What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

'Chunky' bits of Shrapnel .... from what?? - all suggestions welcome

butterfly

butterfly

HONOURED MEMBER RIP
I added these three bits of shrapnel to the collection yesterday. These all came together, though probably originally found in different locations, no known history other than I was told that they were found 'locally' which could be anywhere within a fifty mile radius. I have no idea of the age of them or indeed anything about them, but thought I would share them with you.....

HPIM0164.jpg

Now the first piece is particularily interesting as it has broken at a 'weld' - would this suggest a bomb rather than a projectile?? I have added a rule for a scale, and as you can see its rather a chunky bit!!

HPIM0152.jpgHPIM0153.jpgHPIM0154.jpgHPIM0155.jpg

The second piece is equally interesting as it shows the sheer force behind a blast......notice too on this one the coarseness of the lathe work on the steel. Much coarser than I have seen before - would this be a clue to what it is from??

HPIM0156.jpgHPIM0161.jpgHPIM0157.jpgHPIM0158.jpgHPIM0160.jpgHPIM0159.jpg

The third and final piece - not too many interesting features on this one, but a chunky lump non-the-less

HPIM0162.jpgHPIM0163.jpg

Exactly as I got them, what would you do - clean them up or leave them as they are?? maybe a light oil??

any clues as to what they are from would be appreciated

regards Kev
 
Kev - Those are really neat. If they were mine I'd leave them exactly as they are, or maybe clean up one or two to show the steel color under the patina. They're fragments BTW, not shrapnel.

Thanks for the photos

Ray
 
One thing that is visible, is the lathe marks where it was turned in the factory. I'm also thinking they were bomb parts, because of the courseness of the lathe marks. A projectile would have a more closely turned finish.
 
Last edited:
shrapnel (ˈʃrpn [SUP]ə [/SUP]l)
n
1.
a.a projectile containing a number of small pellets or bullets exploded before impact
b.such projectiles collectively
2.
fragments from this or any other type of shell


[C19: named after H. Shrapnel (1761--1842), English army officer, who invented it]



 
My guess is that they are bomb fragments. The large size would suggest a bigger diameter than all but the largest artillery projectiles. the coarse machining also , as has been mentioned, a bomb. Most artillery shells, used in WW2 would have the kind of steel and heat treatment which would have produced smaller fragments. Being found locally, suggests remains of bombs dropped in WW2. Nice reminders of a bad time.
 
If we're going down that particular track... ;)

From the OED:

shrapnel, n.

Pronunciation: /ˈʃrpnəl/
Forms: Also erron. shrapnell. Orig. with capital initial.
Etymology: The name of Gen. H. Shrapnel, who invented this shell during the Peninsular War.

1. A hollow projectile containing bullets and a small bursting charge, which, when fired by the time fuse, bursts the shell and scatters the bullets in a shower.
The term Shrapnel shell was adopted officially (instead of spherical case shot) in accordance with the Report of a Select Committee at Woolwich dated 11 June, 1852.
Used in forms Shrapnel's or shrapnel shell, shot, or as collect. sing.

2.Small change, notes, or coins of low denominations. Austral. and N.Z. Mil. slang.
1919 W. H. Downing Digger Dial. 44
Shrapnel,..tattered French bank notes of small denominations.
1977 Camera & Cin Nov. 24
I don't suppose you'd have a bit of shrapnel?.. I shook fifty cents out of my purse and handed it to him.

3. Fragments from shells or bombs
1940 Notes and Queries 179 278/1
The public has chosen to ignore the facts that shrapnel shell has become obsolete and that anti-aircraft guns fire high-explosive only.
In consequence the shell fragments which are at present descending upon its devoted head are unhesitatingly referred to by the public as shrapnel and the correct expression, shell fragments, has begun to verge on pedantry.
1940 W. S. Churchill Secret Session Speeches (1946) 20
Our barrage will be firing, and..great numbers of shell splinters usually described most erroneously as shrapnel, will be falling in the streets.
1976 Times 18 Aug. 12/5
What journalists and other non-gunners call shrapnel are in fact fragments from high explosive bombs or shells.

All the best,
PB
 
And then there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shrapnel_shell

With specific regards to this thread, there's this near the end of the above link:

"In the precise military sense, I think yes, people today mean fragmentation when they say shrapnel - the meaning of the word itself has changed - the word shrapnel in today's English does include whatever bits and pieces an exploding bomb or shell spits out. So users are correct to use the term the way they do today, in general talk. I agree that linking such references to Fragmentation (weaponry) would be OK for contemporary references; but for military-related articles pre-1920 the reference may indeed be to the actual shrapnel shell."
 
Anti-personnel artillery has evolved over the years, and the definitions used to describe it has also.

Before rifled artillery projectiles were developed around the time of the American Civil War, cannister was about the only thing going. Gen. Henry Shrapnel developed an improved cannister called Spherical Case or Shrapnel which still employed a round ball in a smooth bore, and all of it's shortcomings. Whereas cannister did not produce any "fragments", spherical case had a small bursting charge that produced a few large fragments but they were simply a by-product of the design. With the development of elongated artillery rifle projectiles it was possible to build a fuzed projectile with an expelling charge that ejected the balls (shrapnel) without ruptering the projectile body itself. Fast forwarding 150 years, today's shrapnel projectiles are once again called cannister. But instead of balls they contain things such as flechettes or square steel "shot" in a thin steel cylinder that ruptures soon after leaving the muzzle. A large shotgun, if you will, very much like cannister of the mid 19th century.

But, with all due respect to Funk and Wagnalls, or Webster, or Wikipedia, I stand by my statement that the bits of steel shown at the beginning of this thread are fragments, not shrapnel.

Ray
 
Maybe if we talk nice to Alan (Spotter) he will have Bolo make an Encyclopedia/Dictionary section where we can fight over definitions full time.
 
Possibly 3.7" and 4.5" A.A. Shrapnel ,tends to leave fairly solid and heat treated/fragtured fragments.
Also, all that AA 'shrapnel' has to go somewhere, mainly back toward earth!.
I read somewhere that the main cause of roof damage in the bombing of London was caused by the returning shrapnel,sometimes sizable pieces.
 
Last edited:
Hi Guys thanks for all the response so far.....
.......as regards the Shrapnel terminology, I really didnt intend to cause an issue!!
I guess here in the UK during WW2 after a raid children used to go out and look for 'Shrapnel' - the bits would then form part of a collection, which would include incendiary tail fins, shell splinters and bomb fragments. (See description 3 post 6). This term appears to have stood the test of time and I guess I 'inherited' it, my father lived in Sheffield during the blitz and was 'bombed out' he used to talk about 'shrapnel' collections etc, I wonder wether in time we will revert to shell splinters and bomb casing?? - very interesting and something I hadnt really thought of when I wrote the thread!!

so far it stands.... bomb 'casing' 2 shell splinter 1

anyone any thoughts on the weld on the first item???? (to me would indicate bomb- I Know some of the German bombs had noses welded onto the body, but was this method used on other items of ordnance of this thickness?)

regards Kev
 
kahu1 said:
Possibly 3.7" and 4.5" A.A. Shrapnel ,tends to leave fairly solid and heat treated/fragtured fragments.
Also, all that AA 'shrapnel' has to go somewhere, mainly back toward earth!.
I read somewhere that the main cause of roof damage in the bombing of London was caused by the returning shrapnel,sometimes sizable pieces.
Click to expand...

kahu1,

Thanks for your comment. I have some shell fragments (shrapnel, not sure what I ought to be writing now!!!), I will post some pics later when I dig them out. These are of a good thickness but are much smaller is size - I think these were possibly designed to produce smaller pieces because it was the fragments that caused the damage, where I presume in a bomb it was the blast that did the damage - maybe someone could confirm this??
However having said that, I do have yet another large fragment which I think is from a shell, albeit a WW1 shell.....which I posted in another thread - link below....

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/83753-large-piece-shrapnel-help-needed-German-Naval

and here is another piece that is from a 50kg German bomb - this one is easy to identify and has history with it...

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/83548-WW2-German-50kg-Bomb-Shrapnel

regards Kev
 
Last edited:
I checked out a few fragments from my collection,and am thinking more that these are bomb fragments!

shrap.jpgshrap1.jpgshrap2.2.jpgshrap2.jpgshrap3.jpgshrap.3.jpg
Pic.1, artillery shell fragments on left(with pieces of DB)Bomb frag. on right.
pic.2,2 of the art.shell frags.
pic.3 turned outer of german bomb.
pic.4 flip side of 3, drawn/stressed inner.
pic.5 & 6, examples of the 'weld' fracture.

I think the 'weld' is actually the steel stressed in manufacture,as this is right angles against the turn marks.
I havent got any provenance on these pieces but they certainly resemble as described,i can confirm though that they are all very jagged and sharp!.
As for bombs being for blast that depends on the type and usage, lots of nasty shrapnel/fragments flying through the air would be a very effective anti personnell weapons and reasonable sized pieces could damaged buildings and infrastructure.

Nice items by the way.

cheers
Bob
 
raymeketa said:
Anti-personnel artillery has evolved over the years, and the definitions used to describe it has also.

Before rifled artillery projectiles were developed around the time of the American Civil War, cannister was about the only thing going. Gen. Henry Shrapnel developed an improved cannister called Spherical Case or Shrapnel which still employed a round ball in a smooth bore, and all of it's shortcomings. Whereas cannister did not produce any "fragments", spherical case had a small bursting charge that produced a few large fragments but they were simply a by-product of the design. With the development of elongated artillery rifle projectiles it was possible to build a fuzed projectile with an expelling charge that ejected the balls (shrapnel) without ruptering the projectile body itself. Fast forwarding 150 years, today's shrapnel projectiles are once again called cannister. But instead of balls they contain things such as flechettes or square steel "shot" in a thin steel cylinder that ruptures soon after leaving the muzzle. A large shotgun, if you will, very much like cannister of the mid 19th century.

But, with all due respect to Funk and Wagnalls, or Webster, or Wikipedia, I stand by my statement that the bits of steel shown at the beginning of this thread are fragments, not shrapnel.

Ray
Click to expand...

I always got corrected about this and was informed that the shrapnel was the lead/steel balls ect from a shrapnel shell and 'fragments' of the case ect was termed as 'splinter'..ie shell splinter....I suppose this is another example of how the English language has degenerated into the English we have now :tinysmile_cry_t:......so in short in full agreement with Ray

Cheers
Tony
 
kahu1 said:
I checked out a few fragments from my collection,and am thinking more that these are bomb fragments!

View attachment 69867View attachment 69868View attachment 69869View attachment 69870View attachment 69871View attachment 69872
Pic.1, artillery shell fragments on left(with pieces of DB)Bomb frag. on right.
pic.2,2 of the art.shell frags.
pic.3 turned outer of german bomb.
pic.4 flip side of 3, drawn/stressed inner.
pic.5 & 6, examples of the 'weld' fracture.

I think the 'weld' is actually the steel stressed in manufacture,as this is right angles against the turn marks.
I havent got any provenance on these pieces but they certainly resemble as described,i can confirm though that they are all very jagged and sharp!.
As for bombs being for blast that depends on the type and usage, lots of nasty shrapnel/fragments flying through the air would be a very effective anti personnell weapons and reasonable sized pieces could damaged buildings and infrastructure.

Nice items by the way.

cheers
Bob
Click to expand...


Thanks Bob for the explination and the pics of bits in your own collection - you have some great items too!! - I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds these fragmets fascinating!!

As promised here are some pics I took of the anti-aircraft shell fragments - there is a number 39 on one of them which I guess would probably be the date of manufacture. I have photographed them against the other pieces to show the size variation.

regards Kev

HPIM0165.jpgHPIM0167.jpgHPIM0166.jpg


HPIM0169.jpgHPIM0168.jpgHPIM0170.jpg
 
my question would be why turn the outside of a bomb which could be cast or forged near enough, maybe a bomb boffin can pick up on this.
 
Shrapnel is ....shrapnel. Fragments come from the body & components of non shrapnel ordnance that has detonated and fragmented. There are many Gunners that go ballistic about the misuse of the term "shrapnel".
pedant.jpg
But thats what makes us special!

"Leave the Artillerymen alone, they are an obstinate lot. . ."
Napoleon Bonaparte
 
khanmak said:
. . .There are many Gunners that go ballistic about the misuse of the term "shrapnel". . .

We ex-Gunners do not go ballistic when we hear the non-gunner types butchering our language. We feel only sadness that we have been unable to educate them. But, a cup of hot coffee usually restores our spirits and we carry on as best we can. :tinysmile_twink_t:

Another of Napoleon's sayings - God fights on the side with the best Artillery.

Ray (Former Gunners Mate)
Click to expand...
 
The comparison of the large fragments to the smaller ones illustrates what I tried to communicate in my previous post. The arttillery fragments have many planed, irregular fracture lines, while the larger fragments are much simpler and less jagged. I don't think that most, except possibly armor piercing bombs, were heat treated or used special types of steel which were used in shells which were specialised into smaller , nastier chunks to increase the lethal effects. Compare WW2 fragments to those of WW1, which generally are larger, fewer and more blunt,showing the better design for lrthal effect between the 2 wars.Even with a higher ratio of expolsive to total mass of the bomb, you ger larger, smoother fragments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top