Jump to content


Photo

Soviet Ampulomet


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Mark 1

Mark 1

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 117 posts
  • LocationSF Bay Area

Posted 27 December 2018 - 10:20 PM

I'd like to suggest adjustments to the equipment listings for that early war Russian wonder-weapon, the Ampulomet.

 

In the v2.3 full download equipment book, the Ampulenjot ([sic] Ampulomet seems to be correct to Russian language sources) is listed on page 57.07.10 as a fixed weapon with the same stats as a flamethrower.  To wit:  ROF = 1,  HE OV = 7,  HE FP = 12, and notation Flame: 3.

 

I don't think that adequately captures the characteristics of this particular soldier's delight. 

 

First, it was not fixed.  It is often compared to the Blackard Bombard, which was often installed in fixed sights (as is notable from remaining concrete pedestals across Ol' Blightey).  But while these two devices may have been inspired by similar concerns, and may have looked somewhat similar, they was in fact no real similarity in function or doctrine. 

 

Some pics I have found:

 

441259-1.jpg

 

981faef756dc.jpg

 

The Ampulomet was mounted on a Y monopod, which could be set on a base, or a sled or wheeled carriage for pulling by hand much like Russian HMGs. It was intended to be a Rifle Battalion's close-in AT weapon. It fired a glass ampule of flammable liquid, using a 12 gauge shotgun blank, that was supposed to shatter on impact with a hard target, with a chemical ignitor substance (maybe phosphorous?) in an internal sub-container which would then cause the whole mixture to burst into flames.  The ampules were pretty much just round balls of glass.  There was no form of stabilization for the ampule in flight -- it was a smoothbore tube and a round (approximately) projectile, like the muskets of an earlier era, but with a 125mm musket ball made of glass filled with liquid sloshing about.

 

They were short ranged, inherently inaccurate against fixed targets (much less moving targets), not particularly likely to destroy a tank if they did occasionally hit one, and perhaps as likely to shatter when fired as when striking anything softer than steel.

 

Here is a Russian language source:  https://worldoftanks...satz_artillery/

 

From that source, an approximate translation:

 

 


Ampulomet - A Picky Pipe on Wheels

Soviet engineers were also tempted by the cheap and quick. In the 1930s, 125 mm glass and later tin ampoules filled with incendiary fluid were developed for dropping from aircraft. It is unknown who decided to bring this weapon down from the skies. It is only known that the development of the ampulomet began at the Moscow Kirov factory #145.

The result was a pipe on wheels, officially accepted into service under the index "125 mm ampulomet mod. 1941". The ampoule was projected by a 12 gauge blank.

 

Initially, the ampulomet was not considered an anti-tank weapon, but in 1941 the situation demanded that everything that could theoretically destroy a tank must fire at them. The impact from a 125 mm ball of flame was considered more impressive than a lesser sized bottle of incendiary fluid.

However, "must be" and "is" are two different things. Usually when historians discuss the effectiveness of ampulomets in anti-tank roles, they recall a story from D. Lelyushenko's 30th Army in early December of 1941. An engineer arrived in one of its battalions with 20 ampulomets. Lelyushenko decided to personally try out this novelty. Lelyushenko replied to the engineer's description of how to load the ampulomet: "too complex and too long, the German tanks will not wait".

On the first shot, the ampoule burst in the barrel and the ampulomet burned up. Lelyushenko demanded a second attempt, and the situation repeated itself. The enraged general prohibited the use of this unsafe weapon by his troops and had the remaining ones crushed with a tank. It is hard to say how accurate this story is, but Dmitriy Danilovich Lelyushenko had a rather difficult character.

Lelyushenko was not the only one to encounter the problem of premature bursting. In April of 1942, the 370th Infantry Division attempted to use ampulomets. Use in combat did not pan out, as the soldiers were unable to get within the required 100-150 meters of the enemy, and the results of training exercises were not encouraging:

"1.  Out of the 12-15 burst ampoules at training exercises in the 307th division, 8 did not ignite.

2.  10-15% ampoules fired at exercises at the HQ burst in the barrel. 

3.  Out of 52 ampoules tested, taken from various crates stored at warehouse #1801, 19 burst in the barrel, which is a failure rate of 36.5%.

 

The cause of the premature bursting is due to low quality manufacturing: ampoules are not properly welded and were presumably not checked for robustness when produced. Without firing, it is impossible to determine a faulty ampoule visually."

 

It is not difficult to understand the soldiers that did not want to go to battle with such a weapon. The attempt at a fast and cheap solution harmed the quality of the weapon. Yes, it was used on several parts of the front, but the ampulomet was not destined to end up among the weapons of victory. It remained a symbol from difficult times when even a pipe on wheels had to be taken into battle.

 

It's not too hard to kit-bash some up if you are inclined to equip your 1941 Red Army forces with them. Just put a shorted 120mm mortar barrel on a Russian wheeled HMG mount, (whether you clip off a Tula M1910 or an SG43 hardly makes a difference), or just leave it with a shortened bipod by using the center/front section of the mortar (clipping off the base). At least at 6mm it's a pretty easy winner.

 

I would propose that this weapon be treated as:

Russian small crew as a base, mobility of a Russian Tula M1910 team, accuracy of a panzerfaust Klien 30, and the target impact of a molotov cocktail. 

 

That would be:  Movement A/B = 2/3,  OM1 = -5,  OM2 = -10, OM3 = NO      ROF = 1,  HE OV = 5,  HE FP = 7

But with an added special note, that when firing, if a natural 1 or 2 is thrown, the crew suffers a hit rather than the target.

 

At least that's how I will play them.

 

Might add a bit of color to Barbarossa games.

 

-Mark


_________________
Mark 1

#2 Mark 1

Mark 1

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 117 posts
  • LocationSF Bay Area

Posted 01 July 2022 - 02:19 PM

I recall having posted this some time ago, but it appears to have been lost in the great ODGW Forums Flush from last year.

 

So, reconstructing and posting (better late twice than never, right?), for any foolish enough to be interested, here is my own approach to kit-bashing up some ampulomets:

 
First, some more views of what we are trying to recreate:
 
ampulomet-prone-firing.jpg
 
Ampulomet-hand-towing-config.jpg
 
Not a particularly graceful looking or elegant weapon.  Also, though, not a very challenging look, so not too difficult to create with a minimum of kit-bashing.
 
 
Soviet-Ampulomyet-1.jpg

I made my ampulomets from H&R M1910 "Tula" HMGs. Carved off the shield, clipped off the end of the barrel, and voila! An easy kit-bash that looks reasonably convincing to me.

 

 

Soviet-Ampulomet-3.jpg

 

Most units never got their full allotment, even if they got any. So I did not feel compelled to provide a platoon's worth. Two will probably do just fine.

 

 

Soviet-Ampulomet-5.jpg

In my initial posting I showed a wartime pic of an ampulomet in an emplaced position, looking out over a wire entanglement.  Here I have one of my newly created ampulomets in an emplacement, looking out over a wire entanglement (although in a different season of the year). 

 

Wow, bet them panzer boys gonna be scared of me now!

 

-Mark

(aka: Mk 1)


_________________
Mark 1

#3 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 737 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 01 July 2022 - 05:10 PM

Very interesting, as I'd never heard of the ampulomets. Is this similar to a PIAT in capability? Anyway, a nice modelling of the weapon/crew.



#4 Mark 1

Mark 1

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 117 posts
  • LocationSF Bay Area

Posted 01 July 2022 - 08:04 PM

More similar to a Northover Projector.

 

post-890-1170196996.jpg
 

A PIAT was a verifiable wonder-weapon compared to either of these gems.

 

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)


  • healey36 likes this
_________________
Mark 1

#5 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 737 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 02 July 2022 - 12:23 PM

Hmmm...the original bottle-rocket (just in time for the Fourth).



#6 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 05 July 2022 - 05:47 AM

Thanks Mark.   I' always like seeing the "oddities" of war.



#7 Peter M. Skaar

Peter M. Skaar

    Captain

  • Members
  • 336 posts

Posted 14 July 2022 - 10:33 PM

This is an interesting weapon to be sure.  Thanks for that info, Mark.  It is enlightening to see what devices various countries came up with to combat tanks, especially early in the war.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users