Puppchen: the tiny "gun" with the big punch

[John Kettler]

For those of you who've never seen a Puppchen, this should help you understand why it's so hard to spot. Projectile is identical to what a Panzerschreck fires, which means it kill just about anything the Allies have--frontally.

http://www.ceris-normandie.com/archivesnormandie/PhotosHD/p001135.jpg

Here's an RP-54 Panzerschreck for comparison.

http://www.ceris-normandie.com/archivesnormandie/PhotosHD/p012362.jpg

Regards,

John Kettler

[ August 02, 2006, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[General Bolt]

Good photos.

Zoom in on the Puppchen. There are some pictures of tanks on the bullet shield. Probably there to help ID the good guys.

Funny thing about the pictures: A bird col and a 1st sgt posing for the camera. I wonder what the grunts, that actually captured the weapons, were doing when the Kodak moment happened - digging again no doubt.

[Holman]

The tank diagrams may be suggestions of where to aim. I believe I've seen such in instructions for a 'schreck.

[JasonC]

What is completely inaccurate about them in CM is that they are completely accurate - when they weren't.

[Uberpickle]

The Puppchen makes me cry.

[John Kettler]

General Bolt,

You must have a better zoom than I do. Mine's one level only. I can barely see what look like tanks broadside on, together with what appear to be data tables.

Martyr,

I believe you're correct. From what I can see of the outlines, they don't look like German designs.

JasonC,

I wish I'd had yours! Could've used them in of the ROW battles I fought. Mine missed plenty and died quickly.

Uberpickle,

Tears of joy, tears of sorrow, or some transported ecstatic state?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Uberpickle]

Tears of sorrow when I face the thing assualting a dug in position, tears of joy when I am defending with the little bugger, I tend to use them exclusively in some battles where medium-light armor is coming barreling at me.

I love the sound "WHAP" when it knocks out a brit or two

I put this weapon in one of my scenarios limitedly at the last flag, just to stick it to you when you thought it was over

[John Kettler]

Found another image of the back of the shield graphics. It's IWM-NA15782 on page 53 of Gander's

FIELD ROCKET EQUIPMENT OF THE GERMAN ARMY 1939-1945,

Almark Publication, 1972. The image is small, halftoned and at high obliquity, but it looks like

the tank may be a Sherman. Anyone have a better image?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

There may be something useful here in the Men Against Tanks clip. The reenactor's group site is remarkable. Be sure to check out the Hetzer, which I found before but can't locate now.

http://www.12hj.com/cinema.html

This is evidently from another training film and has minor English subtitling. Fabulous Puppchen sequence at beginning, but no data placard!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiQO2kOcwI&mode=related&search=

These don't have the wee beastie but are simply engrossing!

Manner Gegen Panzer (Men Against Tanks) Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STQHH_hJlhM&mode=related&search=panzer

Manner Gegen Panzer Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7SixS9PAw&search=panzer

Edit

Found much faster server for Puppchen video (replaced glacial one), which also has Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust (klein) and close combat AT weapons.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ August 09, 2006, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[JasonC]

If they were a tenth as effective in real life as they are in CM, the Germans would have fielded half a million of them and they'd have KOed most of the Allied tank fleet. It is grossly overmodeled and underpriced. It is the accuracy that is off, by 5-10 times probably.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

As noted before, I found the Rw 43 to be no super weapon, indeed, mediocre, if that, but did you see the footage of one in what may be combat? The techniques used for taking it into action are most interesting. I think half a million of those Puppchens deployed would've been an Allied nightmare.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ August 06, 2006, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[JasonC]

The reality about why they nowhere feature in actual combat narratives, as being of any importance, is as follows. Bullet points taken from other analysts, my comments below them

(1) the Puppchen was introduced only a few months *before* the Panzershrek, which was considered the better weapon.

(2) The Germans built 2,862 Puppchen in 1943 and 288 in 1944. A second production run of 3,000 was cancelled and the partly finished weapons scrapped.

(3) Troops received the first 700 weapons in October 1943 - but there wasn't enough ammo.

(4) The first major batch of ammunition was 19,000 rounds delivered in March 1944.

(5) At the time of the German surrender in May 1945, a total of 1,649 Puppchen were still in active service. (That's half, after nearly 2 years).

(6) The Germans stopped producing the weapon because they concluded that it had similar performance to the Panzerschreck but weighing more than 100kg was far more cumbersome and required more resources to produce than the Panzerschreck (10kg).

(7) Most R-Werfer 43s already produced were sent to Tunisia or Italy and were soon forgotten or lost in action.

(8) A few were diverted to be emplaced among the defensive works covering the Normandy beaches as part of the Atlantic Wall defenses.

(9) The initial velocity of the Puppchen was 150 m/s.

It was designed before the Germans knew about the bazooka. They saw the bazooka was clearly a superior design idea and developed the panzerschreck. The puppchen was an orphaned old idea about how to use the kind of rocket fired from panzerschrecks, before they saw how to make it a man-portable infantry weapon.

The production run was very limited for an infantry AT weapon. There were 10 schrecks for every puppchen and 20 multiple panzerfausts for every schreck (even taking into account the round vs. launcher distinction for the last).

They cancelled the future order because it was seen as a useless weapon in the field. The reason is obvious - it competed directly with panzerschrecks to deliver the same rounds. The rounds were scarce enough that they, rather than launchers, limited the number used.

The first lot sent south had a trickle of rockets, but most rockets went to panzerschrecks as soon as those appeared - hence the supply difficulty comment. The comment about most abandoned or lost in action clearly applies to this first wave of them sent south.

The march 1944 provision of serious ammo for them must cover the next lot, as it would not apply to weapons already lost. The provision only amounted to 6 rockets per launcher, similar to panzerschreck levels. It may have been somewhat higher for the number remaining, but was planned on the infantry rocket weapon level of a few rounds (expected to be lost when used) - not an artillery piece level of 1500 rounds per gun with a long useful life etc.

Since half of them were still "in service" at the end, that half cannot have seen much action, if any. They were used in 1944 as extra launchers if and where panzerschreck launchers were scarce. The beach use was a typical adaptation - their drawback was their basic immobility and static defenses seemed the only sensible use for them. A mobile defense would use a panzerschreck instead.

In CM, they are instead given reasonable accuracy out to medium ranges, far in excess of the range of the panzerschreck and much more accurate at long range. There is no evidence whatsoever that they actually had any advantage in range or accuracy over a shoulder fired panzerschreck. The muzzle velocity was 150 meters per second. Hits at 2 second flight times with slow projectiles as exceedingly rare. It should instead be accurate at 150m and a possible hit at 225m - much like a schreck.

The reason for the modeling mistake, giving them much higher accuracy, is probably the occasional comment in German training documents that they could be used against stationary targets at up to 500 yards. This did not mean a tank that had stopped. It meant the proverbial broad side of a barn. The same comment occurs for panzerschrecks, and it means "indirect fire", lobbing the shell at a high angle, as a means of using the thing as a glorified mortar to deal with infantry positions.

It is a mistake as modeled and people should not exploit it. Just take a panzerschreck instead.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

A most informative post! Where did you get such great info? I agree that a Panzerschreck is more mobile, lighter, and cheaper to manufacture. As for weapon modeling in CM, look on the bright side. At least they didn't give the PIAT a 700+ yard range,

its housebusting reach.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tagwyn]

Regards: I hope Jason doesn't give a rotten rat's arse about what you think. Good work Jason, as usual. Tag

[Kanonier Reichmann]

What's with the hostility Tag? The discussion has seemed perfectly civil up to this point.

Regards

Jim R.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

What's with the hostility Tag?

It's his standard ploy.

Michael

[Andreas]

He's a troll. Just ignore him, everybody else does.

All the best

Andreas

[Other Means]

I recently lost 2 Shermans to one of these buggers. The first one was pure ambush - no complaints.

The second one from 500m when I'd moved there to lay fire on it. First shot kills for both.

A little peeved by that I was.

[Andreas]

Accuracy of low-velocity weapons is overstated in CMBB and CMAK.

There, I said it.

All the best

Andreas

[The_Enigma]

Very informative posts.

So these Puppchen's had the same effective range as the shreck?

[Andreas]

I would have thought it to be a bit better, since the mount was more stable, but overall, not much better.

All the best

Andreas

[The_Enigma]

Very intresting.

Thanks

[Other Means]

In reality not much better, in CMAK out to 500m.

http://cmak.jemian.com/

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I would have thought it to be a bit better, since the mount was more stable, but overall, not much better.

Mr. Picky's steam-powered P(hit) calculator barfs up the following numbers if fed with the assumptions of a 3.3Kg projectile, 2 mils projectile dispersion from all causes and range estimation error of 20% against a 2.5m x 2.5m static target:

range_____RPzB54____Püppchen

100m_______100%_______100%

200m________68%________94%

300m________21%________37%

400m_________7%________13%

500m_________3%_________6%

600m_________2%_________3%

700m_________1%_________2%

800m____________________1%

I have assumed an m.v. of 110 m/sec for the RPz54, 150 m/sec for the Püppchen, and the extra 40 m/sec accounts for all the difference you can see in the above figures. There may be a difference in dispersion at the muzzle, but P(hit) is fairly insensitive to it at these velocities and ranges.

All the best,

John.

[John Kettler]

John D Salt,

A most enlightening analysis! That markedly flatter trajectory really helps stretch the effective range

and is dramatically evident in terms of hit probability at 400 meters and beyond, where there's a factor of two difference in accuracy between the less accurate Panzerschreck and the far more accurate Puppchen. Even at 200 meters the difference is ~50% in favor of the Puppchen.

Regards,

John Kettler