15 pdr fuse?

[Quatermass]

Id guess that the H.E. was developed in an attempt to prolong the service life of the gun. By 1915 H.E. had superseded Shrapnel as the projectile of choice. I dont have any reference to this shell, anyone out there have any information?
Cheers.

Quatermass

 

[Ammodillo]

No.60 Mk2..

 

[Ammodillo]

I agree with Quartermass..
the wear and tear on the barrel using shrapnell munitions
is very high in comparison to 'HE High Explosive' shells.

However there are other factors for NOT using shrapnell..
(source: Brittish Treatise on Ammunition 1926 - page 119)
Especially the last paragraph (production cost) could be
a valid reason for 'upgrading' to HE shells.

 

[Ammodillo]

..and while i was writing the previous note i asked myself
if there was a change in the International agreements (Geneva)
on the use of Shrapnell.

I thought that during that same period, there were some discussions
on 'dum dum' and 'lead projectiles' causing unhuman inflictions. (whatever unhuman means in this setting). This is a wild guess and could be absolutely wrong, maybe someone has more documentation
on this subject.

 

[Quatermass]

Hi Ammodillo.

I would imagine that a gun thats only projectile was shrapnel or canister would have been very ineffective in the static trench bound warfare of France and Belgium of 1915.
You could fire as much shrapnel as you like but if your opponents entrenched behind fieldworks then your not going to cause him a lot of damage. High explosive was the only way of doing any serious harm to the enemy.

Quatermass

 

[tigbrand]

Very interesting posts,I think as well that in trench warfare situations shrapnell loses its effectiveness as the target is so well hidden.Why do shrapnell shells cause higher barrel wear,excuse me if this has an obvious answer,Tony.

 

[Quatermass]

Hi Tigbrand.

Not sure why a shrapnel shell would cause more barrel wear than any other projectile. When i referred to 'prolonging the service life' I meant giving the gun a projectile that was worth the effort of firing at the enemy.
I'll leave it to Ammodillo to answer your question.

Quatermass.

 

[Ammodillo]

Quatermass wrote:

..a gun thats only projectile was shrapnel or canister would have been very ineffective in the static trench bound warfare of France and Belgium of 1915.

Yes you are right! Shrapnell is only effective on charging infantry.
The WW1 trench war is a turn over point in the war history as i see it. New weapons (the Tank f.e.) were invented at that time and strategy evolved to a new level. Do not forget the last paragraph.. the cost aspect of it. The trench war was (the First World War)one of the most expensive wars up till then so weapons had to be very effective.

 

[Ammodillo]

..higher wear and tear

The gas pressure should be much higher (in comparrisson to the HE shells as discussed). The breach, cahmber and barrel are more stressed by higher pressures. Maybe i can illustrate this with some tables from treatise on ammunition, have to look these up.

 

[Quatermass]

I have just had a look through various 18 pdr manuals (different gun I know) Shrapnel and H.E. shells seem to be propelled via the same amount of propellent.

Cartridge, Q.F., 18-PR., Shrapnel, Mark I. Charge consists of a 1 lb. 6 oz. 15 dr. bundle of cordite M.D. size 8.

Cartridge, Q.F., 18-PR., High Explosive Shell. Charge consists of 1-lb 6 oz. 15 dr. of cordite M.D. size 8.

The Shrapnel shell weighed a little more than the H.E., 18 lb. 8 oz. compared to 17 lb. 12 oz (later streamlined H.E. shells weighted 18 ld. 8 oz.)

It would appear that barrel wear from the two projectile would be comparable.

If you have different information then I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Quatermass

 

[Ammodillo]

@quatermass

..i first have to find the tables (sorry) before blabbering another answere.