88mm RWfr.43 ?

[Paul Lakowski]

I've read of a "88mm RWfr.43"about 3100 of which were produced at the end of 43 and the begining of 1944. Can any one tell me more of this AT weapon? Was it another RR or was it something else?

[David Lehmann]

The 8.8cm-R.Wfr. 43 is the 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen".
The rocket (RPzGr. 4312, wieght 2.7kg, length 490mm) is similar to the one fired by the Panzerschreck but a little bit longer.
This Pak weights 100kg and the barrel length is 1600mm.
V° = 110m/s
penetration of 160mm at 250m

[LegalAssassin]

How common was it and where? Never heard of it...

[Kissa]

Here's a photo:

[David Lehmann]

[Paul Lakowski]

The 8.8cm-R.Wfr. 43 is the 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen".
The rocket (RPzGr. 4312, wieght 2.7kg, length 490mm) is similar to the one fired by the Panzerschreck but a little bit longer.
This Pak weights 100kg and the barrel length is 1600mm.
V° = 110m/s
penetration of 160mm at 250m

Thanls , With a MV of only 110m/s it couldn't have had much of a range?So what your saying its just a launcher for a PzSchreck?

[David Lehmann]

It was used until 700m if I remember well. Yes grossly if you want it's a derivative of a Panzerschreck with a modified rocket. It is also the reaso I guess explaining why not a huge number was built because it was somehow in production competition with the Panzerschreck.
The V° is not very important I think since it is not a kind of AP, APC, APCR, APCBC etc. round but a HEAT ammo. At any kind of range the results on the target would be grossly the same.

David

[Paul Lakowski]

It was used until 700m if I remember well. Yes grossly if you want it's a derivative of a Panzerschreck with a modified rocket. It is also the reaso I guess explaining why not a huge number was built because it was somehow in production competition with the Panzerschreck.
The V° is not very important I think since it is not a kind of AP, APC, APCR, APCBC etc. round but a HEAT ammo. At any kind of range the results on the target would be grossly the same.

David

Thanks David , great info as usual. Any clues as to where they were used in the TOE?

I could see this mounted on an SPW as a self defence weapon inplace of the 37mm at the platoon leader SPW ? Maybe with a MG-42 mounted with it?

Any one know when they entered service? All I know is that they were produced mostly in 1943 while the bulk of the ammo was produced in 1944 [> 300,000 rounds ; ~ 6 months supply by most ATgun consumption standards].

[David Lehmann]

Hi Paul,

Sorry I am afraid I have no further info, I never saw this one mounted on a vehicle. AFAIK production was stopped in February 1944, I have no info about the presence in specific units.

David

[Sander D]

Another picture of a puppchen

Sander D

And have a look on :http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thr ... 1024276158

[Javichu]

From a quick review from my sources It was NOt a RPzB54 derivative.They were convergent designs.Püpchen was born as a way to launch a fin stabiliced rocket propelled hollow charge from a smooth bored light launcher.But it wasn´t recoiless because it used a conventional (lighter that usual but otherwise conventional) closed chamber.Recoil was transmitted to the gun mount and it didn´t use any recoil cylinder or spring (that made it lighter) in any other way it was just a common gun with gunshield and carriage (You can choose between wheels and skies.Cool isn´t it 8) )
RPzB54 and 54/1 were German copies of Bazooka but with some design differences caused by the worse design of German rockets and the heavier warhead ...It was recoiless and lighter AND cheaper,so Püpchen production was stopped and switched to Stove Pipes.
Range was not as important as it might seem given that the EFFECTIVE range of Püpchen sights was only 230m (RPzB54 -> 150m)

[Paul Lakowski]

From a quick review from my sources It was NOt a RPzB54 derivative.They were convergent designs.Püpchen was born as a way to launch a fin stabiliced rocket propelled hollow charge from a smooth bored light launcher.But it wasn´t recoiless because it used a conventional (lighter that usual but otherwise conventional) closed chamber.Recoil was transmitted to the gun mount and it didn´t use any recoil cylinder or spring (that made it lighter))

Then it would have been ideal mounted on a SPW as a self defence weapon and could have been enlarged too. If mounted on with a MG-42 in a dual mount it could have reduced the number of SPW needed per company and Battalion considerably.

[Javichu]

That would be ideal if you have iron nerves...Stalking a tank with a SPW and waiting till it´s in range (250m) in such a big target.I wouldn´t do that...
Anyway they had a lighter ,cheaper version that didn´t need a expensive SPW to be carried and that can be used without risking the vehicle.Several Panzerknackers could be carried in a SPW near the front instead of one Püpchen.And if you want to carry a weapon in a SPW then you should better put a longer range one (See PaKWagen 234/4 and 251/22...)

[Paul Lakowski]

That would be ideal if you have iron nerves...Stalking a tank with a SPW and waiting till it´s in range (250m) in such a big target.I wouldn´t do that...
Anyway they had a lighter ,cheaper version that didn´t need a expensive SPW to be carried and that can be used without risking the vehicle.Several Panzerknackers could be carried in a SPW near the front instead of one Püpchen.And if you want to carry a weapon in a SPW then you should better put a longer range one (See PaKWagen 234/4 and 251/22...)

No I was thinking of a self defence weapon so they could reduce the number of SPW per Pz grenader battalions from 125 to 75 thus ...they could have convert the 280+ TOE SPW from ,

1 x Armored recon battalion
& two panzer grenadier regiments with
1 x Armored infantry battalion
3 motorized infantry battalions

To...

one Armored recon battalion and
One Panzer grenadier regiment with
3 x SPW armored infantry battalions

you don't need to have 125 SPW in a infantry battalion.

[Paul Lakowski]

I have a question...I read somewhere that this weapon Puppchen entered service in march 1943, can anyone confirm this?