Canister

[nigelfe]

Wire cutting needed a flat angle of descent to maximise the number of bullets going through the belt of wire and maximise the chance of a hit, hence the gun range band for effective wire cutting was relatively small. Howitzers weren't really suitable for wire cutting.

Of course the role of shrapnel in a covering fire barrage was to prevent the enemy manning their trench parapets, preferably keeping them in their shelters. For this this shapnel in low angle fire was best and burst in front of the trenches so that it swept over the trench and might also affect the next trench back if it wasn't too far away.

[Muerrisch]

I think [fatal] that canister was retained for mountain arty. very useful against a nasty rush with knives ........ cannot find a reference at the moment.

[TonyE]

I checked "Treatise on Ammunition 1915" and there is no mention or listing for Cannister in any calibre.

Regards

TonyE

[Crunchy]

That presupposes that the staffs knew that WW1 was going to be a wholly trench war - which they didn`t. Would canister have been handy during the retreat from Mons?

Tom R has suggested a lethal range of 50yds for USCW canister - what would it be for the guns of 1914?

Phil,

I think the answer lies in the fact, as Centurion has said, that cannister and shrapnel were the same but delivered differently. Cannister, as Tom has mentioned, was a flat trajectory round fired from muzzle loaders with a relatively short range. It was a fairly crude ammuntion, the tin coming apart at the muzzle and allowiing the balls to fly forward in an expanding pattern. The shrapnel shell, in its various types, gave the balls a much longer range by carrying them in an encased shell, and bursting at a pre set range to engage the infantry. It was more versatile than cannister in that it could engage infantry at varying ranges, and a long way from the guns. It could, however, be set to fire like cannister. For example, on the 26th April 1915, three 18 pounders of the 7th AFA Battery were emplaced just behind the infantry trenches on Bolton's Ridge, firing over their heads. That evening the Turkish infantry attacked the 8th Battalion across the Wheatfield; the gunners set their shells to burst as they left the muzzle and shredded the Turksih attack. Given this could be done, there was no need to have two different types of shell: the 18 pounder shrapnel shell fulfilled both functions.

Regards

Chris

[nigelfe]

After a bit of quick research, I don't think 'cannister' was used at all by artillery in the late 19th C and later. According to the RA History (Headlam) in about 1880 the projectiles for RHA, field artillery, seige and position artillery were shrapnel shell, common shell and case shot. RML howitzers also had star shell. 7-pr mountain gun had a special 'double' common shell for use against villages and sangars. Earlier, c. mid century the Armstrong BL had segment shell, common shell and case shot. Shrapnel for BL was developed by Colonel EM Boxer in 1865 (obviously it was long available for ML).

The volume of the history covers the period 1860 to 1914 and there is no mention of cannister in the index.

[PhilB]

Phil,

the gunners set their shells to burst just after they left the muzzle and shredded the Turksih attack. Given this could be done, there was little need to have two different types of shell: the 18 pounder shrapnel shell fulfilled both functions.

Regards

Chris

That would, indeed, seem to obviate the need for canister! Sounds a bit dangerous for the artillery men?

[Crunchy]

Sounds a bit dangerous for the artillery men?

Not really. The shell burst beyond the muzzle and the balls flew forward. The gunners were behind the shield.

Cheers

Chris

[MikB]

I think Cannister's role was really superseded by machine guns.

Shrapnel wouldn't have been invented if it hadn't been desirable to start the spread of shot some distance from the gun, so its use was mainly at distances outside 'normal' effective smallarms range - say 1500 yards and beyond - whereas Cannister was probably most effective inside 500 yards or so. Beyond that, the pattern density would become low.

As rifle ranges increased through the 19thC, so the usefulness of cannister began to decline. It's obviously undesirable to site your artillery within range of enemy smallarms,and shrapnel offered a solution with comparable lethality and without the drawback.

For stopping frontal attacks at shorter distances the machine gun proved itself very effective and much simpler to deploy.

Regards,

MikB

[Muerrisch]

As an historical perspective, the 2.5" RML jointed gun [screw gun} 1888 handbook, was issued with

common shell

shrapnel shell

star shell

case shot, 159 metal balls, 34 to the lb.

[Khaki]

That is not so. A shell exploding just behind a trench can only throw the shrapnel balls forward, so how can they hit "all parts" of the trench which is behind it?

Regards

TonyE

There alway's seems to be a misconception that 'incoming' shell fire, is coming from an enemy position directly opposite the defended trenches. As I said, using Ypres as an example, that in a salient or for that matter any battle zone, artillery may direct their fire at any angle at any position eg., SOS lines, so that the 'incoming' shrapnel in this case would not have a cone of fire from parapet to parados, but could be at an acute angle to a defended trench, and again as at Ypres, could come from the sides or even toward the rear of the salient. Hence my proposition that 'no where' in a trench would be safe from shrapnel

.

regards

khaki

[bushfighter]

Indian mountain gunners in East Africa during the Great War sometimes used shrapnel fuzed at 1.5 seconds in the direct fire role.

This, on a flat firing trajectory, must have felt like cannister to the opposition.

Harry

[TonyE]

... A shell exploding just behind a trench could include in it's 'downward cone of fire' (like a giant shotgun) all parts of a

khaki

That is a somewhat disingenuous reply, Khaki, as your post clearly states "Behind a trench" thus implying direction from in front and not from a flank.

Regards

TonyE

[Khaki]

That is a somewhat disingenuous reply, Khaki, as your post clearly states "Behind a trench" thus implying direction from in front and not from a flank.

Regards

TonyE

My reply was not intended to be disingenuous, and if that is that is the interpretation, then I apologise, my post, in clarity, actually reads as " just behind a trench" the point that I am trying to make (apparently with little success) is that under the best of circumstances, no place in a trench is safe from shrapnel, as even a shell from the front can tumble and deposit it's contends anywhere. As I seem to be making little progress with this thread and my line of thought is not being understood, I will leave further comment to others.

regards

khaki

[PhilB]

Thanks for all the input, gents. The comments on shrapnel have made me realize that I have never read a description by a man who has actually been hit on the helmet by a shrapnel ball. Assuming that a man took a hit at full force (ie high velocity) what was the effect on him and on his helmet?

[MikB]

Thanks for all the input, gents. The comments on shrapnel have made me realize that I have never read a description by a man who has actually been hit on the helmet by a shrapnel ball. Assuming that a man took a hit at full force (ie high velocity) what was the effect on him and on his helmet?

At 41 balls to the pound, an 18-pounder shrapnel ball weighed 170 grains - similar to a rifle-calibre bullet. If it struck at, say, 1200 ft./sec. at around 2000 yards, it had about 540 ft.lb. kinetic energy - more powerful than any standard pistol round of the time at point-blank. It seems very unlikely that a helmet could protect the soldier from a fatal headwound unless the angle of impact were very oblique to the helmet surface. However, many strikes might indeed be oblique, although the wrench to the helmet could presumably still produce severe injuries. At longer ranges the chances would be better, and in any case the helmet might protect against ricochets and secondary projectiles like stone fragments. It was better than a soft cap, but it would be a lucky man who managed to write a description after being hit 'at full force'.

Regards,

MikB

[PhilB]

Indian mountain gunners in East Africa during the Great War sometimes used shrapnel fuzed at 1.5 seconds in the direct fire role.

This, on a flat firing trajectory, must have felt like cannister to the opposition.

Harry

At a muzzle velocity of, say, 800fps, that equates to 1200 ft (about a quarter of a mile) before the balls are ejected. Is that as low as a fuze can be set?