ARTICLES OF CURRENT INTEREST

Shrapnel versus Fragmentation

By Brennan Phillips
The term shrapnel is one that gets
used frequently in bomb investigations
and disposals. While the term is understood, it is often misused. Shrapnel has
come to mean any fragment, shard, splinter, missile, debris or similar items propelled by an explosive, often with an antipersonal connotation. However, the true
meaning refers to a specific type of black
powder artillery shell and the lead balls
contained within. This was the invention
of British Army Gen. Henry Shrapnel in
the early 1800s.
While the casual use of shrapnel in
laymens terms is harmless enough, it is
important for those in bomb disposal and
investigation to use the word correctly. In
the recent Oregon vs. Turnidge trial concerning the fatal explosion of a bomb at
a bank in Woodburn, Ore., the defense
argued that for a bomb to be classified as
an anti-personnel weapon it would need
to have shrapnel added above and beyond the bombs metal container. In fact,
the defense referenced the National Fire
Protection Associations Guide (NFPA)
921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, section 21.4.2 Shrapnel Effects, which incorrectly defines shrapnel
as bomb fragmentation.
The definition of shrapnel found in
the 2008 addition of 921 reads: When
the containers, structures, or vessels
that contain or restrict the blast pressure
fronts are ruptured, they are often broken into pieces that may be thrown over
great distances. These pieces of debris are
called shrapnel or missiles. This definition substitutes the more correct term
of fragmentation for the laymens use of
shrapnel. The defense in the case went
a step further and argued that shrapnel
is a category of missiles that must be
added above and beyond the fragments
produced from the bombs metal casing
in order for it to be categorized as antipersonnel.
There is no requirement in the law for
a bomb maker to add additional shrap-

33 March/April 2012

nel to a bomb for it to qualify as an antipersonnel weapon. The fragments from

any bomb casing capable of doing harm
to the human body will work.
While the defenses argument was

Henry Shrapnel was an English

soldier and inventor. He was born
in 1761 and died in 1842. He
joined the Royal Artillery in 1779,
and in 1784 started experiments
at his own expense which culminated in his invention of the
shrapnel shell, which was adopted by the British army in 1803
and first used at the siege of Surinam in 1804, and later in the
Peninsular War and at the Battle
of Waterloo.

countered in this particular case, it illustrates the need to foster better understanding and more accurate use of professional terminology.
According to Brasseys Encyclopedia of Land Forces and Warfare, The
term shrapnel has been widely misused
by nonartillerymen since the closing
months of World War I. The origin of
this misuse seems to have been reports
by British surgeons on their treatment of
wounds. Apparently aware that shrapnel
had been the principal artillery ammunition against personnel, the surgeons
began to refer to shell fragments (quite
incorrectly) as shrapnel and to wounds
inflicted by such fragments as shrapnel
wounds.
Sydney Kerksis and Thomas Dicky
gave a similar account in their book Field
Artillery Projectiles of the Civil War:
While case shot was the most generally used term the projectile was also, in
contemporary accounts, referred to as:
Spherical Case, Bullet Shell, Shrapnel
Shell, etc. It is the later name by which
it was known in WWI, and by extension
and ignorance, today means any shell
fragment.
Maj. Gen. H.W. Blakelys article,
Shrapnel, Semantics and Such, sheds additional light on the matter. Blakely was an
artilleryman and World War II Divisional
Commander. He writes, My first experience with the use of the word shrapnel
to mean shell fragments was in Normandy about D plus 2. The 4th Infantry Division had landed on Utah Beach on D-day
with surprisingly light opposition, but
as we turned north toward Cherbourg
we ran into rough going that was to cost
the division over 5,000 battle casualties
in the next three weeks. A surgeon mentioned to me that one of our regiments,
the 22d Infantry, was having particularly
high losses from shrapnel wounds. As
division artillery commander, I was very
much interested. Were the Germans using what we regarded as an obsolescent
type of ammunition? Or did they have an

improved variant of it? I visited the regiment and asked questions everywhere.
No one knew of anyone wounded by
shrapnel. When I hunted up the surgeon
who had first mentioned shrapnel, and
told him that practically all the casualties
in the 22nd were from shell fragments, he
said, Thats what I told you. Since then
I have frequently noticed the misuse of
shrapnel by newspaper men, radio commentators and historians...
Basically the shrapnel shell as invented by Henry Shrapnel is a means to project the shotgun like anti-personnel effects of canister, the army term, or grape
shot, the naval term, at a much greater
range. Having only black powder available as an explosive, there was no way to
effectively fragment a shell casing into a
pattern of lethal shards as we can do today with high explosives. Henry Shrapnel
packed canister shot into an artillery projectile with a burning time-delay fuse and
a small black powder bursting charge.
This was fired down range, igniting the

This charge then scattered

the shot into a wide pattern
in order to hit troops in the
open the shot principally
using the velocity from
the flight of the shell and
not the bursting charge.
delay fuse, and after burning down, ignited the bursting charge. This charge then
scattered the shot into a wide pattern
in order to hit troops in the open the
shot principally using the velocity from
the flight of the shell and not the bursting
charge. In the conical-shaped shells of
World War I, such as the French pattern
75mm, the shell used a pushing charge
that ejected the shot from the front of the
shell into a cone-shaped pattern.

With the arrival of the large scale use

of high explosive shells in World War I,
it became evident that the fragments
produced by detonation of these projectiles had much greater lethal potential
then the shrapnel shell. Because of the
brisance of high explosives, the projectiles casing could be shattered into many
small high velocity fragments, increasing
the chances of hitting a target and creating causality. High explosive artillery
projectiles also enjoyed a number of advantages in fuzing, ease of manufacture,
and superior dual purpose effects against
both people and material. The shrapnel
shell was only effective against troops
in the open and was useless against the
earth works of the First World War. High
explosive shells, on the other hand, were
effective against both the fortifications,
and the troops that sheltered within.
Dr. Norman M. Rich, MD, (Col MC
USA retired) further makes the case
for a more scientifically precise use of
shrapnel on the battlefield and in medi-

Vol. 39, No. 2, The Detonator 34

This image depicts two shrapnel balls from a World

War I era 75-mm. shrapnel projectile and a fragment
from a World War I era 75-mm. high explosive shell.
The intended destructive effect of the shrapnel
projectile against men and animals came from the
shrapnel balls. The projectile casing, which merely
acted as a carrier for the shrapnel balls, was not
designed to fracture or fragment. Some World War I
era shrapnel projectiles contained a mixture of two
sized balls. The smaller balls, intended for antipersonnel use, constituted approximately ninety per
cent of the shrapnel round. The remaining percentage
of larger balls were included to disable or kill horses.
The intended destructive effect of high explosive
rounds came from the action of the high explosive
charge coupled with the fragmentation of the projectile
casing. Whereas a shrapnel round was intended
to kill or injure people and animals, high explosive
rounds were originally designed to damage or destroy
inanimate objects such as buildings and field guns.

Vol. 39, No. 2, The Detonator 36

cal terminology in his article Shrapnel

a Misnomer, written while he was
serving as an Army Surgeon during the
Vietnam War. He wrote, Knowledge of
the wounding agents is important statistically in determining the effectiveness of
the weapons as well as in evaluation of
wounding power in order to administer
the best possible treatment to the wound.
The use of the term shrapnel as the allinclusive wounding agent is extremely
vague and hinders any attempt to ascertain its precise identity. The most scientifically accurate use of the term shrapnel
should be reserved only for the low velocity lead balls as originally described by
General Shrapnel and not for fragments
from modern high explosive shells.
In addition to Improvised Explosive
Devices/(IEDs), the M-18 Claymore
Mine is often brought up during discussions of the term shrapnel with col-

37 March/April 2012

leagues who ask what to call the ball bearings packed into this weapon. According
to U.S. Army Field Manual 23-23, Antipersonnel Mine M18A1 (Claymore),
Section II, 4., Casualty Effects, When
detonated, the M18A1 mine will deliver
spherical steel fragments over a 60 fan
shaped pattern that is 2 meters high and
50 meters wide at a range of 50 meters.
As the field manual indicates, the modern military term (the correct term) for
these types of explosive-driven missiles is
fragments.
Therefore, if one is to be precise, the
historical definition of shrapnel is an antipersonnel pellet projected from an artillery shell that primarily uses the speed of
flight of its carrier shell for its own velocity. Therefore, for a missile or shard from
a shell or bomb casing, the more appropriate term is simply fragmentation. At
the very least, the members of the profes-

sional bomb disposal and bomb scene investigation community, should strive for
improved accuracy and understanding in
the use of collective terminology. Especially for those that give expert witness
testimony in court, where accuracy goes
directly to the credibility of the opinion
offered.
Brennan Phillips is an
ATF Explosives Enforcement Officer based in
Seattle, Wash.. Brennan also serves as
a Lieutenant Colonel
in the Army National
Guard and commanded
a Joint EOD Battalion in
Afghanistan as part of
JTF Paladin in 2009.
He is a Graduate of U.S. Naval School EOD
(1991), the Irish Defense Force IEDD Course
(1998) and Hazardous Device School
(2002).