Puppchen: the tiny "gun" with the big punch

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

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.

But it looks to me that beyond 350 meters or so, you'd still be better off to save your ammunition. Unless you desperately need that kill, a 13% chance of a hit is just throwing it away. Not to mention revealing your postion for likely no gain.

Michael

[Andreas]

John (D. Salt)

I assumed the MV was identical. Should have checked that before my response.

I'll have to check how your figures compare to the in-game figures, assuming they are based on an out-of-game calculation.

Thanks for the correction!

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Just because one can do a certain military action, doesn't necessarily mean one should. This is especially true when the weapon lacks traverse and elevation controls, making aimpoint adjustment more than problematic.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Just because one can do a certain military action, doesn't necessarily mean one should. This is especially true when the weapon lacks traverse and elevation controls, making aimpoint adjustment more than problematic.

Should I take that to mean that you agree with me, John? I'm having a little difficulty deciding.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

That would be a "yes," coupled with an explanation of the underlying reasoning. My initial remarks were based solely on the relative hit probabilities, whereas you were addressing military practicality.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

John (D. Salt)

I assumed the MV was identical. Should have checked that before my response.

I'll have to check how your figures compare to the in-game figures, assuming they are based on an out-of-game calculation.

Thanks for the correction!

Ah, but Mr. Picky must now advise that Herr Doktor Korinthenkacker of the Department of Military-Historical Gefingerpoken at the University of Ulm has pointed out a defect in the steam-powered P(hit) calculator when dealing with rocket projectiles.

I believe that RPzBGr 4322 rockets fired from the Panzerschreck were not ABOL (All Burnt On Launch), hence the need for the shield and/or the operator to wear a respirator to protect against the rocket exhaust. This means that there is a short interval of powered flight after the projectile has left the muzzle, during which it may be accelerating. The steam-powered P(hit) generator is designed to deal only with projectiles following a ballistic trajectory, and needs modifying to deal with powered projectiles; as it stands, it will clearly under-estimate the P(hit) obtained by non-ABOL rockets (and combination recoilless gun/rockets like RPG-7).

Terry Gander's "Bazooka" (PRC publishing, London, 1998) gives the m.v.s I have used, and states the maximum effective range of Püppchen as 230m "against moving tank targets" and the effective anti-tank range of Panzerschreck with the RPzBGr 4322 rocket as 150m. He states that this rises to 180m firing the RPzBGr 4992, with its "far more efficient motor", which was ABOL (except in conditions of extreme cold). Although he makes no mention of there being any increase in projectile velocity, presumably there must have been.

A rule of thumb for estimating the effective range of a bazooka-like hand-held anti-tank weapon is to take a figure in metres equal to the muzzle velocity in m/sec. Gander's figures are 40% further for Panzerschreck and 50% further for Püppchen, possibly indicating a slight advantage from Püppchen's additional stability, or possibly indicating an obsession with pointless detail. If the same +40% applies for the Panzerscheck with the RPzBGr 4992 rocket, that might suggest an m.v. of about 130 m/sec. If anyone knows what it really was, or the all-burnt distance for the RPzBGr 4322, I would be thrilled to NAAFI-breaks to know. Not that I am obsessive about pointless detail, or anything.

All the best,

John.

[JasonC]

Amusing. I note that a rocket that has not burnt all propellant by the time it leaves the barrel has a drawback as well as potentially marginally higher final velocity. The continued acceleration takes place after the round has left the constrained orientation of the firing tube. The vector of that acceleration therefore tends to be "a little off" - which hardly increases accuracy.

I think the explanation for the German's own range ratings at 1.4 second flight time does not represent higher v but merely a tactical willingness to indulge less accurate shots, in the hope of stretching the weapon to a more useful range. The rule of thumb that shots beyond 1 second flight time are very inaccurate for an unguided and unrifled slow rocket, remains sound.

Tactically, the Germans considered the things hopeless, not an improvement over the panzerschreck. They and the Allies both report the panzerfaust was actually more effective, despite even shorter range, simply because it was far more practical to actually get a shot off with, within close range of anything as dangerous as a tank.

If we even remotely accept these verdicts of the contemporaries, then faust greater than schreck greater than puppchen, combined with the production numbers (which are in the same order, with the first two large and the last insignificant), imply that puppchens were probably singularly ineffective overall, at killing any meaningful number of Allied tanks.

We have a decent estimate of all German infantry kills of AFVs in the form of their tank killer medal awards. While some successful kills were probably too anonymous (or posthumous) to result in such awards, others were probably given for repeat claims, kills of wrecks, shared awards, etc. We can allow a large error bar on it for such things but the order of magnitude is going to be about right.

We can also cross check it with allied reports on causes of loss, which show dramatic increases in the portion lost to infantry AT in the final year of the war. (Which, incidentally, also shows the vaunted magnetic mines and ridiculously overmodeled wurfmines must have been singularly ineffective in reality). There are only on the order of 15-20k kills to hand out, concentrated in the last year. With millions of fausts and hundreds of thousands of schrecks seeking them.

Well, some infantry AT kills occurred before the era of advanced infantry AT or used other means later on - demo charges, grenade bundles, magentic mines etc. Those might be as low as 10% of the total or as high as 15%, say. Of the remainder, the schrecks might have gotten half, but probably distinctly less, since the fausts were more numerous and reported as more effective. Call schreck kills 9k as an upper bound, and perhaps only half that as a lower bound.

That means the mathematical average kills per schreck fielded are on the order of 1/64 to 1/32. If puppchens were equally effective, given that only 3200 or so were fielded and half of those were still around at the end of the war, all tanks KOed by puppchens over the war as a whole might range between 25 and 100.

There are undoubtedly single CM players who have lost more tanks to them over their CM careers than the Allies actually lost to them in WW II.

It is a modeling mistake, it is broken, don't exploit it, use a panzerschreck instead.

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by 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.

That wasn't me, was it? Sorry. I couldn't resist asking.

[Andreas]

Thanks for the extra info John. By the way, did you look behind your sofa recently?

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

The phenomenon you describe is known in the trade as weathercocking, and it afflicts unguided fin stabilized projectiles still under thrust the worst.

The most egregious example is the RPG-7 projectile, whose considerable expanse of fins makes it especially susceptible to wind. The combination of wind acting on those fins, coupled with thrust lasting quite a while, tends to point the projectile into the wind, hence the name. Wind is certainly an issue for finned projectiles already in ballistic flight, but adding active propulsion into the equation magnifies the effects. That said, the weathercocking on a Panzerschreck or Puppchen ought to be considerably less than for an

RPG-7 type projectile.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

By the way, did you look behind your sofa recently?

Is that where you hid the booby trap?

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

[snips]

The phenomenon you describe is known in the trade as weathercocking, and it afflicts unguided fin stabilized projectiles still under thrust the worst.

The most egregious example is the RPG-7 projectile, whose considerable expanse of fins makes it especially susceptible to wind.

Which is why, if you are ever aiming an RPG-7 at a tank in a crosswind, you should remember that the wind drift correction on the sight is applied the other way round to what you might expct (you aim off downwind of the target, not upwind).

All the best,

John.

[Andreas]

Tune in again tomorrow for more in our series of:

Uncle John's Handy Tips of Daily Life., featuring John D. Salt and his sockpuppet Mr. Picky.

All the best

Andreas

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Shmavis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 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.

That wasn't me, was it? Sorry. I couldn't resist asking. </font>

[John Kettler]

John D Salt,

I'll keep that in mind next time I get to blaze away with an RPG-7! My brother, while stationed in Iraq, had the chance but declined. Seems the chance of catastrophic failure at launch with old, poorly maintained gear was significant! BTW, per Gander's GERMAN FIELD ROCKET EQUIPMENT, p. 52, the Puppchen's rear sight has markings clear out to 700 meters. If you need it, I can supply the details on the amount and nature of propellant used in several of the Puppchen/Panzerschreck projectiles.

Regards,

John Kettler