Editing Shrapnel shell (section)

===Disadvantages===
One of the key factors that contributed to the heavy casualties sustained by the British at the [[Battle of the Somme]] was the perceived belief that shrapnel would be effective at cutting the [[barbed wire]] entanglements in [[no man's land]] (although it has been suggested that the reason for the use of shrapnel as a wire-cutter at the Somme was because Britain lacked the capacity to manufacture enough HE shell<ref>Keegan, The Face of Battle</ref>). This perception was reinforced by the successful deployment of shrapnel shells against Germany's barbed wire entanglements in the 1915 [[Battle of Neuve Chapelle]], but the Germans thickened their barbed wire strands after that battle.  As a result, shrapnel was later only effective in killing enemy personnel; even if the conditions were correct, with the angle of descent being flat to maximise the number of bullets going through the entanglements, the probability of a shrapnel ball hitting a thin line of barbed wire and successfully cutting it was extremely low. The bullets also had limited destructive effect and were stopped by sandbags, so troops behind protection or in bunkers were generally safe. Additionally, steel helmets, including both the German [[Stahlhelm]] and the British [[Brodie helmet]], could resist shrapnel bullets and protect the wearer from head injury:
<blockquote>... suddenly, with a great clanging thud, I was hit on the forehead and knocked flying onto the floor of the trench... a shrapnel bullet had hit my helmet with great violence, without piercing it, but sufficiently hard to dent it. If I had, as had been usual up until a few days previously, been wearing a cap, then the Regiment would have had one more man killed.<ref>Reserve Lieutenant Walter Schulze of 8th Company Reserve Infantry Regiment 76, German Army, described his combat introduction to the Stahlhelm on the [[Battle of the Somme|Somme]], 29 July 1916. Quoted in Sheldon, ''German Army on the Somme'', page 219. Sheldon quotes and translates from Gropp, ''History of IR 76'', p 159.</ref></blockquote>

A shrapnel shell was more expensive than a high-explosive one<ref>{{Cite web |title=Frequentely Asked Questions - Artillery Shrapnel and Shell Fragments |url=https://history.army.mil/html/faq/shrapnel.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071212193311/http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/shrapnel.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 12, 2007 |access-date=2024-07-04 |website=history.army.mil}}</ref> and required higher-grade steel for the shell body.  They were also harder to use correctly because getting the correct fuse running time was critical in order to burst the shell in the right place. This required considerable skill by the observation officer when engaging moving targets.

An added complication was that the actual fuse running time was affected by the meteorological conditions, with the variation in gun muzzle velocity being an added complication. However, the British used fuse indicators at each gun that determined the correct fuse running time (length) corrected for muzzle velocity.{{Citation needed|date=January 2014}}