Shrapnell

[unmerged(5120)]

Some years ago, an FYI item in Strategy & Tactics told the following anecdote:

Somtime in the 1920's a group of american artificers were toying with a live shrapnell shell in a bunker. Somebody did the wrong thing and the shell exploded.

Surprisingly, nobody was seriously injured, despite the conditions being ideal for a shrapnell's lethality (short range & enclosed space).

So an enquiry was launched amongst US army MD's, asking them to report treatment of shrapnell (the real stuff, not HE shell fragment) wounds during the war. Extremely few were reported.

Then tests were made on shells, and the findings were that the speed of shrapnell balls usually wasn't high enough to penetrate human skin.


I've never read anything else on the same subject, and I'm wondering wether anyone knows anything about the subject?

Given that the majority of the shells fired during WWI were shrapnells, this isn't exactly a detail.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Weird, hadn't shrapnell been around over 100 years before WW1? Wouldn't someone have noticed that it didn't work during that time?

 

[PDH]

Dunno if it is true or not, but effectiveness is not always in the ability to cause casualties - if it were, then the bayonet would be gone...

However, do not discount the psychological effects of the shrapnel shell whether or not it was effective in actually causing wounds as is commonly believed. It reduces the movement of soldiers, heightens all the things called 'friction' in warfare.

Not really knowing if it is true or not - and not remembering 10% of the blurbs I read in S&T so many years ago...

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

I read about this elswhere, it said that it was a 'special' shotgun-shell artillery shell, expensive so they used it less. It was found that altho it could penetrate wood during test, it didn't have the force to penetrate human skin.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by sean9898
Weird, hadn't shrapnell been around over 100 years before WW1? Wouldn't someone have noticed that it didn't work during that time?

Some cavalry went to war in 1914 wearing cuirasses that had been useless against firearms for 400 years, so that doesn't prove anything...

Originally posted by PDH
Dunno if it is true or not, but effectiveness is not always in the ability to cause casualties - if it were, then the bayonet would be gone...

However, do not discount the psychological effects of the shrapnel shell whether or not it was effective in actually causing wounds as is commonly believed. It reduces the movement of soldiers, heightens all the things called 'friction' in warfare.

A very good point. Still, if it's true, HE causes just as much friction, and actually inflicts casualties

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB
I read about this elswhere, it said that it was a 'special' shotgun-shell artillery shell, expensive so they used it less. It was found that altho it could penetrate wood during test, it didn't have the force to penetrate human skin.

Do you remember where you read that?

More generally, although I've read about people wounded by shell fragments, I've NEVER, ever read about anybody, be it in witness account, history book or even novel, being wounded by a shrapnell ball.
Whereas, PDH, there ARE accounts of people actually bayonnetting other people, even if it wasn't all that common, especially after the introduction of the entrenching spade and grenade.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Some cavalry went to war in 1914 wearing cuirasses that had been useless against firearms for 400 years, so that doesn't prove anything...

Many nations still have decorative cavalry, even if just for State occasions. The militaries were slow to change from the decorative to the practical during the 19th century, for example the German picklehaubs (sp?) and the French soldiers wearing bright red stripes on their pants in 1914, the British had finally learnt the value of camoflage during the Boer War. However, for a weapon to be in existence for over a century and to be completely innefective does strike me as being strange.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very unusual, and I am very interested in learning if it is indeed true. Hannibal B, where are you? There must be a link on your HD somewhere?

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

The book was either What If? or a book on military technology. Unfortunatly, I don't own either, and will have to check when I go to the library again (not anytime soon tho).

 

[PDH]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique


More generally, although I've read about people wounded by shell fragments, I've NEVER, ever read about anybody, be it in witness account, history book or even novel, being wounded by a shrapnell ball.

Whereas, PDH, there ARE accounts of people actually bayonnetting other people, even if it wasn't all that common, especially after the introduction of the entrenching spade and grenade.

My point was that a basically useless instrument for amount of injuries caused (here very few in the case of bayonets and 'we-are-not-sure-how-many by shrapnel' are analogous though not synonomous) could still have a psychological impact on user and target.

This is a quote from Dupoy in The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare

But the concept of shrapnel became more viable with the advent of indirect fire in the early years of the twentieth century. And it was particularly effective in the trench stalemate of World War I. The far more powerful point-detonated high-explosive shell was not very effective against entrenched troops, but shrapnel pellets rained down with deadly effect on trenched and troops in the open. There was still a problem with height of burst, even though fuzes were much more reliable. If the burst was too high the pellets scattered and were not very effective; if it was too low it was even less lethal. Successful use of shrapnel required a high order of gunnery skill by the observer who adjusted the fire on the target. But in the stalemate of 1914-1917 there was lots of time, and almost unlimited ammunition and opportunity for gunners of all armies to perfect such skills.

Later in the war it was found that high-explosive shell, detonated in the air by a similar timed fuze, was even more effective than shrapnel, the jagged shell fragments striking with greater force and far greater damage effect than the shrapnel pellets. Infantry soldiers, unaware of the technical distinction between shrapnel pellets and shell fragments, and having learned earlier that air bursts were "shrapnel" bursts, began to refer to the wounds caused by shell air-bursts fragments as "shrapnel" wounds. So, too, did the doctors who treated those wounds. And since there was no difference between the effects of a shell fragment from a point-detonated high-explosive burst and an air high-explosive burst, all shell fragment wounds were soon called "shrapnel wounds." The incorrect terminology was perpetuated in World War II, and there is probably nothing an old artilleryman can do to set the record straight.

(any typos curtesy of PDH)

Col Dupuy seemed to think that shrapnel did cause wounds in World War I at least...

Still nothing definitive

 

[unmerged(2539)]

http://decisiongames.com/mags/st.htm

This will take you the S&T site, you can email for explanation or
use this link:

http://www.strategypage.com/
And use the search function.

My bet is you get distracted and end up looking at something else that was just too intresting to ignore.

Hannibal

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by sean9898

Many nations still have decorative cavalry, even if just for State occasions. The militaries were slow to change from the decorative to the practical during the 19th century, for example the German picklehaubs (sp?) and the French soldiers wearing bright red stripes on their pants in 1914, the British had finally learnt the value of camoflage during the Boer War. However, for a weapon to be in existence for over a century and to be completely innefective does strike me as being strange.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very unusual, and I am very interested in learning if it is indeed true. Hannibal B, where are you? There must be a link on your HD somewhere?

The difference here Sean is that a LOT of the cavalry involved in WWI was NOT decorative -- and most of them ended up dead on the battlefield.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Heliumgod
The difference here Sean is that a LOT of the cavalry involved in WWI was NOT decorative -- and most of them ended up dead on the battlefield.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the issue. I assume you mean that cavalry being outdated was still used, therefore it's logical that shrapnell was innefective.

I don't see the two necesarily being linked, but for what it's worth, I believe the cavalry arms suffered fewer casualties than the infantry, through underuse, particularly on the western front. Cavalry was, by it's nature being saved for a breakthrough which never occured. For example, the AEF suffered 100 infantry losses for every 3.05 cavalry.

Cavalry had some success against the Turks, the Australian Light Horse, technicaly not a cavalry regiment, though nevertheless charging as cavalry, helped take Beersheeba, and the Arab irregular cavalry played a role, made famous by Lawrence of Arabia, both in harrassing the Turks, and taking key cities.

Athough cavalry operations were still taking place in 1918, the Canadian cavalry advancing on Mons, there are few accounts of horses Vs machine guns. So while outdated and barely used in the West, cavalry still played a role in the desert, and eastern fronts and can not be stamped outdated quite so categoricaly in 1918.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

It all depends on wether you're talking about mounted or dismounted cavalry (ie, "proper" cavalry or dragoons)

I can't see the use of "real" cavalry in the MG era.
Dragoons are an entirely different matter, perhaps even today: there are terrains where the horse provides unsurpassed transportation and thus mobility. All you have to do when you're there is dismount, and set up the MGs.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Sir Enaique, the Aussie Light Horse was really mounted infantry. Using horse to move quickly, at Beersheeba they did perform a cavalry charge using IIRC their bayonets as they were not equipped with sabres. The Arab horsemen used their horses primarily as transport, though did execute a charge, I think outside Damascus, but don't take that as Gospel.

Britain did possess cavalry, lancers and sabres on the Western Front, and the last US Cavalry blade was designed in 1913 (by a certain American cavalry officer named Patton) so there definately was cavalry in the true sense of cavalry as opposed to dragoons and mounted infantry in existence. Kitchener had his cavalry formations ready to exploit the Somme, no doubt expecting them to exploit the breakthrough his delusional mind imagined was innevitable.

There are accounts of cavalry actions on the Eastern Front, but I don't have anything in front of me right now.

The days of cavalry charges ended during the Napoleonic wars, but cavalry as scouts, and as a force to exploit a breakthrough continued through WW1, though little used. Indian Lancers remained in existence past WW2, though for colonial duties rather than charging German or Japanese positions, they still had a horse regiment in 1947.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

I won't deny there have been successful cavalry charges in the MG era. All I'm saying is that, against an up-to-date army, those are just freak occurrences. Given the right circumstances, almost anything can happen during a war.

But from the 1880's onward, planning operations and building a force for mounted action was a waste of men, time and money. That it took a VERY long time for this to penetrate the thick skull of lots of generals doesn't change the fact.

And that it was the limeys who had the last mounted horse isn't especially surprising, given the attitude of their aristocratically dominated career officer corps towards horses, and the disdain of the same said officer corps for professionalism.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
I won't deny there have been successful cavalry charges in the MG era. All I'm saying is that, against an up-to-date army, those are just freak occurrences. Given the right circumstances, almost anything can happen during a war.

I agree, and it is surprising, particularly since Britain had faced Maxims during the Boer war, as well as breech-loaded clip rifles.

While mounted infantry continued to be useful, I can't see many circumstances where a charge through the fields of Flanders could have been thought to be a rational desire.

And that it was the limeys who had the last mounted horse isn't especially surprising, given the attitude of their aristocratically dominated career officer corps towards horses, and the disdain of the same said officer corps for professionalism.

A bit harsh, and I'm not so sure that Britain had the last functioning cavalry. Those Indian units survived independence, until 1957, though I'm not sure if they still had a horse regiment that late.

Anyone out there know where and when the last cavalry regiment existed?

 

[unmerged(4876)]

In 1937, the British riding school at Weeden had a budget of 20,000 pounds (more than 1 million USD) for 38 students; 526 pounds a student. The Tank Corps School had 550 students, but only had recieved 46,000 pounds, and had to make do w/83 pounds per pupil (4,100 in 1994 USD). Britts have issues w/priorities...

 

[Dark Knight]

Did these schools receive all of their funding from the military or did they have their own endowments that they drew upon? If they had their own endowments, then considering that the riding school must have been far older than the tank school, it shouldn't be a surprise that it was able to accumulate more money (even though it no longer needed it).

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Calvin
In 1937, the British riding school at Weeden had a budget of 20,000 pounds (more than 1 million USD) for 38 students; 526 pounds a student. The Tank Corps School had 550 students, but only had recieved 46,000 pounds, and had to make do w/83 pounds per pupil (4,100 in 1994 USD). Britts have issues w/priorities...

Well, as we still have a few hours until Agelastus weighs in with a spirited defense of British pre-war military policy, let me say that the Weeden school was probably as interested in producing fox hunters as much as officers

One other note about British cavalry, and maybe someone can confirm this to be truth or a myth, but was the infantry a more prestigious arm than the cavalry? Watching a movie, Young Churchill or Young Winston was the name a movie about the man's early life and pparticipation in the Boer War, his father began yelling at him when he revealed that he had joined the cavalry as his grades were not good enough for infantry.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by sean9898


Well, as we still have a few hours until Agelastus weighs in with a spirited defense of British pre-war military policy, let me say that the Weeden school was probably as interested in producing fox hunters as much as officers

One other note about British cavalry, and maybe someone can confirm this to be truth or a myth, but was the infantry a more prestigious arm than the cavalry? Watching a movie, Young Churchill or Young Winston was the name a movie about the man's early life and pparticipation in the Boer War, his father began yelling at him when he revealed that he had joined the cavalry as his grades were not good enough for infantry.

No, the cavalry was (and still is...) the noble arm. And even within the cavalry, not all regiments were equal, the dragoons being at the lower end of the scale and (from memory) the lancers (or was it the hussars?) on top.

So Churchill's own 11th Hussars wasn't exactly demeaning.

And the main selection criterion, especially before WWI, was money, because being an officer in those regiments cost much more than an officer's pay.

btw, horse racing was OK, too, not only fow hunting...

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Cavalry

Hi,

Regarding cavalry, it saw extensive use on the Eastern Front during the Second World War in both the Axis and Soviet armies. Some of the most valuable non-German Axis formations were cavalry, especially the Rumanian cavalry formations proved quite valuable. The German army also organized new cavalry formations throughout the war, upgraded regiments to divisions etc.
It was the Soviets though, who used cavalry the most. IIRC they had up to 42 cavalry divisions in 1943 or 1944. Cavalry was employed in two ways: early on (during Stalingrad) to provide a link between the infantry and the breakthrough armour, and later on in combined-arms cavalry/armour formations designed for operational penetration and breakthrough.
The Soviets employed such massive numbers of cavalry because it proved so succesfull during the Civil War in the 20's. Actually a lot of highranking Soviet commanders in WWII served in the extreme succesfull 1st Cavalry Army of the Civil War, and learned mobile warfare first hand.
There are a few accounts of cavalry charges. Most of them - of course - turned out to be utter massacres of men and horses. The power of cavalry formations came from their mobility and their ability to live off the land (1st (Guards?) Cavalry Corps operated in the German rear almost a year after its initial breakthrough during the Moscow counteroffensive of 41/42), not from the use of the horse on the actual battlefield.

Regards,

EoE