Panzerblitz and Panzerschreck puzzle

[Grzesio]

So, L-R:
RZ 65 - HE, air-to-air and air-to-ground, tested approx. 1938-1943;
PZ 65 B - APHE variant of the RZ 65, tested in 1943;
8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4322 (Panzerschreck) - HEAT, tested in late 1944, used in 1945; 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4992 was most probably never made in series.
8 cm R Sprgr - HE, used in limited numbers; originally a ground-to-ground rocket;
Panzerblitz 1 - HEAT, 8 cm R Sprgr engine, 88 mm Panzerschreck warhead, tested in late 1944, used from at least January 1, 1945;
R 4/M - HE, air-to-air, used in 1945;
Panzerblitz 2 - HEAT, R 4/M engine, 88 mm Panzrerschreck warhead, tested in late 1944, maybe used in 1945;
Panzerblitz 2 with faired warhead
Panzerblitz 3 - HEAT, R 4/M engine, 55 mm warhead, in development, at least static tests of the warhead.

Drawings of the "RPzB Gr 4312" (actually 8,8 cm R Pz Gr 4312), "RPz B Gr 4992" (actually 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4992), "DWM Fliegerschreck", "Panzerblitz Pb 1 (early type)" and "Fliegender Panzerschreck I", then "Panzerblitz 2" from Hahn's book, as well as "RS-82" and "RBS-82", presented earlier are very inaccurate or fictional/speculative.

 

[Larshaas]

View attachment 656209

So, L-R:
RZ 65 - HE, air-to-air and air-to-ground, tested approx. 1938-1943;
PZ 65 B - APHE variant of the RZ 65, tested in 1943;
8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4322 (Panzerschreck) - HEAT, tested in late 1944, used in 1945; 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4992 was most probably never made in series.
8 cm R Sprgr - HE, used in limited numbers; originally a ground-to-ground rocket;
Panzerblitz 1 - HEAT, 8 cm R Sprgr engine, 88 mm Panzerschreck warhead, tested in late 1944, used from at least January 1, 1945;
R 4/M - HE, air-to-air, used in 1945;
Panzerblitz 2 - HEAT, R 4/M engine, 88 mm Panzrerschreck warhead, tested in late 1944, maybe used in 1945;
Panzerblitz 2 with faired warhead
Panzerblitz 3 - HEAT, R 4/M engine, 55 mm warhead, in development, at least static tests of the warhead.

Drawings of the "RPzB Gr 4312" (actually 8,8 cm R Pz Gr 4312), "RPz B Gr 4992" (actually 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4992), "DWM Fliegerschreck", "Panzerblitz Pb 1 (early type)" and "Fliegender Panzerschreck I", then "Panzerblitz 2" from Hahn's book, as well as "RS-82" and "RBS-82", presented earlier are very inaccurate or fictional/speculative.

Thank you very much, but my question now is how it is with the panzerschrecks. Which of the many configurations where used? With what rocket? What are the differences between them? And which ones are speculative?

Sorry for asking so many questions, i am just a bit overwhelmed by the amount of information and speculation because they came so late in the war.

 

[Grzesio]

The only Panzerschreck rocket used for sure was the 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4322, while the 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4992 most probably never went into series production due to technical problems and general collapse of everything in 1945. By the way - as opposed to Justo's speculative drawings presented above, 4322 and 4992 rockets was identical as far as shapes, dimensions, construction and performance are concerned, the only difference was presence of a contact ring on the drum stabilizer of the 4992.
The only Panzerschreck aircraft launcher used in combat for sure and documented with photos is a triple one with semi-opened tubes, shown in posts #15 and #35. Tubes of this launcher were approx. 160 cm long (also the same length as the shoulder fired 8,8 cm R PzB 54 launcher), so Justo got them WAY too short in his drawing in post #3, while drawings in post #4 are completely speculative.
It's sometimes written in books, also the Panzerschreck 2 aka PD 8,8 (whatever it was actually) could have been used in combat in limited numbers in 1945, but I've never encountered any evidence supporting these claims. All photos I've ever seen show the triple launchers.
Documentation of the era is shown in posts #33 (wooden mock-up only!) and #39. Just have in mind, it's sometimes suspected, the thing shown in #33 is not an AT rocket launcher, but a a multi barrel gun of 2 or 3 cm calibre.

So, as far as other drawings presented in earlier posts here are concerned:
#10 - actual Panzerblitz 3 warhead
#11 - actual Panzerblitz 2 warhead
#12 - fiction
#14 - very inaccurate scheme, simply fictional
#20 - first three rockets actual, 4th fictional, 5th speculative
#27 - all real, just RZ 73 shouldn't have a protruding nose mounted fuse.

 

[Larshaas2108]

The only Panzerschreck rocket used for sure was the 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4322, while the 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4992 most probably never went into series production due to technical problems and general collapse of everything in 1945. By the way - as opposed to Justo's speculative drawings presented above, 4322 and 4992 rockets was identical as far as shapes, dimensions, construction and performance are concerned, the only difference was presence of a contact ring on the drum stabilizer of the 4992.
The only Panzerschreck aircraft launcher used in combat for sure and documented with photos is a triple one with semi-opened tubes, shown in posts #15 and #35. Tubes of this launcher were approx. 160 cm long (also the same length as the shoulder fired 8,8 cm R PzB 54 launcher), so Justo got them WAY too short in his drawing in post #3, while drawings in post #4 are completely speculative.
It's sometimes written in books, also the Panzerschreck 2 aka PD 8,8 (whatever it was actually) could have been used in combat in limited numbers in 1945, but I've never encountered any evidence supporting these claims. All photos I've ever seen show the triple launchers.
Documentation of the era is shown in posts #33 (wooden mock-up only!) and #39. Just have in mind, it's sometimes suspected, the thing shown in #33 is not an AT rocket launcher, but a a multi barrel gun of 2 or 3 cm calibre.

So, as far as other drawings presented in earlier posts here are concerned:
#10 - actual Panzerblitz 3 warhead
#11 - actual Panzerblitz 2 warhead
#12 - fiction
#14 - very inaccurate scheme, simply fictional
#20 - first three rockets actual, 4th fictional, 5th speculative
#27 - all real, just RZ 73 shouldn't have a protruding nose mounted fuse.

thank you very much! you are making it very clear for me.

as a last thing, i see that there might be a slight variation with the panzerblitz 2 with aerodynamic cap. as the section that transitions from the rocket body to the aerodynamic cap is sometimes thinner it seems.

thicker section:




thinner section:

 

[Larshaas2108]

and one very very last thing, even though it might not interest you. this could help me quite a bit fixing historical errors in the game War Thunder.
so we have the panzerblitz 2 in War Thunder (only with the aerodynamic cap) but not the one without in the game.

the one with the aerodynamic cap has the thinner mid section, yet the one without doesn't.

i know you have nothing to do with this game, and you aren't a developer of it. but pointing out the mistakes made here could benefit me and this game.




2 things i noticed quickly:
1 how does that midsection fit if it is exactly the same warhead?
2 why is the metal tip on the panzerblitz 2 without the aerodynamic cap smaller?

this could be the fault of the modellers but just want to know.
if you can help me with this that would be grand.

 

[Grzesio]

1 how does that midsection fit if it is exactly the same warhead?

I think, the drawing below can explain variations in the Panzerblitz 2 warhead shape:



The rocket was equipped with a complete Panzerschreck warhead (88 mm diameter), mounted directly at the forward end of the R 4 engine (55 mm diameter). In the complete variant (rightmost example in the drawing), the warhead had a ballistic cap in front plus a tubular sleeve at the rear, fairing its connection with the engine. I think this is the proper appearance of the standard Panzerbliz 2 rocket.
But, by removing the ballistic cap and/or the sleeve in various combinations, the rocket could look, as shown by the three examples in the middle.

2 why is the metal tip on the panzerblitz 2 without the aerodynamic cap smaller?

No idea. Panzerschreck warhead (in the 8,8 cm R PzB Gr 4322, Panzerblitz 1 and Panzerblitz 2) was equipped with the AZ 5095/1 impact fuse, which is nicely visible in the 2nd picture in post #44, no matter if the ballistic cap was present or not
The 3rd picture of post #44 is of very poor quality (I wonder, if it's not my scan made 20 years ago and circulating on the internet since then), but if you look closely at the rocket in the middle, you'll notice, it has a typical Panzerschreck warhead with the ballistic cap, but without the sleeve - it is not an elliptical warhead as in the upper drawing in post #45. The only problem is, the fuse looks differently than the AZ 5095/1, resembling maybe the AZR 2 fuse of the R 4/M or Panzerblitz 3 - sadly, quality of the picture is too low to draw definite conclusions. But - I think, the picture comes from a postwar Allied report, probably taken at a research or production facility and thus may show e.g. incomplete, non-standard or test/practice rockets with inert warheads (in the latter case, the warhead can be equipped with any fuse mock-up available at hand, not neccessarily the proper AZ 5095/1). The rocket at the bottom has no fuse at all.

 

[Larshaas2108]

thank you with being so helpful on this unkown/unique subject and spending your time here being informative, i understand this complicated subject now.

well i also have a photo here i found from the il-2 sturmovik forums that might help people understand the differences between the missiles more.

 

[blockhaj]

Cannot see that anyone have posted this already but i found this when reserse searching the above image.

The Panzerschreck ammunition

 

[klem]

If it is helpful and useful, here is some information about Panzerschreck granaten.

 

[Larshaas2108]

i wanted to ask what the difference is between the panzerblitz 1 (early) and the panzerblitz 1 (late)
so far i know there is a difference between the warhead but i don't know what actually changed.

also i have found a nice photo of (maybe) a fliegende panzerschreck configuration. so it might exist after all.

 

[Grzesio]

Yes, it's the triple Panzerschreck launcher. It's existence and use in combat units is pretty well supported with photos.

 

[Justo Miranda]

i wanted to ask what the difference is between the panzerblitz 1 (early) and the panzerblitz 1 (late)
so far i know there is a difference between the warhead but i don't know what actually changed.

also i have found a nice photo of (maybe) a fliegende panzerschreck configuration. so it might exist after all.

 

[Grzesio]

Please note, the Panzerschreck 1 launchers in your drawings are approximately two times too short (should be some 160 cm long).

 

[Larshaas2108]

i have a question, does anyone here know how heavy the panzerblitz rockets where and their speed in m/s?
for example the R4/M weighs 3.85 KG on wikipedia and has a speed of 525 m/s, but i don't know how heavy the panzerblitz 2 is and how fast it goes.

 

[Grzesio]

Panzerblitz 2 was 4.6 kg heavy and reached 350 m/s, Panzerblitz 3 - 3.85 kg and 550 m/s (both values the same as R 4/M).
Panzerblitz 1 is a harder case, as there's great diversity of published data, but a rocket 7.1-7.24 kg heavy, burning 1 kg of solid propellant should reach some 260 m/s (370-374 m/s can be encountered in some publications, but these values are impossibly high).

 

[Larshaas2108]

Panzerblitz 2 was 4.6 kg heavy and reached 350 m/s, Panzerblitz 3 - 3.85 kg and 550 m/s (both values the same as R 4/M).
Panzerblitz 1 is a harder case, as there's great diversity of published data, but a rocket 7.1-7.24 kg heavy, burning 1 kg of solid propellant should reach some 260 m/s (370-374 m/s can be encountered in some publications, but these values are impossibly high).

thanks

 

[draken152]

Yes, it's the triple Panzerschreck launcher. It's existence and use in combat units is pretty well supported with photos.

What is your opinion about about this??? It seems to me as double closed launcher...

 

[Grzesio]

No, it's an open launcher, even a rocket can be seen in a tube, pointed by the lower left arrow. I think the very low angle, at which the sunlight falls, creates an illusion of a closed launcher.

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ8iBHVwKgE

 

[blockhaj]

Do we have any info on rocket pods for the He 162? Some sources mentions that 30 rockets could be carried in "honey-comb like pods", one under each wing, the installation weighing 250 kg total.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

From "Unknown" N.5 (post-1)

Does that BV 212 in the third drawing really have the rockets grouped around the air intake for the engine, along with two 30mm just below it? If that is the case, good thing it never got built because firing those would have almost certainly resulted in a flameout of the jet engine every time it did.
Smoke ingestion from firing rockets and guns on many late 40's and into the 50's fighter aircraft resulted in that happening necessitating careful redesign of the intakes and weapon positions to prevent that from occurring.

 

[Justo Miranda]

From "Unknown" N.5 (post-1)

Does that BV 212 in the third drawing really have the rockets grouped around the air intake for the engine, along with two 30mm just below it? If that is the case, good thing it never got built because firing those would have almost certainly resulted in a flameout of the jet engine every time it did.
Smoke ingestion from firing rockets and guns on many late 40's and into the 50's fighter aircraft resulted in that happening necessitating careful redesign of the intakes and weapon positions to prevent that from occurring.

Sources

 

[T. A. Gardner]

From "Unknown" N.5 (post-1)

Does that BV 212 in the third drawing really have the rockets grouped around the air intake for the engine, along with two 30mm just below it? If that is the case, good thing it never got built because firing those would have almost certainly resulted in a flameout of the jet engine every time it did.
Smoke ingestion from firing rockets and guns on many late 40's and into the 50's fighter aircraft resulted in that happening necessitating careful redesign of the intakes and weapon positions to prevent that from occurring.

Sources

Yea, that isn't going to work. You end up with massive smoke ingestion and the engine compressor stalls. The Hawker Hunter, is a great example of this from the 50's. The plane for years couldn't fire its guns because the engine flamed out when you did.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Abgasleitung

 

[A_Random_Guy]

I found some information on the Panzerblitz and the R4M and their performance here: https://www.dafhistory.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/151-200/AFD-090804-091.pdf
Page 79