Actual Ampulomet Picture!

[Mark Gallear]

Very little is known about this weapon – so a lot of educated guesses follow.

This is from WWII The Directory of Weapons (Editor Chris Bishop), it is listed under the name of Ampulenjot 1941 System Kartukov. (I will email my Russian opponent, (From Moscow) and ask which name is "Russian".

It was fired with blackpowder - so the mortar sound in the game is not right – should be like a medieval cannon sound.

It has a simple breechloading mechanism. From the shape of the barrel which is too big for a conventional shell – I suspect the flammable missile was placed in the breach and a charge of blackpowder was poured in after it. This would have been a slow process maybe one or a maximum of two shots a turn? It is 127mm or 5inch calibre!

It was fired by a percussion cap – suspect the visible trigger was lifted up and the cap placed under it.

It has a popup peep sight and handles to hold it (How do you hold the thing and target and pull down the trigger – unless you needed an extra crewman to do this bit after it was aimed! I bet it kicked a bit as well.) This suggests it was fired at an angle with nose in the air but maybe not as extreme as a mortar!

Ben Galanti put up pictures of one dug up on a Russian battlefield and there are differences from them and this picture – which looks as if it comes from a period manual. The photos give a better idea of its relative size.

The base is different – and the mechanism at the rear looks different but maybe just that the handles are hanging lose and the breechblock is missing. However, I suspect it was made in different factories – to different patterns.

I suspect it came into service around Sept 1941 from a design that existed before the war. This idea comes from the discussion made earlier in the forum on the PTRD Anti-Tank rifle. This was designed in the 1930s but the Russian authorities believed it come not cope with the latest tanks so rejected putting it into production and operation. However, with the outbreak of war – the infantry needed any anti-tank weapon and both beats going up against a Panzer with a broomstick – which some Russian Soldiers got to do!

My guess on the PTRD is Sept 1941 with Steel ammo and very rare and tungsten ammo and getting very common from December 1941. Therefore I suspect the Amp which everybody seems to think was a bit of joke went out of service rapidly from January – March 1942 as it was replaced with PTRDs. Interestingly even in Russia there is not much info on this weapon – which reinforces the idea it was a bit of an embarrassment.

(I have at lasat got my ISP to give away the secret address of my web space - only taken 3 years and some arm twisting! More pics in future! )

I can not edit my typos!

[ November 26, 2002, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[MikeyD]

Looks something like a Brit molotov projector that was fielded during the dark days after Dunkirk. I think their projector had a one-handle grip with a trigger but it was just about as crude. Nice find.

[MeatEtr]

Very interesting post Mark, thanks. Im sure most, like me, didn't even know such a weapon even existed on the battlefield. That is until CMBB shipped. Nice pic too.

[Silvio Manuel]

Heh, that's funny, my Ampulomet in v1.01 is white!

BFC Plz fix or do somefink!

[funkybax]

Great post Mark!

Bye.

Funkybax

[Stalin's Organ]

Some more data - this from WW2 fact file series Infantry and Mountain guns by Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander:

Calibre: 127mm/5 inches

Barrel length 1020mm 40.16"

bore length 845mm 33.3"

WEight: 26kg/57.3 lb

Elevation 0-12 degrees

Traverse 360 degrees

Muzzle velocity 50m/s 164m/s

Maximum range 250m/274 yds

Projectile weight 1.5/1.8kg 3.3/3.97 lb

The photo in the book is the same one Mark posted above.

[tracer]

Thanks for the info I was wondering what the stats were for it thanks

[gunnergoz]

I'm just guessing, but from the various photos and such I've seen, it looks like the weapon was muzzle-loaded (as to the cylindrical projectile) and probably had a chamber at the breech end which held the black powder propellant charge. Loading would then be relatively simple: 1- drop round into muzzle; 2- pour in propellant (more than likely a held in a cartridge, perhaps paper or even a small brass case was used) and 3- light the primer/igniter for the black powder while aiming the beast. The igniter could have been as simple as flint or as complex as a gun cartridge primer.

Given that the Russians were desperate, they still probably would have stuck with robust, simple and fool-proof technology that any plumbing shop could have put together.

As to the rounds, I'm guessing that they were a ceramic or baked clay sphere, containing the flammable liquid and some sort of igniter.

Anyone with more info or different guesses?

[Capitalistdoginchina]

The picture is wrong - in my CM battles they are all painted with Whitewash

[Thin Red Line]

May i suggest you change the title of your topic, because everybody thinks it the 100th about the white ampulomet graphic in game and skip it , when it is actually a very informative post.

[Mark Gallear]

For Gunnergoz - the source makes it clear that it is a breechloading weapon – you can see where the firing mechanism – the round central area unscrews down so you can insert the round and powder. You can see the bottom tray the round was slid along to load. I would not like to ram down an incendiary round down onto blackpowder!

Having said that the pictures put up by Ben Galanti of a weapon recovered from a battlefield site do not have this central breech mechanism but have a curved loop attached to the back – which again suggests some kind of breech but different to one shown in this photo. The handles look different as well but this could because they are partly loose and are hanging down

The information on the gun comes from period German intelligence reports that suggest the incendiary device used was “some form of phosphorus mixture allied to a thick oil based fuel”. Got no info or what the projectile case was made of but it would have to break on contact and be easily manufactured – so glass would be my best guess.

The weapon MikeyD refers to is the Northover Projector this was developed in Britains darkest hour to help fight off an imminent German invasion, when most of the British Army’s equipment was left on the beaches of Dunkirk. It was more sophisticated modern looking design than the Amp made of pressed steel it fired the N076 grenade – a molotov cocktail filled with phosphorus or standard grenades, again propelled by blackpowder. It had a max range of 300 yards but was only considered accurate to 100 yards. It was only issued to the HomeGuard and was never used in combat and had a reputation of been much more dangerous to the crew than the target as the glass bottles often broke as it was fired.

Sorry about the title – if anybody can change to something better please do.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Sorry about the title – if anybody can change to something better please do.

Mark, you can edit the title by editing your starting post for the topic. Nobody else (apart from moderators) can do that.

[Von Viniga]

Very interesting post.

The use of black powder may well have created an easily spotted discharge from the weapon. I wonder if when firing an Ampuloment in CMBB it is easier to spot than say a 50mm mortar?

Do the sources say anything about this?

Von Viniga

[Bruno Weiss]

Thin Red Line wrote:

...when it is actually a very informative post.

Thin Red is correct ofcourse. When posting a thread with actual qualitative information that could be of real informative value, one should always preceed the title with a stern warning.

This will separate the thread from the constant background drone of sobs and snivels from those who don't understand why massed T-34 tanks do not want to cooperate with Napoleonic tactics of the line charge against 88mm guns that outrange them by a five hundred miles, or infantry units that refuse to run directly through machine gun fire unfettered.

[ November 26, 2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Foxbat]

The blurb of text with the previously posted pics of a dug-up ampulomet say that it was scratchbuilt (as so many things inside the Leningrad blokkade were) so detail differences with a regular production one are inevitable.

It also said the ampulomet fired KS-liquid, the stuff that the russians used in their "Molotov-cocktails" (KS-bottles in russian).

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

I'm in the Rugged Defense Tournament. I saw these buggers did not know what they did. I guessed that they were some sort of short range mortar.

One learns.

Did one of these ever knock out a German tank?? :confused:

Cheers, Richard

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Guys,

I'm in the Rugged Defense Tournament. I saw these buggers did not know what they did. I guessed that they were some sort of short range mortar.

One learns.

Did one of these ever knock out a German tank?? :confused:

Cheers, Richard

I'm willing to bet that, if the German tank was close enough to be knocked out, so was the crew of the Ampulomet! I sincerely doubt that many of the crews of these desperation weapons lived on to crow about their victories.

[freelancer]

Well, ampulomet means (if you, Mark, asking 'bout this -- I cant say more then you already sad) what it means: "ampula" means small glass, cup,

can also describe a bottle.

"met" is simple -- its just a past form from verb "metat", wich means

throw.

Sorry for my english, guys -- when I learned in school my primary language was german...

And, PiggDogg, knocking a tank with this was impossible. But against infantry...

[Bruno Weiss]

Well the lil bugger doesn't seem to really want to target infantry. It will, but rather oddly. In one instance I targeted infantry near a vehicle. The first shot it fired was at the infantry I targeted, however succeeding shots were at the vehicle and when the vehicle ducked for cover, the Ampulomet stopped firing altogether. In another instance, I did the same and targeted infantry and it fired one shot at them, then abruptly stopped even though the infantry target was in plain LOS. Altogether, it don't seem to reliable.

[Enoch]

Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook" refers to an anti-tank mortar. I've been wondering whether the ampulomet is this anti-tank mortar. I think in the book Zaloga says the anti-tank mortar is credited with knocking out a grand total of 1 tank before it was retired from service.

[jdmorse]

Was watching the Stalingrad segment of "The World at War" , a Thames/HBO prodction from the 70's... Believe I saw one being moved amdist the ruins, just a brief flash of film

[TheSuperSlug]

Better pictures of an Ampulomet.

[Nidan1]

Looks like a blunderbuss, no wonder the Russkies retired it.

[Spinlock]

In CMBB I find these little gizmos really effective against armor for some reason. Maybe just a set of flukes but in a series of QB's I started using these extensively and was able to take out a tank in each battle with them. Which, incidentally was a more effective kill/cost ratio than my "rolling coffin" T-60s and BT tanks.

[Mark Gallear]

I think the reason why the Ampulomet (bottle-chucker) went out of favour when the Russians got better weapons was not because it couldn't potentially knock out a tank, but because of the risk the crew took. It the bottle broke as it would fired – you would get an instant flame-thrower effect with fire shooting out of the barrel – be more than a bit embarrassing if the only thing in range to get burnt was the crew!

I wonder if BattleFront will model this effect!

Superslug has put up the Ben Galanti pictures I mentioned.

[ November 28, 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]