casing and does not propel the shrapnel balls. Sideways ejection doesn't seem to fit with that. If a shrapnel shell is traveling towards the target aircraft the balls should also go in that direction. Shrapnel is just long range case shot (and indeed was originally called Spherical Case Shot)

[daggers]

As an aside, what a relief to see the proper use of the word shrapnel, as it is so often used where 'shell splinters' or similar would be correct.

[centurion]

Quote from a soldier's letter of 1917

"I was wounded by a shell splinter or shrapnel as it now seems to be called" so the confusion is of long standing.

[ianjonesncl]

As corps and army artillery emerged I have assumed that the major, if not only, role was bombardment of trenches and strong points and counter battery by HE shell although, I suppose 7,000 bullets arriving at a battery position would be highly unpleasant.

Old Tom

I have gone through Farndale - History of the Royal Artillery Western Front 1914 - 18 and looked at many of the fire plans from the Somme onward. In the main, the use of shrapnel was for the 18 pounder field guns, the howitzers and heavier guns being used as you have described against trenches and counter battery targets.

With the introduction of the 106 fuse in 1917, the use of HE increased especially as it was more effective than shrapnel for wire cutting (reference Battle Tactics of the Western Front 1916 - 1918 Paddy Griffith). The fire plans show a mixture of HE & Shrapnel being used (eg Arras 50 / 50).

There are a few interesting references as to the use of Shrapnel in Farndale:

Somme 1916 "the fire of the Heavy Group would engage a position and drive the enemy into shelters; it would lift to another target and a few minutes later the 18 pounders would engage the same targets with shrapnel, so catching the enemy as they came out to repair the damage"

Capture of Gommecourt August 1918 " A creeping barrage of, 75% shrapnel, 25% HE, supplemented by a fixed barrage of forty machine guns, carried the infantry over 1,000 yards of flat open ground without difficulty."

[NigelS]

As an aside, what a relief to see the proper use of the word shrapnel, as it is so often used where 'shell splinters' or similar would be correct.

As a further aside it's interesting to note from the OED (even though Centurion's Soldier's letter indicates that it may - even if strictly in error - have been in widespread, and understandably, common usage in such a way prior to this in WW1) that by 1940 one of its definitions (3) of 'Shrapnel', evidently through common usage, had become 'fragments from shell & bombs':

1. A hollow projectile containing bullets and a small bursting charge, which, when fired by the time fuse, bursts the shell and scatters the bullets in a shower.

The term

Shrapnel shell

was adopted officially (instead of

spherical case shot

) in accordance with the Report of a Select Committee at Woolwich dated 11 June, 1852. Used in forms

Shrapnel's

or

shrapnel shell, shot

or as collect. sing.

2.

Austral.

and

N.Z. Mil. slang.

Small change, notes, or coins of low denominations.

3. Fragments from shells or bombs (see quot. 1940).

1940

N. & Q.

CLXXIX. 278/1 The public has chosen to ignore the facts that shrapnel shell has become obsolete and that anti-aircraft guns fire high-explosive only. In consequence the shell fragments which are at present descending upon its devoted head are unhesitatingly referred to by the public as ‘shrapnel’ and the correct expression, ‘shell fragments’, has begun to verge on pedantry. 1940 W. S. Churchill

Secret Session Speeches

(1946) 20 Our barrage will be firing, and ...great numbers of shell splinters usually described most erroneously as shrapnel, will be falling in the streets.

From the quote given under definition 3, Churchill was obviously fighting a rear-guard action to attempt to correct matters during WW2, but evidently by then the battle had already been lost.

Believing it to be of far more recent usage, I hadn't realised using 'shrapnel' to describe small change dated back to c. WWI (the earliest reference quoted by the OED is in 1919 from WH Downing's Digger Dialects), but I must admit to being a bit puzzled as to how it became associated with banknotes which, unlike coins, have absolutely no resemblence to fragments, splinters or shot, other than that, like shrapnel (by any definition), there may have been a large amount of smaller value French & Belgian notes in circulation at the time. (going way off topic, if this was the case, maybe because the metals usually used for coinage were being diverted to munitions ?)

NigelS

[ianjonesncl]

Gaps in my knowledge include the reasons for the use of different size of ball/bullet, the method of manufacture of balls/bullets ( shot tower?)

This internet book Shrapnel and other war material (1915) may be of interest. I have only glanced through it and it mostly looks at the engineering aspects of the actual hell and cartridge. There may be some information on the manufacture of the bullets.

[centurion]

Churchill was obviously fighting a rear-guard action to attempt to correct matters during WW2, but evidently by then the battle had already lost.

Indeed - reading an account of the development of alternatives to armour plate for war ships in 1940 one form (fine stone pieces in a tar matrix) was praised as not contributing shrapnel by shattering when hit with a high explosive shell. So shrapnel was already being used to mean any flying metal resulting from an explosion and not just part of the projectile.

[johnreed]

There were several methods of making Shrapnel Bullets in lead and antimony alloy of 87.5% lead and 12.5% antimony. One method is to cast the bullets in iron molds, which are split in the center, so that the bullets can be removed when cast a very antiquated method. Another is to cut off slugs from lead wire and strike these between dies in a heading machine. The bullet heading machine takes the wire from the reel, cuts it off, forms it and trims off the resultant flash automatically., Another method is to use a swaging machine for making the bullets out of lead/antimony wire twelve bullets are formed at each pass of the dies which rotate at 70 revolutions per minute, which gives a rated production of 840 bullets per minute from each machine. After forming, the bullets are put in a tumbling machine where they are tunbled for one hour to remove any excess material left in the forming process. No other material is put in the tumbling barrel, this operation has to be carefully watched because of the necessity of having the bullets a certain weight, the tolerance on 1 lb. of bullets is one dram (one sixteenth of an ounce) and there are 41 bullets to the pound. After tumbling, the bullets are inspected and are then ready for use. The diameter of the bullet is 0.5 in.

John

[Rockdoc]

Quote from a soldier's letter of 1917

"I was wounded by a shell splinter or shrapnel as it now seems to be called" so the confusion is of long standing.

My Grandfather was, as he always put it, blown up by a shell on 1st July, 1916. Although the metal down his RH side was certainly made up of shell fragments he always called it shrapnel.

Keith

[nigelfe]

Actually there was HE for some guns/howitzers in 1914.

60-pr were, of course, the subject of Garrison Artillery Training (GAT) not Field Artillery Training (FAT), however while I haven't done a line by line comparison I don't think there was any significant difference.

A Shrapnel shell had three 'beaten zones', which of course combined with the bullets on the ground. The first was the Probable Error in range of the shell, round to round and given in the firing table, basically it was caused by round to round variation in muzzle velocity (MV). Second was the variation in the fuze, MV was an influence but the main variation was probably the fuze burning speed and hence time. Finally the bullet cone, actually an ellipse pattern on the ground (imagine a torch beam pointed downwards at an angle of about 30 degrees to horizontal and held a couple of feet above the ground (moving the torch parallel to the ground would simulate the PEr, moving it along the 30 deg slope simulates the fuze variation, changing the angle of the slope simulates different ranges and hence angles of descent).

Shrapnel was effective for wire cutting, but in relatively limited circumstances, for 18-pr there was a range bracket that gave a suitably flat trajectory which maximised the number of bullets through the wire and hence maximised the chance of a bullet hitting wire. GHQ Arty Notes No 4 (1916 and 17), give quite a lot of useful information, but you needed 7 rds per yard of front, trials had been conducted on the French beach or somewhere.

Bethel, in Modern Artillery in the Field (1911) states that the shrapnel bursting charge added 150 - 200 f/s to terminal velocity of the shell. He also states "the weight of the bullets is a difficult matter to decide, since if made too light they will lose their effective velocity after travelling a short distance, while if too heavy the number of bullets in the shell will be reduced. This difficulty may be met in two different ways. In France, the field gun has a flat trajectory, giving the shell a high remaining velocity, and full advantage has been taken of this by using a large bullet (38 to the pound) which enables the shrapnel burst to cover a length of 300 metres on the ground. In Germany, the converted field gun is a weak gun with a curved trajectory, giving a comparitively small danger zone. Accordingly the Germans use a small bullet (45 to the pound) in order to get as many as possible into the shell and increase the number of hits. Our own field gun gives a velocity and angle of descent intermediate between those obtained with the French and German guns, and accordingly we use a bullet of 42 to the pound, intermediate between the two." I'm not entirely convinced of this as the whole truth.

[Old Tom]

A very extensive series of inputs for which many thanks. I wonder if Nigelfe can enlarge on his comment as to HE in 1914. My reading has always indicated that the BEF on initial deployment only carried shrapnel. Was HE issued after deployment? Did HE arrive with the 6" hows when they were deployed?

Old Tom

[nigelfe]

A very extensive series of inputs for which many thanks. I wonder if Nigelfe can enlarge on his comment as to HE in 1914. My reading has always indicated that the BEF on initial deployment only carried shrapnel. Was HE issued after deployment? Did HE arrive with the 6" hows when they were deployed?

My understanding is that the standard scales were 13 & 18 pr 100% shrapnel, field howitzers and heavy guns 30% lydite. I think the 6-in were 100% common/pointed shell. Standard scales were what was stocked, so when batteries mobilised that's what they took.

[Rockdoc]

I think the thing to remember is what the pre-War planners anticipated the various guns being used for. The 13-pdr and 18-pdr were expected to be used mainly as cavalry and infantry support, respectively, firing against troops so Shrapnel is the obvious ammunition for them. Neither side seems to have predicted the static warfare that developed so quickly after the outbreak so there would be no need seen for HE for the lighter guns.

Lyddite (picric acid)-based HE was difficult to make and, even worse, the shells deteriorated over time. The metal salts formed as the acid attacked the shell casing were much less stable than the acid itself - the shells could explode if roughly handled if things had been allowed to go too far - so it was in nobody's interests to have large stocks of Lyddite HE sitting around when there wasn't a war on. The development of shells based on other explosives not only meant the shells had a greater shelf life (not that that was much of a problem for most of the War!) but allowed an increase in production rates.

Keith

[squirrel]

IIRC HE for 18 pdrs was available in limited quantities in late 1914 and from there onwards but not in the quantities required until early 1916. I stand to be corrected of course.