Inaccuracy in CM regarding Puppchen

[Aacooper]

In CM, the Germans can be given Puppchen starting in February, 1945. The Puppchen is a little-known two-wheeled bazooka.

"The Siegfried Line Campaign", by Charles MacDonald, one of the U.S. Army in World War II books, talks about the Puppchen. The 0th Division was encircling Aachen, and something happened on 10 October 1944. This is a quote from page 299:

"...30th Division troops and artillery had knocked out twelve German tanks. Ingenious soldiers of the 120th Infantry had destroyed one with a captured Puppchen, a two-wheeled bazooka."

So, one of three things is the case:

1) CMBO has the availability of Puppchen wrong.

2) MacDonald is wrong about the Puppchen in 10/44.

3 The Americans found a prototype, and it was one of only three (or whatever) in existence.

Are there any Puppchen experts, or BTS, who would like to elaborate??

Thanks,

P.S. Interestingly, Aachen was taken by only two US infantry battalions (later reinforced by two tank battalions and another infantry battalion) against 5,000 German troops. So a numerically inferior force took Aachen using superiority in armor, artillery, and airpower.

[Jarmo]

Don't know, but I'm a bit puzzled by the whole weapon.

Since the fierce "underpriced überpüppchen" argument a way back,

I'm always feeling a bit gamey if I take one. Despite the increase in price.

And I still can't understand why the hell did the germans stop making

them if they were as good as they seem.

[Mark IV]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001950.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006442.html

It does seem to show up rather late in the game. And the Germans appear to have found the Panzerschreck a better return on investment. Lots of good discussion in those threads.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

And the Germans appear to have found the Panzerschreck a better return on investment. Lots of good discussion in those threads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I even participated to the later thread. But still...

With the ability to knock out anything the allies had. With double

the range and accuracy of the schreck. You'd think the germans would

have thought it a worthwhile weapon.

[Aacooper]

Well I guess if I'd have searched, I'd have seen the answer is 1. It sounds like the Puppchen was built before the Germans encountered the bazooka, whereupon they switched production to the Panzerschreck.

So, the Puppchen should be available throughout CMBO, though it must have been very rare.

[dalem]

I even snapped a picture of a puppchen on my Europe trip.

-dale

[Guest machineman]

I'm getting a little confused here. There seems to be two stories, one that it was the predecessor to the Panzershreck and one that it was a development of it.

My source, Ian Hoggs 'Tank Killers', gives it as a development of the Panzershreck, one that launched the 88mm rocket with a conventional cartridge case. The rocket then ignited in flight, and the 'one two' push gave it the increased range (a bit like an RPG-7). It also says that accuracy was considerably better than the 'shreck because the rocket was launched from a more stable platform than a man's shoulder. Also:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fortunately the Puppchen took some time to perfect, and only a relatively small quantity was produced before the war ended<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW, Puppchen must mean something pretty rude in German, going by the German porn sites a search for that word picked up.

[Jarmo]

Fun and confusing.

It'd make a better sense to me, if it was a developement from schreck.

Then US could have used a captured "unperfected" version

in Aachen, and the "final" version would only go to production

sometime early -45.

[M Hofbauer]

The correct name for the Puppchen ("little doll") is "8,8cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen". The germans built 2,862 in 1943 and 288 in 1944. A second production run of 3,000 was canceled and the partly finished weapons scraped. Interesting sidenote to the production numbers: the troops received their first 700 weapons in October 1943; however there were problems with the production of the ammunition, the RPzGr. 4312, and consequenlty an ammunition shortage. The first major batch of that ammunition were 19,000 delivered in March 1944. At the time of the german surrender May 1945, a total of 1,649 Puppchen were still in active service with frontline troops.

The germans had stopped producing the weapon because they concluded that essentially it had the same performance as the Panzerschreck but was much more cumbersome and required more resources to produce in comparison to the "Panzerschreck" RPzB. 54/1.

In CM with it's abstracted infantry model the advantages of a Panzerschreck over the Puppchen don't really become as apparent, but common sonse should make it apparent that a 10kg Panzerschreck launch tube carried around by a sneaky soldier is much more feasible than the unwieldy, cumbersome Puppchen with it's gunpiece-assembly and a total weight of 100kg.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

------------------

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

BTW, Puppchen must mean something pretty rude in German, going by the German porn sites a search for that word picked up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it doesn't. It means (loosely translated, that is) small doll. A 'Puppe' is a doll.

------------------

Der ver zwei peanuts, valking down der Strasse, and von vas...assaulted! peanut. Ho-ho-ho-ho.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

In CM with it's abstracted infantry model the advantages of a Panzerschreck over the Puppchen don't really become as apparent, but common sonse should make it apparent that a 10kg Panzerschreck launch tube carried around by a sneaky soldier is much more feasible than the unwieldy, cumbersome Puppchen with it's gunpiece-assembly and a total weight of 100kg.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the performance was roughly equal, that'd be the case.

But puppchen is soo much more effective.

BTW, only 100kg's? And it has wheels. Shouldn't the crew be

able to run while pushing it...

[Mark IV]

Shortages of war materials and conflicts for production capacity would also weigh heavily in favor of the Panzerschreck over the Püppchen. Look at the materials and resources in one of each... for an increase of 100m or so in performance, not worth it.

John Weeks, sometimes collaborator with Hogg, also says in "Men Against Tanks" that Püppchen was a development of the Panzerschreck (he may be using Hogg as his source, though). He states: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was hoped that the velocity would go up enough to increase the effective range to 700m, but this was not realized and 300-400m would be more realistic, with most actions taking place at much less than that. The Püppchen was not made in large numbers. A few were used in France in 1944 where they were not particularly good and it is coubtful if they ever enjoyed the confidence of the German soldier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He also mentions attempts to increase the Panzerschreck's dimensions to 100mm (a failure due to weight and dimension increase), and an improved version of the Püppchen called PWK 8 H 63, which showed great promise (good at 600-700m), but which probably never "knocked out so much as one tank" due to its late introduction.

[M Hofbauer]

MarkIV,

hello again *g*

"Shortages of war materials and conflicts for production capacity would also weigh heavily in favor of the Panzerschreck over the Püppchen."

agree, but I need to point out that whatever sources you are using are overgermanizing the subject. The correct german name does not use the Umlaut. the word Püppchen means little doll, too, and actually today would much rather be used, but the fact remains that the WW2 weapon we are talking about here was called "Puppchen". I can only suspect that the (american?) sopurces you are using were trying to be smarter / more german than the Heereswaffenamt itself *g* by "correcting" the apparently "missing" Umlaut dots.

"John Weeks, sometimes collaborator with Hogg, also says in "Men Against Tanks" that Püppchen was a development of the Panzerschreck (he may be using Hogg as his source, though)."

I'm sorry to say that I disagree and that as far as I can see IMHO Mr Weeks is wrong. The Puppchen was an independent construction, however of course it shared many design features with the Panzerschreck since they were comparable weapons, so they were alike just like a Toyota Celica and a Volkswagen Golf are similar in so far as they are cars.

"A few were used in France in 1944 where they were not particularly good and it is coubtful if they ever enjoyed the confidence of the German soldier."

agree, that concurs with what I have read so far on that weapon. It didn't really earn the confidence of the german troops using it due to the reasons already outlined. In essence, it was like an AT gun but lacking the performance of an AT gun.

He also mentions attempts to increase the Panzerschreck's dimensions to 100mm (a failure due to weight and dimension increase),

the correct dimensions re. caliber for the projected Panzerschreck 10,5cm were - true to the name - 105mm. It was a bit heavier with it's 13kg but apparently one of the main reasons why it was dropped from further development was due to heavy recoil forces (technically being a recoilless weapon, I am are referring to the kickback of the rocket engine against the protective shield).

"and an improved version of the Püppchen called PWK 8 H 63"

It amazes me that these two weapons should be related to each other. The PWK 8 H 63 was a totally different weapon design by Rheinmetall, employing the high-low-pressure principle. It used the Wgr.Patr. 4462 ammunition. It was a descendant of the PAW 600, and I am really amazed how it should be related to the Puppchen...? I mean it practically succeeded the Puppchen as the next lightweight, new technology cheap AT piece, but that is how far the relationship goes IMHO.

"which showed great promise (good at 600-700m)"

Accuracy under firing range test conditions was such that at a range of 750m, 50% of all shots hit within a square of 70cm side length. For comparison, under same conditions the 50% hit group square of the PaK 43 AT gun was 20cm.

"but which probably never "knocked out so much as one tank" due to its late introduction."

In March 1945 the Panzergrenadier-Regimenter Pz.Gren.Regt.30 and 31 employed a total of 105 Panzerwurfkanonen 8 H 63. I couldn't dig up anything but the fact that these 105 were really in frontline use.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

(edited to kill the stupid smiley-insertion by the board script)

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

If I remember correctly...and I may not be...the Puppchen was the first German attempt to use the hollow-charge principle in a light infantry anti-tank weapon. It was somewhat unimaginative, as it was simply a very lightweight wheeled AT gun. Once they learned of the bazooka, though, the German engineers decided that this was a more practical way to make an infantry anti-tank weapon, and after making various improvements to the range, penetration, and firing mechanism, they had the Panzerschreck.

Also, as M.Hofbauer pointed out, there are a lot of practical advantages to the 'schreck -- you can toss it in the back of a truck, or Kuebelwagen, or you can just run with it.

And even as actual usage goes, imagine trying to hunt a tank in city streets with a small wheeled gun that weighed 200 lbs. First, it would be much easier to pop around a corner and take a shot. Second, what if you were in a rubbled house or behind a five foot tall wall -- with the 'schreck, you can just pop up and shoot; with a Puppchen, you wouldn't be able to lift the gun up that high.

[Los]

I have a german training film dated 1943 called "Men against Tanks". It show sthem using Puppchen. Doesn't seem to weigh 200 lbs, though since a single guy in the prone drags it with one hand. Course he may just be strong.

I don't think it was the first crack at a hollow charge AT weapon since the German AT rifle grenades were hollow charge.

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 11-27-2000).]

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

I have a german training film dated 1943 called "Men gaianst Tanks". It show sthem using Puppchen. Doesn't seem to weigh 200 lbs, though since a single guy in the prone drags it with one hand. Course he may just be strong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

200 lbs is not all that much when it's on wheels.

The ammo probably weighs as much, and the helpers get to carry it.

[Mark IV]

Weeks cites Hogg as a source in the bibliography, and individual statements are not footnoted. Thus I report only on what Weeks has published, not necessarily on the facts themselves:

He uses the umlaut in "Puppchen", liberally and consistently.

He says "[The "puppchen"] was meant as an improved and more effective version of the Panzerschreck rocket-launcher... It fired a special version of the Panzerschreck bomb which had a small cartridge case fitted over the tail fins."

I unintentionally misrepresented Weeks' position by referring to H 63 as a "version" of the Puppchen. It was actually intended as a replacement for it. He described the high-low pressure system in some detail.

I believe that the Puppchen and the H 63 are related to each other, in that H 63 features greatly reduced recoil over a conventional gun, and uses a smooth-bore tube to launch a hollow charge. The mechanics of achieving those goals were different, but the principle (near recoilless operation in a lightweight platform) appear similar.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju:

Der ver zwei peanuts, valking down der Strasse, and von vas...assaulted! peanut.

Ho-ho-ho-ho.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Is this the only joke Germans find amusing? (Sorry to all those jovial Germans out there but I simply couldn't resist!)

Jim R.

------------------

Steve to Combat Mission community:

"If it's not in Combat Mission it never happened in reality"... nah that's not what I meant

"If it's not in Combat Mission then the chances of it happening were miniscule"... hmmm, not quite

"If it's not in Combat Mission then we didn't have the resources to code it"... rats, we've employed more people now

"If it's not in Combat Mission, STIFF SH*T!"... yeh, that's what I meant to say

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

200 lbs is not all that much when it's on wheels.

The ammo probably weighs as much, and the helpers get to carry it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can confirm that. "My" ATG weighted in at 230 kg (close to 500 lbs), and it was easily handled by a single person. For running speed at longer distances two or three men were needed.

Ammo was carried in ill-designed 22 kg tubes, with two rounds. The ammo bearer was supposed to carry two tubes, the loader one.

Cheers

Olle

[Guest machineman]

It seems to me so far that what they were going for was more a replacement for an anti-tank gun, not a replacement for the Panzershreck. If they would have got the 700m range they wanted (and the two charge idea was basically good, as the RPG-7 has shown) it would have more likely taken the place of a very expensive, 1500kg 7.5cm Pak in close country, never mind all the near useless 3.7 and 5.0 Paks they still had around.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

It seems to me so far that what they were going for was more a replacement for an anti-tank gun, not a replacement for the Panzershreck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone was trying to replace the Panzerschreck... a lot of late war development was driven by shortages of materials, including gunpowder. So replacing or supplementing the traditional AT gun made sense. The 'schreck itself was very successful, and aside from efforts to improve it, its future was pretty secure.

I just tried a scenario defending an Assault from the AI, with 4 Puppchens and one Pak. I gave the attacker a 25% advantage to make sure there would be lots of targets.

AI lined up a huge assortment of British armor and advanced. The Veteran Puppchen crews began to engage about 550m on their own. While I was impressed with their rate of fire, this non-scientific experiment resulted in 3 dead tanks and 4 dead Puppchen.

They should have been held until a closer engagement range, but they were Vets so I let them pick... one problem is that they insist on targeting infantry as soon as they lose sight of tanks. They have their place in a combined arms defense, but are certainly not ueberweapons. They missed a lot.

[M Hofbauer]

Mark IV:I don't think anyone was trying to replace the Panzerschreck... (...) The 'schreck itself was very successful, and aside from efforts to improve it, its future was pretty secure.

actually, it was intended to replace the Panzerschreck with the Panzerfaust 150.

With the late Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck models the germans had two different designs fitting almost the same role (I know I know the RPzB officially was for dedicated AT Panzerzerstörergruppen while the PzF was a complementary secondary weapon for regular infantry but face it the PzF could be / was also used just as well by the dedicated tank hunter groups). The final new Panzerfaust model seemed much more desirable over the Panzerschreck. Reloading/Reusing was not an issue with the late PzF models (earlier Panzerfausts were technically single-use but reloaded at the factory; the PzF 150 featured a re-usable launch tube that could be reloaded in the field similarly to a PzSchreck or Bazooka). Only the end of ww2 prevented the army-wide replacement of the Panzerschreck by the Panzerfaust.

Andrew Hedges: I couldn't have illustrated / elaborated the critical aspect better. Thing is, all these advantages you show are not really in effect with CM's infantry model, and that is why the Puppchen does so well in comparison with the PzSchreck.

[Jarmo]

It seems there is an agreement (of sorts), that the puppchen should

be availlable at all dates?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello there,

Good discussion. I'll only comment on the points I feel are unanswered:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>M.Hofbauer wrote:

I couldn't have illustrated / elaborated the critical aspect better. Thing is, all these advantages you show are not really in effect with CM's infantry model, and that is why the Puppchen does so well in comparison with the PzSchreck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure I understand why you feel this way. The Puppchen is not easy to redeploy compared to the PS. It is also harder to conceal than a PS team. PS can also be fired in any terrain that infantry can move into, while the Puppchen is not capable of firing inside of buildings or (IIRC) from Swamp. It strikes me that these are the major advantages of the PS vs. the Puppchen, and CM does model them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jarmo wrote:

It seems there is an agreement (of sorts), that the puppchen should be availlable at all dates?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would appear so. I will ask Charles why he has the date restrictions and, if there is an error, have the variables adjusted.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

The Püppchen weighed 315 pounds. And no, we will not let the crews run. Not even a short distance.

You guys are right that Püppchens were built before D-Day. I've got a photo here of one the Americans captured in Tunisia.

The reason I made them available only in 1945 was more for game reasons than anything else. I was not aware of significant use of the weapon in 1944 (though the mention of MacDonald's capturing of one is very interesting), and my main source on the subject, "The Bazooka: Hand-Held Hollow-Charge Anti-Tank Weapons" (Gander) says that the Püppchen fell immediately into disfavor after the Germans captured a bazooka in North Africa and built the Panzerschreck in response. Gander says, "Most R-Werfer 43s already produced were sent to Tunisia or Italy and were soon forgotten or lost in action. A few were diverted to be emplaced among the defensive works covering the Normandy beaches as part of the Atlantic Wall defenses."

So this shows that the Püppchen was around during CM's full time frame. I restricted it to 1945 because, as stated above, the weapon was held in disfavor compared to the Panzerschreck, but I thought that by 1945 the Germans would be using any antitank weapons they could get their hands on, whether it was their favorite or not. I didn't want scenarios popping up with Püppchens all over the place in 1944.

I will make the change, however, and allow the Püppchen in 1944.

Charles