Talk:Shell (projectile)

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force

Shell is often colloquially used to refer to projectiles, but it is correctly an abbreviation for shell casing. Technically, the first usage in incorrect, and many soldiers will wince when they see it used encyclopedically. Would anyone object to merging this article with Ammunition, or changing the title to something else?

I know a merge would be a lot of work, but I'll do what I can. And the results would be a super-article worthy of being featured on the front page. —Michael Z. 2005-03-19 15:38 Z

Better to let the two articles lie side by side. lest you end up with an over-size article. The intro to shell should explain what is technically incorrect about the term, then the article can go on to explain things for the layman -which is the intention of any "-pedia"

Explaining to the layman is the whole point, but perpetuating misconceptions or misnomers is definitely not. But now I'm wondering whether I'm thinking of shell being misused when referring to cartridges for small arms. Are there any artillery men out there who can confirm whether shell is a correct name for artillery ammunition? —Michael Z. 2005-03-19 23:56 Z

Ian Hogg uses the term in that sense. Shell is the propelled bit; to my mind round is the whole thing including propelling charge. GraemeLeggett 10:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The COD has a definition of shell as "explosive projectile or bomb for use in big gun or mortar" GraemeLeggett 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ian Hogg and Oxford are more than enough references for me. To quote Emily Litella: never mind. —Michael Z. 2005-03-27 06:45 Z

A segestion to start a seperate entry, 'Shot (Projectile)' and move all non-shell projectiles (AP, APC, APCBC, APCR, APCNR, APDS and APFSDS) subsections to it, as none are actually shells!--NeilGibson 10:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Trajectory

Would it be appropriate to create a secton for trajectories of various shells and such? Still new here, so I thought I'd ask. Dp76764 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Shrapnel in WWI

I always heard that WWI's trench warfare led to the replacement of shrapnel shell with high explosive, is there any contradictory citations that could be provided? Wilhelm Ritter 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have heard this as well but can offer no attributable documentation. Supposedly the shrapnel shell had a modest charge of black powder, just sufficient to burst the case and scatter the payload of metal slugs just before the desired point of impact. Velocities were supposedly so low that shrapnel projectiles of this type often failed to break the skin, and so lacked the desired lethality; the shrapnel shells of this obsolete type were also very expensive to produce. But it was discovered that HE shells, basically hollow steel casings filled with (at the time) cast TNT or TNT flakes, produced sharp, jagged steel splinters traveling at multiples of the speed of sound, and so were considered to be more satisfactory.

A projectile with energy of 60 foot-pounds was considered by the British to be lethal. Projectiles were typically 1/41st of a pound. Hence to have 60 foot-pounds of energy, the bullet had to be travelling at 384 ft/sec (The square root of (60 squared, divided by 1/41)). This was the sum of the shell's velocity at maximum range + the small added velocity from the bursting charge (say 100 ft/sec) - typically about 6500 yards. Beyond this the bullets would lack velocity to be lethal. Part of the attraction of the shrapnel shell was limited risk of injury from friendly fire - the shells burst above attackers and the bullets only went forward. And shells accidentally bursting without firing (e.g. in a dump or through accident) would only impart a maximum of about 100 ft/sec to the bullets, i.e. not enough to be lethal.Rcbutcher (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the components of a shell

What is the term for that brass or copper band fitted around the diameter of a shell near the base, whose purpose is to accept the rifling and spin the projectile? It's a French term. Borroulet? Bouroulet? Borrolette? Google has not been helpful, perhaps because I do not know how to spell the word.

The copper band around the projectile is called the "driving band" and part if it's purpose is to impart spin on the projectile in conjunction with the rifling. It’s made of a soft metal like copper so that the rifling actually engraves itself into the "driving band" and therefore spinning the projectile as it travels up the muzzle.

The other parts of the driving bands purpose is to ensure that the projectile is centred 

in the bore correctly. The driving band also holds the projectile in the bore so it doesn’t fall back on to the charge if the equipment is elevated to a high angle, and forms a means of forward obturation. That is, it stops the gases from the burning charge leaking around the projectile until sufficient pressure is built up to shoot the projectile down the barrel. Ever tried to fire a potato out of a potato gun with a potato that’s way too small for your barrel. Kind of like that.

As for bourrelet, I believe its French. It sounds French any way. It's a part of the projectile body. If you imagine the curved part of the projectile at the tip of a projectile, that’s called the "ogive" then you have a flatter bit past that where the curve starts to go to a flat area. That’s the "shoulder". Just on the other side of the "shoulder" is the "bourrelet". ".

British Pound system

The article makes comment "This usage continued into the 1950s". I am aware of the pound system being used in the Territorial Armed forces of the United Kingdom into the 1980's, and 25 punder guns still being used in ceremonial situations throughout the 1990's right up to the present day.

I have no specific reference material for this, save my own testimony, and wonder whether it needs recording into the article.

• Note I was born in 1978, and so surpass the 1950's date given by at least 19 years :) *

Xelous - 15th August 2007.

Fuze is the usual English language spelling for ordnance igniters

Somebody keeps running a robot to change all occurrences of Fuze to Fuse. Fuze is the customary English language spelling for ammunition igniters. Fuses are something in an electrical layout.Rcbutcher (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuzes detonate ordinance, fuses communicate fire. Both are proper when used distinctly and correctly.63.224.79.50 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

H'mm, lets try from the beginning. First ordinance hasn't hurt anyone for a century or two but might well have annoyed them more recently. However, ordnance in some uses might, munition is a less confusing term because ordnance is the term for the barrel, breach and perhaps muzzlebrake assembly, and we don't want these bursting.

Next fuzes don't necessilly detonate, they may explode if the are using or ignite gunpowder, only high explosives detonate. Igniferous fuzes used a timer powder train, these were in use into the 1950s and called Fuzes, it said so on the ammo box.

So we'll change fuse back tio fuze because that is the correct usage for artillery and similar munitions.Nfe (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

APDS?

APDS was developed by engineers working for the French Edgar Brandt company, and was fielded in two calibers (75 mm/57 mm for the Mle1897/33 75 mm anti-tank cannon, 37 mm/25 mm for several 37 mm gun types) just before the French-German armistice of 1940.

IIRC, this is not a discarding sabot type, the sabot remained with the round in flight right up to impact. APDS was developed in the UK and was first used in the 6 pdr and 17 pdr anti tank guns. Otherwise how did the Germans not come to hear of the French developments, APDS became the best anti-tank round there was right up to the 1980s, and AFAIR, the Germans never knew of it until they captured ammunition for these two guns from the British in 1944. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.189 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

203 mm?

The page says that there are no shells larger than 203 mm in use today. However, I do know that the Soviet Union made 240 mm mortars, and I am not sure they are completely out of use. Omeganian (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The towed version is no longer in service. It has been replaced by tracked self propelled version, in which the barrel is lowered over the back of the vehicle. It's Russian designation is SM-240 Tyulpan (Tulip Tree) and the NATO designation is M1975. It is believe that the SM-240 fires a special concrete-pierce round. Range for the HE, Chemical and Concrete-Piercing projectiles is 9,700 meters. But their is an extended range round with rocket-assist with a reported range of 25,000 meters. The SM-240 has a very low rate of fire due to its loading procedure. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Shell = Shot

"though modern usage includes large solid projectiles previously termed shot (AP, APCR, APCNR, APDS, APFSDS and proof shot)." where does this claim come from? The under-informed frequently use incorrect terms, nothing new here. This does not make it 'modern usage'.

Also need to consider the place of mortar bombs. In some languages I think the terms for shell and mortar bomb are the same, granate in German may be an example (and this term certainly doesn't include shot!).Nfe (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This item is still fundametnally flawed. It correctly recognises that shell is different to shot. It then includes shot on the flimsy premise of 'modern usage' without offering a shred of evidence to support this claim. All the shot stuff should be deleted or moved to a new entry.Nfe (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some (mainly American) people use the term 'shell' erroneously to mean the entire round. Even worse, some refer to 'shotgun shells' meaning the shotgun's cartridges which is of course anachronistic, as shotguns only fire solid shot, i.e., multiple pellets. This is probably a result of the US using the English language more loosely than we on the 'other side of the pond'. Whether US armourers use these terms themselves I don't know. This may also be the reason why the US refers to mortar bombs as 'mortar shells'. The UK term 'mortar bomb' is used because the projectile is finned unlike a shell.

The correct armourer's terms basically differentiate between a large solid projectile used mainly for armour piercing purposes as shot, whilst a shell is a hollow projectile and contains an explosive or other filling. It's quite simple, shot is solid, shell is hollow. A shell surrounds something.

In short, shot is the same as a very large bullet, whilst a shell goes 'bang!' or something similar when it strikes.

Having written all this, the reader is free to call these things whatever they want. But the precise meanings have important uses in the armament and military fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Firework Shell

I'm not sure what the biggest shell allowed for consumer fireworks is, but I know here in PA, we have 3" firework shells for consumer firework displays that are legal if you have a driver's license, and a firework permit, So I think the section about American fireworks should be changed.70.44.153.247 (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Ethan