Some answers for Cauldron

[JasonC]

In another thread, Cauldron asked two reasonable questions, about how common the Puppchen really was in the war, and about how the German tankers managed in 1941-1942 when the Russians have KVs and T-34s and they didn't.

Unfortunately, the thread is now (quite properly) locked because 80 out of 85 posts in it were flames, reactions to flames, distractions started up by the previous two, etc. Since one of the few other posts was a rather long bit of research of my own, I was slightly put out by this. I doubt the man who asked the question saw the answers he did get.

So, for the benefit of Cauldron and anyone else interested in the two original substantive questions, here are the responsive replies -

FieldMarshall -

I suggest you consult the "German Secret weapons of WW II" The Germans wanted something lighter than a artillery peice, and pack a heavier punch than an AT Rifle, it was the predecesor to the Panzerchreck, and fired roughly the same shell...it was a rocket system, alot heavier than the Shreck and much more complicated and expensive, the Germans began phasing them out mid-war, but always had a surplus.

Boff -

A search on Google turned up the following on the raketenwerfer 43 Puppchen:

http://www.qt.org/worldwar/weapons/germany/heer/raketen43.html http://www.waffen-ss.com/equipment/small_arms/heavy_rocket_launcher.html

Pak40 -

The Puppchen is essentially a Panzershrek with more propellant and a longer barrel for more accuracy.

REVS -

Pupchens: let's go shopping. Gee, a Conscript Puppchen costs you.... all of 16 points. Gee, you could have 9 of them on a hillside to take out a Churchill. Might work (in fact, might work every time).

Wonder if any bunch of conscripts was ever issued with 9 Puppchens?

I think one of Combat Mission's main problems is what happens down at the shopping mall. Some canny shoppers can come up with truly appalling combinations that never occurred in history, and which are very hard to beat within the gaming system.

16 points for a conscript Puppchen? When I go down to the local supermarket, there are signs saying "limit of 4": How about the same for gamers who shop exclusively down at the bargain basement end of the spectrum?

JasonC -

There were 3150 of these launchers made, most of them in 1943. Most of the ammo for them was made in 1944, though, amounting to 96 rounds per launcher. Which is substantially less than regular PAK, with their better range, but still indicates significant use. In numerical terms, they are about as rare as German heavy tanks (above and not including Panthers), and nothing like as common as ordinary PAK on the one hand, or Panzerschrecks on the other.

Considering when they came out and their capabilities, they were probably used mostly in the east, from the end of 1943 through mid 1944, with fewer available by late 44 when the western front was opened up, since production of the launchers had already stopped.

They are more useful in CM games than in the real war because small maps make their limited range less of a liability, compared to say a 75mm PAK 40. And they are cheap, because CM has no rariety system effecting unit prices (though one is planned for the Russian front version), and because all light guns are cheap. That makes them popular with cherry pickers looking for combat power bargains.

As for the other question about how the Germans managed to win consistently against T-34s and KV-1s in 1941 and 1942, when they had inferior tanks themselves, it is worth examining in some detail. First off, though, notice right away what it proves - that the technological dominance theory beloved of some modern armor grogs (which might be briefly stated as "the guy with the best fielded tank should win") just seems to be flat wrong at the strategic scale. Almost the exact opposite is true for almost every period of the war, and the very least one could say is that having the best fielded tank, alone, made no discernable difference at the strategic level.

One reason for this is that the tech-dominance idea gets misled by the "averaging up" phenomenon. People imagine that the whole tank fleet was made of the best types being produced, right when they were first fielded. Which is not even close to true. Often the better tanks were a modest portion of the fielded fleets, , at least in important periods, and there was always a lag between increased production of a model and it making up enough of the fielded force to make have any impact. I'll go into some of the fleet composition issues later on in this post, for the 1941-1942 Russian front.

The second illusion involved is that tanks are dueling other tanks and nothing else is on the battlefields or matters. Sometimes only the turreted tanks are considered, also. Again, this is not remotely true. Towed guns are as numerous as AFVs overall and often more capable in their raw firepower, fielded earlier, or both. And operational moves involving armor sent against mostly infantry and gun forces were at least as decisive, and far more common, than tank fleet clashes. This was especially true in the first half of the war.

So let's look a little closer at what the situation was in 1941 and 1942, examining fleet mix, deployment lags, and other things available to KO tanks, besides other tanks.

The T-34 was a rare item in 1941, but the dominant production tank thereafter. Not the only type made, though. The KV series was rare in both 41 and 42. 3/4 of the 1941 fleet mix were light tanks armed with 45mm guns - T-26s and BTs amassed in huge numbers before the war began. There were as many new 20mm light tanks (akin to the German's Pz IIs) made after the invasion, as there were KVs - slightly more actually. Only 1/6 of the Russian tanks available by the end of 1941 were either T-34 or KV series, and those themselves were weighted 2:1 in favor of the lighter T-34. In absolute numbers, the Russians fielded ~1600 KVs and ~3000 T-34s, many of them only toward the end of the year.

So, just for starters, 5/6ths of the Russian tank fleet of 1941 could be KOed by 37mm, short 50mm, or short 75mm guns, which were the weapons of the German armor fleet. What did the Germans have to deal with the heavier critters? It helps, first, to review what weapons were useful against the T-34 and the KV-1, in what ways.

The 50L42 could KO a T-34 with regular AP, against the lower side hull only, at reasonably close range - 500 meters. The 75L24 if firing HEAT ammo could KO a T-34 at any range with a hit on the lower side hull, or a decent hit on the turret (meaning, one that by direction or chance got a modest impact angle). 88 FLAK could KO either tank at range, any angle. So could 105mm and 150mm howitzers firing HEAT ammo. Once out, the 50L60 gun could penetrate the lower side hull of the T-34 with standard AP at ranges up to 1 km, and with PGr 40 high velocity ammo, could penetrate fronts and sides if the range was quite close. The 75 long could penetrate them from the front at useful ranges, near 1 km. In short, the early tank guns need side shots on vunerable points, special ammo at vunerable points, angles, or ranges. The larger towed guns were effective at range and from any angle, though the howitzers needed HEAT of course. Eventually the 75 long gave AFVs and common towed guns the ability to deal with them.

As we saw, in 1941 about 1/6th of the Russian fleet were the heavier makes, and the absolute number of them (combined) was arond 4600. So how many of the heavy towed pieces did the Germans have by then? The army had 1300 150mm howitzers and 3000 105mm howitzers. There were also 125 army heavy FLAK guns and 3200 88 FLAK under Luftwaffe control, though that is for all fronts of course, and most were being used to defend Germany. Before the end of the year they also fielded 2400 long 50mm as towed PAK.

So basically, 5/6ths of the Russian AFV fleet were thin armored and the German tanks could deal with them, while the other 1/6th were matched, item for item, by towed artillery pieces that could KO them at range with the right ammo. So the Germans used "PAK fronts", or flanked and closed with their own AFVs (tossing 75mm HEAT at turrets, and aiming for lower hull sides with everything else). Russian armor doctrine helped - most of the heavies were used supporting infantry in penny packets of 10-20 well-armored AFVs, working with a portion of light tanks.

That is the 1941 story. But in 1942 the T-34 became the main production type, and was no longer a minority item. But does this mean from January 1, 1942, the Germans faced fleets of nothing but T-34s? No. About half of the 1942 fleet were T-34s, and about 40% were light tanks, evenly divided between 45mm and 20mm versions (T-60 and T-70). The KVs remained a minor item, on the order of 1/16th of the total fleet as in the previous year. Even this fleet mix is the average for the year. Some of the pre-war tanks were still running, and T-34 production was still ramping up for the first half of the year, as relocated factories can on-line, etc. In addition, the Russians did not throw all of this production at the Germans as it rolled out of the factories. Some did, but they also saved up the T-34 fleets used for the late 1942 counterattacks. Which -weren't- defeated; they retook the Don basin from Stalingrad to Kharkov. So the mystery of how the Germans defeated that portion of them is moot. Overall, the Russians fielded 14,300 T-34 or KV-1 tanks during the course of 1942, and they still had quite a few of them at the end of the year. Overall Russian fleet strength rebounded strongly, after falling 2/3rds from the pre-war level in 1941.

As the Russian fleet transitioned to T-34s in the course of 1942, the Germans fielded many additional weapons to deal with them. There were additional howitzers, bringing the totals to that date to 1900 150mm and 4200 105mm, minus whatever they lost before. There were also another 200 self-propelled ones of both calibers combined. Army 88s were 300 by then, while the Luftwaffe had received 6000 of them. Another 90 were in the first Tiger Is, out by the end of the year. More important were 2850 75mm long on AFVs (900 Pz IVs, 700 StuG III, and 1250 Marders of all kinds) and 5700 75mm towed PAK. There were also ~2000 Pz IIIs with long 50mm and by that date ~7000 50mm long as towed PAK.

All told that is (1) 9000 dedicated PAK or army heavy FLAK, 75mm long or better, another (2) 9000 dedicated PAK with 50mm long which were not really adequate, plus (3) 6000 howitzers able to due the job if they had HEAT, and (4) 6000 more 88 FLAK off serving with the Luftwaffe. To handle whatever portion of the 14.3K well armored Russian tanks weren't held out for the fall offensives, when the above overall armament proved inadequate to stop all the T-34s.

In 1941 and 1942, the bulk of the German force able to deal with the heavier Russian tanks consisted of towed guns. Of the 30K weapons listed in the previous 1942 summary, only about 1 in 6 was on an AFV - or if the 50mm longs are discounted, 1 in 7. In 1941 all of them were, and all of them were meant for other roles initially (FLAK or tossing HE indirect). But in that year, as already mentioned, the KVs and T-34s were comparatively rare, 1/6 critters themselves, and used in penny packets.

The changes in 1942 on the two sides were (1) the Russians went from mostly light tanks to a 60/40 mix in favor of mostly T-34s, and (2) the Germans fielded serious numbers of dedicated PAK, in AFVs or towed but mostly towed, that could deal with them. A large portion of the overall capable gun force was still duel role - howitzer or Luftwaffe 88s. But by the end of 1942, 9000 weapons had been fielded that were both meant almost exclusively for anti-tank work, and able to kill a T-34 from the front at 1 km ranges. They were outnumbered no more than 3:2 by their potential targets, the T-34s and KV-1s.

When you look only at the tank match ups in 1942 you see the German fleet without nearly enough 75 longs, and many older weapons, and the match up may seem incredible, for the success the Germans achieved for most of that year. But the Germans had the big guns out by then. They just didn't have them in tanks yet (only a portion, about 1/3rd).

The towed guns are upgunning ahead of the tanks. By 1943 the tanks will be upgunned too, and the old 50mm (long or short) and short 75mm are phased out. That transition just happened 6-12 months sooner for the towed gun part of the force, because tanks are harder to produce in significant numbers, quickly. As late as the end of 1943, twice as many AT weapons 75mm and up had been built as towed guns as had been built into AFVs.

End answers...

I thank those who made kind comments about the previous, and those who tried to put out the flames so we could actually discuss these matters.

I must say I was a little surprised no one else answered the second of Cauldron's two questions, the one about how the Germans dealt with Russian heavy armor in the first 18 months of the war. But perhaps it wasn't lack of interest but inability to hear straight in the cross-talk. At any rate here is another chance at that topic.

And please, no reprise of the flames that locked up the previous, who was or wasn't in or out of line, yadda yadda. Please stick to the real use of Puppchens on the one hand, and the 41-42 Russian armor question on the other.

I also have one other item on the puppchen story, to back up what I merely guessed before about the time window and place where practical use was probably made of them. I have reviewed the equipment OOBs of the German forces in Normandy, obviously in mid 44. I don't find a single puppchen in the OOB of the entire force.

Since the launchers were made in 43 and most of the ammo is 44, I suspect that were used in the east, and in particular from the end of 43 to mid 44 - a difficult period of German retreat of course, often less covered than other episodes. I'd be interested in any combat report or OOB showing they were actually used in the west.

[Barticus]

Holy crow Jason, do you actually DO anything other than read Russian production figures?

B

[Maastrictian]

I don't think he does

Good post Jason, as usual.

One question, I personally wouldn't have put 105 an 150mm howitzers in the category of AT guns. Sure, they could kill Russian heavy tanks, but how often were they used that way? They were much more useful behind the lines, and the Russians weren't exactally breaking through German lines in '41. As you also admit, most FLAK guns were in use in Germany.

This makes your explanation of how the Germans defeated superior tanks much weaker. The 50mm L60s would have had to be doing the majority of the work (2800 50mm L60s vs. 4600 Russian heavies).

--Chris

[M Hofbauer]

methinks most KVs were not destroyed in CM-type engagements but broke down mechanically, were abandoned, or isolated and destroyed, you know, the kind of close assault at night by engineers with charges, or setting up some 8.8 Flak 18/36 pieces (as hinted by JasonC).

[FFE]

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

I must say I was a little surprised no one else answered the second of Cauldron's two questions, the one about how the Germans dealt with Russian heavy armor in the first 18 months of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer to this is multi-directional. German command did not have to specifically deal with the superior Soviet armor, because the Soviet combat doctrine was lacking. It was not until late 42 did the Soviets revise their combined arms warfare tactics. As already pointed out in 41 the Soviets did not enjoy fleets of T-34s and KV-1s. The Soviets used these AFVs similarly as the British used their armor formations in the early to mid stages of North Africa. Instead of supporting their tactically superior vehicles, Commonwealth and Soviet doctrine reinforced independence. The German formations were able to strip support elements, isolate Soviet threats, and counter via superior tactics. C3 issues heavily favored the Germans against the Soviets. And in 1941 the Germans were able to maintain air superiority, thus hampering Soviet logistics.

Comparing ballistic information versus armor penetration is purely superficial. This sort of evaluation is misleading due to absence of tactical C3 factors.

In game terms: A platoon of T-34 with a company of rifles enters on to the field. The Germans noticing the presence of T-34s quickly rely this information to all formations. The forces engage. German ATG assets are already placed to counter the Soviet armor threat. One must not forget the linchpin; the command T-34. Isolating this vehicle was common knowledge by late 41. With the command T-34 simply immobilized, the rest of the T-34s were operating blind.

[M Hofbauer]

From Valera's excellent website:

(quote)There are some accounts when a single KV-1 tank delayed whole German armies for days.

A single KV-1 made a stand near a road not far from Ostrov (Baltic states) and delayed the whole German tank army.

The battle casualties: 7 German tanks, an anti-tank battery, one 88 mm AA-gun and all it crew, 4 halftracks "Hanomag", and 12 trucks. This tank was destroyed on the next day with German 88 mm AA-gun. The KV-1 tank could be destroyed only with 88 mm heavy AA-guns or with 105 mm howitzers. The 105 mm howitzer couldn't penetrate the KV's armor but could immobilize it with a track hit.

However, most KV's weren't destroyed by enemy, they were lost because of technical failures and abandoned by their crews because of a lack of repair time. Here is a report from the commander of the 10th Tank Division, 15th Mechanized Corps: "We have lost 56 tanks in total (of 63 tanks - Valera) where 11 tanks were knocked out in battle, 11 lost without a trace, and 34 were abandoned by their crews due to technical failures".

In the 8th Tank Division, 43 tanks (of 50 tanks total) were lost, where 13 were destroyed in battles, 2 sunk in swamp, and 28 were abandoned due to breakdowns.(end quote)

as we can see it is a bit like the story of the late war german heavies. I'll see if I can dig up my german AT Gun unit diaries from early eastern front engagements to see what they say on the matter, however these are currently stacked away.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Cpl Carrot]

I would assume aircraft would have got a few as well, but no body seems to have mentioned them. AFAIK Stuka's were still in their element and were more than capable in taking out a KV 1 or 2

Also I remember a thread earlier about how russian crews would bail out of their tanks due to the contant hammering of 20mm cannon on the side of their tanks. Perhaps this is true I don't know but probably the case of some

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

A most informative post!

I don't have much to add at present, but I can confirm Puppchen use on the Western Front, specifically in Italy. T. J. Gander's FIELD ROCKET EQUIPMENT OF THE GERMAN ARMY 1939-1945 (Almark Publishing Co., 1972) says on page 52:

"However one launcher that increased the range of the 8.8 cm grenade had already been tried in action, although only, it appears, in small numbers. This was the 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 or Puppchen ("Dolly") encountered on the Italian front."

At the bottom of the page is a B/W shot of the low profile rocker leg configuration. On page 53 is an IWM B/W shot (IWM-NA15782) of an Allied soldier posed astride the trail of the familiar wheeled version from CMBO. The soldier's wearing summer uniform (khaki shorts and khaki shirt with sleeves rolled up), including what looks like an olive fore and aft cap which isn't U.S. pattern. I think he's British.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

PS

The Infantry Museum at Ft. Benning, Georgia has a Puppchen. I saw it myself back when I visited the area. Someone might wish to contact the curator and find out where it was captured.

[Mark IV]

Puppchen on the Web:

This is from the Fort Garry Horse site in Manitoba:

I assume it was from the West front since this was supposedly captured by Canadians (no reason to think it wasn't, but no evidence either way).

This one in Militaerhistorisches Dresen is a little shot up, but includes a round.

Modelers would like the one at Eklyps, also available with Kettenrad.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Sig]

Hello,

I remember reading (was in Osprey's Ostfront introduction) that during the campaign against France most of the technically superior french tanks where eliminated by the Luftwaffe (same for the arty, btw). Has one of you some information if this was also the case during the early stages of Barbarossa? Thanks.

Sig

[JasonC]

On puppchens in Italy, thanks for the report and that makes perfect sense. The Italian front was active during the period of their greatest available, from the end of 43 through mid 44. Canadians also fought there, which may explain their captured one. Whether they were used in France remains to me an open question, but it is of course possible. Though not in the numbers some use them in CM today - LOL.

As for German use of field artillery in the front lines, they certainly did do it. If you read the Panzer commanders in the early part of the war, they are forever insisting that at least a battery of field guns, and if possible a battalion, and also 88 flak when available, move right up front immediately behind the panzers themselves. And the "PAK front" idea incorporated them into the general gun line.

The first large scale use of this idea was ad hoc, by Rommel, in the fighting around Sedan in 1940. British Maltidas were the threat then. As their HE ability (even with a few 3" gun CS tanks and their MGs) was minimal, they heavily favored the tactic. They were stopped eventually by a few 88s plus the field artillery in more than battalion strength, firing direct.

HEAT ammo makes the idea more effective. One fellow commented that the 105s could get track hits to m-kill the Russian heavies. For ordinary HE, or perhaps vs. the KV rather than the T-34, that is correct. But 105mm HEAT could KO T-34s, frontally. Hits were harder to get at range than with the 88, because the shell velocity is much lower. But there were a lot of 105s available, and they were definitely used to KO heavier Russian tanks with direct fire. The US also found in Korea that 105mm HEAT could KO the later T-34/85s from the front, reliably.

It is true that poor Russian doctrine in 1941 helped, as I said in the original article. It is also true, as others have stated, that the Russians lost many tanks to breakdowns. Which were especially bad during the 41 retreat - because it was a retreat, often a pell-mell one, because around 3/4ths of the Russian pre-war fleet began the war in need of minor repairs, because parts were often unavailable (channeled to troops farther back or to new production, etc). The Luftwaffe doubtless got a few, but even in the period of their air superiority, the Germans never had anything remotely like the level of support of later Allied tac-air in the west, and that alone could not defeat large amounts of armor. It is also true that in 1941 only 1/6 of the Russian fleet were heavies to begin with, as I said before.

But these points should not be overstated. By the end of the year the Russians had fielded 3400 tanks in this category. If even 1/2 of them were in battle rather than just broken down, that is a force as large as the Germans threw at the Americans in the Bulge. The Germans certainly faced KVs and T-34s in 1941, and occasionally faced the T-34s in some quantity. They did have methods of dealing with them, better than waiting for them to break down or hoping the Luftwaffe would put a 1000 lb bomb on the rear deck of each.

Those methods were (1) the gun front at range, using 88s with AP and field guns with HEAT (or in a pinch, HE at tracks); and (2) overwhelming them with concentrated tank gun fire as the Germans flanked and closed. 75L24s could fire HEAT or smoke, 50L42s could aim at tracks, turret rings, and the flat lower hull sides of the T-34. Sometimes a tank would succumb after 20 or 30 hits, as repeated banging broke weakened plates, or weld seams popped, or a weak point was found. Sometimes the Russian tankers would withdraw or bail out.

If you look at that report of losses taking on 1 KV, you can see how this would go. The KV differed from the T-34 in having thicker armor on the sides, and being less dependent on slope effects to defeat the typical German tank rounds. The lost German tanks listed probably reflect an attempt to get in short range side shots, that might have worked vs. a T-34 but failed against this KV. The dead 88 shows that towed guns were being brought up to KO the critter at range - probably when the first method didn't work, and apparently too close in the case of one of them.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

On puppchens in Italy, thanks for the report and that makes perfect sense. The Italian front was active during the period of their greatest available, from the end of 43 through mid 44. Canadians also fought there, which may explain their captured one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting - Fort Garry Horse did NOT serve in Italy, however, being a tank regiment of the 2nd Armoured Brigade - they served in England and NW Europe after D-Day.

Doesn't mean anything, I suppose, just interesting that if this thing was captured in Italy, it was not by the Fort Garries, as they were not there.

[Louie the Toad]

Looking for a " Keeper of Critical Information"

Someone should keep the above info, especially Jason's. I am sure it will be needed to ward off all kinds of bickering when CMBB comes out.

Not volunteering... Toad

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Looking for a " Keeper of Critical Information"

Someone should keep the above info, especially Jason's. I am sure it will be needed to ward off all kinds of bickering when CMBB comes out.

Not volunteering... Toad<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't Hofbauer have this stuff on his Panzerfaust site?

In addition to a revamped BTS homepage, (including FAQs) perhaps they should

have a links page to websites on which info like this is contained (and continually referred to by posters on this forum?)

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]