Shrapnel shells, how do they work?

[Pozieres]

Might sound a bit basic to you lot, but how exactly does a shrapnel shell work?

I'm reading Richard Holmes' Tommy and he mentions shrapnel shells bursting at 30 feet above the German trench showering them with shot.

Any Artillery experts out there can shed some light please?

[AndyHollinger]

These are not "smart" bombs or anything like it ... but think of the shrapnel shells from Napoleon's day ... they had a "fuse" ignited when the piece was fired and it burst when it did ... hopefully over the heads of enemy soldiers ... well, same thing in WWI ... only the fuse was set as a timer on the nose of the shell ... twist to a setting which was a timer and it blew up ... sending all these little round balls - invented by a Mr. Shrapnel (I believe during the Boer War) out and causing infantry casualties ...

[Pozieres]

Thanks Andy

[NIGEL]

This topic came up before and ended in disagreement i think in the difference between shrapnel and anti-personel shells

[Max Poilu]

The basic Shrapnel shell is quite simple. The shell casing itself is actually quite thin as it does not need to 'resist' the detonation as in a HE shell. The fuse is fitted to the shell with shallow threads so that it is seperated from the shell casing easily.

From the fuse a hollow tube runs inside the shell to a base plate below the shrapnel balls - around 350 lead balls packed in resin in an 18 pounder. Below this plate is a small charge of black powder.

When the timed fuse triggers above the target a small flash is sent from the fuse down the tube igniting the black powder. This detonation pushes the base outwards ejecting the balls and the fuse head in a wide area over the ground. Think of the shell as a huge shotgun cartridge. The combined velocity of the forward motion of the shell and ejected balls produces an obvious lethal effect.

The shell casings are not designed to fracture. All the component parts; balls, casing, fuse, flash tube and plate are probably the most easily found and numerous objects in the battlefields today.

[DrB]

The "Shrapnel Shell" was invented by an officer in the RA by the name of Sir Henry Shrapnel and was first used in 1804. It first consisted of musket balls in a spherical case, but was later refined to other cast, iron balls of about the same size. The British artillery was the only arm in the Napoleonic Wars to use it. This concept was later copied by the rest of the countries of the world.

"Shrapnel" is often misused as a description of a shard from an atrillery shell, but this is definately an incorrect usage of the same. "Balls is balls" and not shards.

In any case (forgive the pun) shrapnel balls or shards could make you an unhappy camper.

DrB

[PhilB]

And if it was your really unlucky day you could be hit by the nosecap or the empty shellcase! I suppose the nosecap would be travelling at high speed and the shellcase at relatively low speed after the explosion of a shrapnel shell. Phil B

[Tim Birch]

I suppose the grooves on a Mills bomb had a similar effect causing the casing to fragment into shards.

I know this came up in another thread, but didn't 18th century cannons fire a round known as "canister" or "case"? I think the former also consisted of little lead balls, but these were dispersed by the canvas bag they were packed in disintergrating rather than though a fused charge scattering them.

Another device for dismasting ships or dismembering people was "chain shot" which consisted of two cannon balls fired together and linked by a chain.

Shapnel was used with great effect by the British against the Boers during the South African War, when they found their trenches provided little if any cover. In the Great War sections of trench were sheeted over with corrugated iron overlaid by earth as a shield against shapnel.

It was the shards which produced the hideous and disfiguring wounds. Shapnel was still lethal but tended to punch a neat round hole through it's victim like a rifle bullet.

Tim

[PhilB]

The effects of shrapnel were brought home to me by seeing bones in museums with shrapnel balls embedded in them. One was a skull with the ball only half visible, the other half being embedded. Knowing how a small tap on the head feels, one can easily imagine the effect of such an impact. The impact of a ball may be more like a dumdum bullet than a normal bullet, due to its shape. Phil B

[Stuart Brown]

Interesting images on a previous thread Here

[Max Poilu]

I suppose the grooves on a Mills bomb had a similar effect causing the casing to fragment into shards.

Bit of an old chesnut this (and an old fav topic) - opinion is divided on whether the grooving was there to aid fragmentation or to give a better grip to the thrower. Certainly most modern grenades and indeed most Great War grenades were not fragmented.

Regardless, Mills grenades did not break up into lots of neat squares rather a few large pieces.

[DrB]

I would agree with Giles.

The original intention, I believe, was that the grenades would burst into neat little squares, but this was often not the case and sometimes the things were not nearly as lethal as they appeared.

The US grenade, the "pineapple," was similar in appearence to the Mills bomb and was used throughout WWI and WWII by the US. Its use continued into the Korean conflict but was replaced by one with a tightly wound steel coil that was notched every one eighth of an inch or so to increase its wounding capablilities and lethality. It was introduced midway in the Korean disagreement and several models have been used since then. The grenade case is smooth in appearence.

Hollywood seems to think that a grenade must look like the old serrated one, and hence we are subjected to folks brandishing about "grenades:' that were outdated since about 1951.

"Cannister" was a direct fire weapon from a cannon. It had no bursting charge and was rather like a monstrous shotgun blast. There were times, during the American War of Succession, ACW is a misnomer, of the Southern forces using anything they could find to make a cannister round, scrap metal, nails, etc.

As Tim says, chain shot and grape were used most effectively at sea to dismast and/or tear up the opponents rigging, sails. and personnel.

DrB

[Guest woodyudet]

Canister and Case are the same thing I believe. A metal case consisting of small balls. A powder charge is ignited behind the canister, and the canister burst upon exiting the barrel showering balls like a gigantic shotgun. It was deadly, but only at short range - best used against massed infantry or cavalry.

This is not to be confused with 'grape' which is a naval rather than military weapon.

Canister was fired by Australian Centurion Tanks to great effect in the Vietnam War.

For anyone interested in 17th-19th Century artillery, you could do worse than consult:

BP Hughes "Firepower - weapons effectiveness on the battlefield 1630-1850"

P Griffith "Rally once again - battle tactics of the american civil war"

[Max Poilu]

The US grenade, the "pineapple," was similar in appearence to the Mills bomb

The US 'pineapple' was a copy of the French F1, the Americans used both French F1's and VB rifle grenades in the Great War.

[Guest John Sukey]

slightly disagree. As grape shot was also used on mounted troops at longer ranges, switching to cannister when the range decreased, which would then make it effective against both mounted and dismounted troops. I can imagine double and even triple cannister loads aginst infantry must have been horribly effective.

[PhilB]

Advancing towards cannon firing grape/canister strikes me as one of the severest tests of infantry, especially as the guns were presumably backed by their own infantry firing rounds of around 0.5 inch calibre. I suspect the gunners would get short shrift if the advancing infantry caught them, rather like the machine gunners of WW1. Phil B

[NIGEL]

i always thought in grape shot some of the balls were linked together with wire so they travel through the air like a flail

[ChrisC]

I'm pretty sure that the difference between grape and canister was the size, which, let's face it Darling does, in this case, (bad pun) matter.

Canister was shot, about 2 inches in diameter packed into a tin case. Grape was musket balls, similarly packed and a lot more of them. Napoleon is quoted as dispersing a crowd with "a whiff of grapeshot". I seem to recall from my own service that the Saladin armoured car had the capacity to fire canister?

[Aurel Sercu]

As to the shrapnell ejecting the balls... Just a technical aspect, maybe only a detail, but as I have never found the answer and have always been puzzled by it(especially when visitors asked me this question after I had explained how a shrapnell worked...)

At what height (approximately ?) over the enemy soldiers or target was the shrapnel meant to explode (i.e. the ignition of the black powder and the detonation ejecting the lead balls and fuse head).

I think that depended on the target, and the ground surface it was meant to hit. Low altitude for only a few square metres, high for a larger area (in the latter case the density of the lead balls of course would be less, but enough to be lethal to as many soldiers as possible.)

But what is "low" and what is "high" ? Are we talking of something like 5 meters (17 feet) or 30 meters (100 feet) or even more ?

And could the timing (i.e. the setting of it before firing) be so accurate that the balls were ejected just a few meters (let's say 5) over the target ? For a shrapnell ejecting its contents after or when falling on the ground, and one ejecting its contents 5 meters before it hits the ground of course all makes the difference.

I hope I made myself clear (and will have a clear answer ...)

Giles, do you know the answer ?

Aurel

[Max Poilu]

Aurel,

I am not sure of exact figures or the accuracy of the gunners but I believe the shells were designed to have a spread of lethality of around 3 - 400 yards square, ie a ball per square yard. The shower of lead was designed to face into the enemy not just downwards and I think the distance of detonation from the enemy was more like 50 yards +

Remember these were quick firing guns and the gunners would have plenty of practise getting the timing right!

The No.80 fuses used in 18 pdr shells were time and percussion so if the time mechanism failed the shell would still detonate on impact, albeit with a different effect of course.

I keep meaning to buy a copy of the reprinted 'Treatise on Ammunition 1915' which would help with these matters but at nearly £70 I cannot justify it yet...

Totally unrelated but showing how things have changed I seem to remember hearing in a documentary that during the IIWW to have a 50% chance of hitting an area the size of two football pitches with a particular heavy bomb neccesitated dropping 10,000 bombs ie a thousand bomber raid and some 8 - 10 000 men in the air - now it takes one man and one bomb - not sure about these figures but they were along those lines.

[NIGEL]

OK ITS BIGGER THIS TIME SO YOU CAN READ IT------IF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT YOU CALL SHRAPNELL----WHAT IS ANTI-PERSONEL ?

[Aurel Sercu]

I am not sure of exact figures or the accuracy of the gunners but I believe the shells were designed to have a spread of lethality of around 3 - 400 yards square, ie a ball per square yard. The shower of lead was designed to face into the enemy not just downwards and I think the distance of detonation from the enemy was more like 50 yards +

(...)

The No.80 fuses used in 18 pdr shells were time and percussion so if the time mechanism failed the shell would still detonate on impact, albeit with a different effect of course.

Thanks, Giles !

So 300 tot 400 yards square and a height of approx. 50 yards. Interesting. (I had always guessed that it was a lot lower ...)

And I didn't know that the fuses of an 18 pounder were time + percussion. All of them ? I have a shrapnell + fuse, and actually I have never wondered whether it was both time + percussion. I suppose you can recognize a N° 80 fuse when you see one ? I'll take a photo tomorrow and put it here for you to judge.

Aurel

[NIGEL]

Well Giles and Aurel, can i ask another question being as you ignored the other one----Are you two in love that you only have eyes for each other, and only want to share time on the forum with each other, if you dont know the answer to a question i am sure you could just say DONT KNOW instead of totally blanking people as if their questions dont exist.

[Aurel Sercu]

Well Giles and Aurel, can i ask another question being as you ignored the other one----Are you two in love that you only have eyes for each other, and only want to share time on the forum with each other, if you dont know the answer to a question i am sure you could just say DONT KNOW instead of totally blanking people as if their questions dont exist.

Nigel,

I do not know you, but at least I know something about you : your style is not mine. (Or is your posting an example of humour ?)

Let me tell you this :

1. What you wrote in capitals (something I don't like) was not there when I wrote my reply and question to Giles. You posted it while I was writing my posting. How can you ask why I ignored it ?

2. When I saw your big letters I had no idea what you meant. You made it sound as if you were very unhappy that a question of yours had not been answered. The reason that there was no answer is very simple : you had not asked a question.

In a previous posting you had written :

"The topic came up before and ended in disagreement I think in the difference between shrapnel and anti-personel shell".

If you mean this to be a question, why didn't you phrase it as a question ? (By the way : if a question, I do not know the answer. And I humbly apologize for not knowing the answer.)

3. I am not in love with Giles. And I know another person I am not in love with.

4. Are you always so polite, or is it only around midnight ?

Aurel

[NIGEL]

Well that cleared a few things up then thankyou for your reply Aurel, sorry if i offended you if i did in any way-----Does anybody know the difference between shrapnel and anti-personel, if i remember correctly when this question was asked before someone said they are not the same but didnt explain why, so does anybody know ?????????????