First Recoiless Rifle

I believe I posted a query some months ago as to the origin of the first recoilless rifle. Well yesterday I got my answer from a very definite authority: The US Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen Maryland. That mourning I got sand in my shoes and took off on US 40 and after a 30 minute drive I was at the APG museum. Walked outside and did the usual tour and then went into the indoors museum. Was just tooling about when there was the answer to my question. the Germans had a 7.5 cm recoilless rifle and used it in combat in WW2. The one I was viewing was captured at El Alamein( spelling?) in

1942 and was a short little tube but looked like it take care of business at close range. It was the first recoilless rifle used in combat, or so said the plate that was attached to it. It was mounted on wheels like the old machine guns were. If you get a chance you should check the museum out. Its free but you do have to go through a security check at the gate Mike IPMS.
Reply to
Mike Keown
Loading thread data ...

And from what I've read the troops hated the thing because it was almost as dangerous to them as the enemy. DML has/had a figure kit with it, IIRC it was called the Puppchen.

Reply to
Ron

The Puppchen was the cannon-like, closed breech launcher for Panzerschreck rockets. This was the leG 40 or somesuch. I think DML has kits of both.

KL

"Ron" wrote

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin

was very small could have probably been carried by one man in hurry. I didn't see any ammo for it and that was my primary interest.. Mike IPMS

Reply to
Mike Keown

Mike Keown wrote

The Puppchen weighed 325lb and was 9 ft 10in long; it had a small shield, with instructions on the inside, a single trail leg, and wheels that could be removed to lower the profile of the piece (which, wheelless, was supported on rocker sledges); ammunition was the RPGr4312, a modified rocket grenade similar to Panzershreck ammo, but with a percussion fuse. Range was

700yards and it was considered overly expensive in comparison with the ordinary Panzershreck.

None of which helps with the meaning of the name though.

Reply to
Rik Shepherd

According to my German-English Dictionary: Püppchen: Little doll (dolly) or little sweetie.

HTH -- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

Reply to
The Old Timer

i think it's some sort of a pet name. i remember german mom's calling little kids pupchen.

Reply to
e

"Digital_Cowboy" wrote

Neither. They just make sure that you have something that looks like a driver's license and something that looks like a car registration. Osama bin Laden could get in there or numerous other places so long as he had a decent driving record or a good computer printer. Without a list of who is prohibited from entering and a way to verify who is trying to get in, all such measures are absolutely pointless wastes of time. They are nothing but "feel good" measures to let the public know that "something" - no matter how ineffectual - is being done.

KL

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin

body search, but they are good soldiers doing their job...but don't push your luck. Mike IPMS

Reply to
Mike Keown

Yep, just like all of those NG troops that were sent to walk around in various airports after 9/11, with empty weapons.

After the next big security incident, we will be told that various government agencies didn't have the time nor the money to implement effective security measures.

John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com)

Reply to
John Hairell

"John Hairell" wrote

Yeah - guys in BDUs with 5.56mm billy clubs. But you know, everybody felt so much better. . . "I don't care what they make me do at the airport so long as it means my plane won't get hijacked". . . Umm, yeah, but what if it DOESN'T mean your plane won't get hijacked? . . .

I think every weak, gutless whelk who ever said anything like should be banned from air travel for life.

KL

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin

I think a lot of them have banned themselves, which is contributing to the dismal finances of the domestic air carriers. I would be inclined, however, to paste the 'weak, gutless whelk' appellation as well on those who believe it's okay (and even desirable) to short-circuit our freedoms for the sake of thinking it might make us safer, and for anyone who becomes scared of their own shadow in response to vague government warnings. I for one am completely disgusted with the 'what color is my islamofascist terrorist' warning system. Five colors (and we will never even use two of them, now will we?) is such a profoundly compelling and detailed way of describing threats. "Ah, it's yellow today--I must only fear bearded men in turbans that make loud ticking noises as they drive by in trucks reeking of fertilizer and fuel oil." Orange allows you to fear them if they're clean-shaven and the truck doesn't reek or tick. With red, it can be anyone you see with the scuffed pant knees that might suggest he kneels on a prayer rug five times a day. Face it: it's simply false disclosure, and accomplishes nothing but to engender fear. If we are to be warned, we should be given specifics. If there aren't any specifics, develop them before shooting off the mouths with a kaliedescope of pointless hues.

Mark Schynert

Reply to
Mark Schynert

We should also kick the TSA, Homeland Security, and the rest of our talk-a-lot do-little government square in the pants. Every time I hear that sorry refrain, "Well, our security is much better now than it was prior to 9-11" I think "Yeah, but it still sucks."

What's ironic about all of this is that our major airports are still pretty much wide open - they put most of the security on the passenger side of things, while the perimeter fences go mostly unguarded. Meanwhile air cargo operations have little or no security, and the same goes with private aviation/FBOs at major airports which fly off the same runways as the major carriers. Airports which are not major points of entry have even poorer security, and there's little or no baggage screening at small aiports which handle feeder airlines, which pass on the luggage to the major carriers.

Port security is another big issue. The politicians are just starting to talk about this kind of stuff, decades too late.

I'm waiting for the next big incident, and all the subsequent finger-pointing.

John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com)

Reply to
John Hairell

Based on what I saw the last time I traveled on business (May, 2003) I would have to agree. The act of Federalizing all the airport security people was a joke. They can sleep, drink coffee and lean on the non effective surveillance equipment as airline employees just as easily as they can as Federal employees. Difference is we have now moved a whole bunch of people onto the Federal payroll where they become entitled to Federal benefits and available to become bought votes for the Political parties.

Curiously, the last time I travelled I noticed that the best security was at the small town airport where I was going on business. Both airport security and NG on duty and they really checked the baggage and your screening through the metal detector was thorough and it was working. The major airport where I left from (BWI) and the change of plane (Pittsburgh) were ho-hum, business as usual. An associate who was traveling at about the same time came back raving mad. "Stupid PC Idiots. Two obviously Arabic student types, beards, turbans and back packs, were waved through the line with a smile; and a white haired grandmother type was selected for a detailed search to prove that their random searches weren't using any profiles". He swore he would only travel by train or bus in the future.

Bill Shuey

Reply to
William H. Shuey

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.