Differences between Shrapnel & Canister

[Jeff Duquette]

Firstly I would like to say that I am very much enjoying the CMBB Demo, and am looking forward to the full-blown version of the game. Thanks much BTS!..or is it BTC?

There are some not so subtle difference between canister and shrapnel.

“Canister” or “Case” shot (not to be confused with grape shot), used to be constructed of a light metallic container that was filled with small iron or steel balls or bullets. When a gun fired the container burst open upon exiting the muzzle, releasing the balls, which spread out with a shotgun like effect. US ARMY 37mm Canister employed by the Stuart Tank was apparently effective to approximately 150 yards (Interestingly enough the old beehive canister round employed by the M48’s 90mm had a lethal range rated at approximately 150m to 200m). While canister was very effective at short ranges, its effect quickly dissipated with range.

“Shrapnel” on the other hand was a fused shell, complete with driving band to take advantage of rifling for accurate long range fire. Shrapnel is basically a steel shell filled with iron or steel balls and a burster charge. The shell was fired at enemy personal in a manner similar to HE shell. When the fuse ignited -- hopefully in the middle of your intended target – the burster charge exploded the shell casing and the steel balls went speeding along their way seeking out soft tissue.

The difference between canister and shrapnel shell was that obviously shrapnel’s steel balls would not spread out quickly with range from the muzzle as the shrapnel balls are encased within a shell. Shrapnel could be lobed out to 3000meters, and when the shell casing exploded you have a very high density of deadly steel balls attacking your target…i.e. the balls spread begins from the shell burst, not from the end of the muzzle.

The Shrapnel shell was sort of the precursor to modern day high-explosive shells. Shrapnel really began to be phased out of most armies’ arsenals during World War One in favor of the more effective high explosive ammunition. The Red Army was a noted exception to this rule, and still manufactured Shrapnel Shells through the end of WWII. The Red Army’s reluctance to give up shrapnel was apparently based upon several positive experiences the Russian Army had with the projectile during WWI.

The Soviets produced canister ammunition for their M-37 and M-42, 45mm Anit-Tank guns for close defense of the weapon against infantry. This round was the USH-243. In addition, a canister round was also produced for the ZiS-2, 57mm anti-tank gun. This was the USH-271.

The USH series of ammunition produced for the 76.2mm howitzer and gun were actually shrapnel shells. Canister was not produced for any of the 76.2mm field pieces, nor was a version produced for the tank version of the 76.2mm gun (L-11 and/or F-34).

The USH shrapnel shell series for the 76.2mm include the following: USH-353D employed by the M-27 76.2mm Regimental gun, USH-354 employed by the M-43 76.2mm Regimental gun, and the USH-356 and USH-356T employed by the M-38 76.2mm Mountain Gun.

The M-36 and M-42 76.2mm Field Guns employed a plethora of shrapnel shells including: USH-354, USH-354T, USH-354G, USH-354B, USH-354D, USH-354I, and USH-R2-354.

The Models M-31 and M-38 76.2mm Anti-Aircraft gun employed the USH-361 & USH-361B rod shrapnel projectiles.

There were several main-guns employed on the early T-34. To include a small number of vehicles with the 57mm ZiS-4, the M-38 76.2mm gun (L-11), and the M-40 76.2mm gun (F-34). The ammunition employed by the T34/76 included:

UBR-350A Armored Piercing

UBR-350B Armored Piercing Ballistic Capped

UBR-350P “Arrowhead” APCR

OF-350 High Explosive

OF-350A High Explosive

USH-350 Shrapnel (this is basically the L-11 and F-34 version of the USH-354)

In addition, it is noted that both the 76.2mm L-11 and F-34 could fire the full range of ammunition employed by the M-36, M-39, and M-42 76.2mm field guns.

The Soviet did not produce a canister round for any of their 76.2mm guns or howitzers.

[busboy]

For what its worth, and I posted this earlier on a now burried thread, the cannister on the 37mm gun of the American Stuart tank was, as from what I have read from first hand accounts, completely ineffective even at close range.

[John Kettler]

Jeff,

Fascinating and useful post! Hope BFC talked to you during CMBB development.

I'd like to clarify a couple of points you made, though. First, shrapnel was a British secret weapon which made its combat debut at Waterloo in 1815. Yes, you read that right. I saw a facsimile of Capt.? Mercer's report from the battle. He commanded a battery of the Royal Horse Artillery. As for the more modern (WW I and beyond) incarnation, think of it as being a big stubby shotgun launched by a much bigger gun. The idea with shrapnel was to fire it in such a way that it fuzed on the last stretch of the downward leg of its arc, firing a blast of small projectiles in an expanding cone pattern defined by the trajectory and spin axis of the shrapnel shell at the moment of detonation. This being the case, the trick to effective use of shrapnel, apparently not in the CMBB Demo, is to get the projectiles to fuze in the proper height range and sufficiently short of the target that the target is covered with a relatively uniform pattern of bullet size projectiles, typically striking the heads and shoulders of men in massed formations.

I feel confident in saying this because I just happen to own NOTES ON TRAINING FIELD ARTILLERY DETAILS, by Danford & Moretti, Yale University Press, 1917. The authors, Professor and Assistant Professor of Military Science and Tactics at Yale, are both listed as Formerly Instructors at Course "C," School of Fire for Field Artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The book is a tremendous education in field artillery techniques for the period and has a whole section devoted to the proper techniques for ranging and adjusting a shrapnel shoot. If there's a way to support this in the code, I'd love to see

shrapnel included for the Russians.

All ATGs and IGs which had it should have several rounds of canister available for self-defense.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

For what its worth, and I posted this earlier on a now burried thread, the cannister on the 37mm gun of the American Stuart tank was, as from what I have read from first hand accounts, completely ineffective even at close range.

The Marines seem to have used quite a lot of it in the Pacific. What do your sources have to say on that account?

Michael

[JonS]

Shrapnel was dropped as an operational round by nearly all nations shortly after WWI. Its place was taken by HE fuzed MT (Mechanical Time - sort of like an eggg timer), or MTSQ (Mechanical Time Super Quick - same as MT, but with a point detnating element for if the gunners misjudged the range), or from Dec 1944 / Jan 1945 with VT/Pozit/Prox (Variable Time/?Positional?/Proximity), which is the round with the little radar thingamy in the nose that detects when the round is the right height above ground and then detonates it.

HE used this way is an OK substitute for shrapnel, but under ideal conditions shrapnel is better. However, ideal conditions don't happen very often, And shrapnel is an exceptionally poor substitute fro what HE does. In the mean time it made the gunners jobs easier to get rid of shrapnel as it was another ammo nature to lug around. Also, HE is cheaper to produce than Shrapnel. IIRC (from Gudmundsson) the Germans fiddled around with a dual HE/Shrapnel shell in WWI, and ended up with something that was very expensive, and did neither job well.

I've written on Shrapnel and Prox before, so rather than reproducing all that, here are a couple of links:

Variable Time (written about two years ago)

Shrapnel to VT, a history

A thread from April on VT

[ September 03, 2002, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

[snips throughout]

The Soviets produced canister ammunition for their M-37 and M-42, 45mm Anit-Tank guns for close defense of the weapon against infantry. This round was the USH-243. In addition, a canister round was also produced for the ZiS-2, 57mm anti-tank gun. This was the USH-271.

The USH series of ammunition produced for the 76.2mm howitzer and gun were actually shrapnel shells. Canister was not produced for any of the 76.2mm field pieces, nor was a version produced for the tank version of the 76.2mm gun (L-11 and/or F-34).

Ah, splendid, my suspicions confirmed. The issue of true canister in the light ATk calibres was news to me. You evidently have tapped into an excellent source on Soviet artillery ammunition -- could you tell us your sources, please? (Thinks: I hope this doesn't need me to buy a ticket to the St. Petersburg artillery museum.)

I'm never sure what the letters in Soviet ammunition designations stand for, but might it be safe to guess that the "SH" in "USH" is for "Shrapnyel'"?

All the best,

John.

[busboy]

My particular sourse, though I don't know which of my books I got this from, was from a Stuart gunner who fired 3 cannister rounds at a tightly spaced cluster of 3 german troops from "very close" range, though I don't remember a number.

After 3 shots the Germans surrendered without a scratch...the gunner observed his aim was good but the cannister did not hit them.

Part of that is incredable luck, I'm sure, but it also was clear to the gunner that the cannister wasn't too useful. He noted that he also felt that the HE round for the 37mm was no more powerful than a hand grenade.

[Guest PondScum]

I've just had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of two cannister charges from T34s in a double-blind PBEM of the Stare scenario. In both cases, a single shot devastated a squad (3-5 casualties) and routed the survivors.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by busboy:

My particular sourse, though I don't know which of my books I got this from, was from a Stuart gunner who fired 3 cannister rounds at a tightly spaced cluster of 3 german troops from "very close" range, though I don't remember a number.

After 3 shots the Germans surrendered without a scratch...the gunner observed his aim was good but the cannister did not hit them.

Part of that is incredable luck, I'm sure, but it also was clear to the gunner that the cannister wasn't too useful. He noted that he also felt that the HE round for the 37mm was no more powerful than a hand grenade.

I've read some accounts where it was quite effective, at least at driving the enemy off.

But, I'd have to agree that it's probably only good against exposed infantry at close range. It's no good for trying to dig out infantry in any sort of cover.

I have a U.S. Army Arsenal book at home that describes all ammunition used in WWII. I will check it when I get home, but I seem to recall that the cannister rounds didn't burst until 100-150 meters after leaving the barrel. I could be wrong. I will check tonight.

[Pak40]

According to the "American Arsenal" -

U.S. 37mm Cannister M2 Standard

The round has 122 lead balls imbeded in a resin matrix held within a case. When the round is fired, the case leaves the barrel and travels appoximately 100 feet before the case explodes, scattering the lead balls.

My particular sourse, though I don't know which of my books I got this from, was from a Stuart gunner who fired 3 cannister rounds at a tightly spaced cluster of 3 german troops from "very close" range, though I don't remember a number.

The Germans were probably within 100 feet of the tank, thus avoiding the shot.

[JonS]

Originally posted by busboy:

... He noted that he also felt that the HE round for the 37mm was no more powerful than a hand grenade.

That would be about right - at 37mm the HE round would be about the same size (or erhaps a bit smaller) than a grenade, and would probably have less HE filler (thicker walls to survice being explosively fired rather than simply thrown).

On the plus side, it could probably be hiffed further, with more safety, and more accuracy than a grenade. And this grenade hiffer comes with a pair of MGs to boot

Regards

JonS

[Steve McClaire]

For a relatively important issue (at least for those of us who like to play 1941-42 scenarios, where German infantry is often forced into close combat with T-34s) this thread seems to have languished a long time. Has there been any 'official' BTS rebuttal of the canister vs. shrapnel data put forth in this thread?

[JasonC]

I can add to the points about the transition from shrapnel to HE. The changeover occurred during WW I. Early in the war, many powers used shrapnel ammunition for a high portion of their firing, particularly with the lighter field pieces. The Brits kept this up for longer than most, while the Germans were relatively quick to switch to HE.

Shrapnel was found to be singularly ineffective under real WW I conditions, compared to HE. The reason is that the space given over to carrying the little metal balls is space not used to carry a larger bursting charge. The amount of explosive per round is thus far lower with shrapnel than with HE. And it was found that against dug in troops, as opposed to men standing upright in open ground, the blast effect was critical.

It was also found that shards of the shell casing made effective projectiles even when tiny, provided they were driven with sufficient force. The larger the explosive charge, other things being equal, the more and smaller the pieces produced. So even in effect vs. exposed personnel, HE was not worse than shrapnel in any significant way, while against cover the HE was dramatically more effective.

The Brits fired massive amounts of low caliber shrapnel shells in their extensive prep barrages, in support of their early to mid war offensives (all this, mind, is WW I). There is no evidence it was useful for anything. They tried using larger HE on trenches, and having the light shrapnel cut wire. It didn't cut the wire, while heavy HE did. By the end of the war, almost everyone had basically given up on shrapnel.

The one place where it might still seem useful is when the gun was expected to be used against exposed enemy infantry, above ground - as in direct fire, on defense. I can imagine the Russians still thinking it might be useful, because Russian experiences in WW I saw considerable fighting with less entrenchment and more movement of fronts, than seen in the west.

For CMBB, however, it seems quite clear the C rounds are not only drastically overmodeled in terms of their effectiveness against men in heavy cover (see the "block clearing" reports of C rounds in another thread), but are even more dramatically overmodeled as to existence. My suggestion is to eliminate the 76mm C entirely and just add HE in its place.

[offtaskagain]

I've only seen one reference to russian cannister at all.

. Out of thirty cases of ammunition, only two were with subcaliber shells, eight - armor piercing, and the rest - fragmentation/high explosive grenades. There was also a certain quantity of grape-shot, for self-defense against infanty, which gave us a feeling of confidence, but, fortunately, I never had to fire it. (For those unfamiliar with artillery I have to explain that, if a medium machine gun, when beating back an attack, fires practically around 250 rounds per minute, a single gun, firing grape-shot, can create a density 25-50 times greater, and a four gun battery - 100-200 times; moreover, the bullets spread evenly across the front, not leaving any dead ground. Attacking such battery is a hopeless proposition.)

This is from the memoirs of Evgenii Monyushko on the Russian battlefield site.

[JasonC]

And he is obviously speaking of a towed gun, not anything in an AFV...

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by JasonC:

And he is obviously speaking of a towed gun, not anything in an AFV...

Yep, a Zis-3.