Sergeant Saunders Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 I don't have any information on this unit. I am assuming that the 290mm is a Howitzer type weapon. Is this correct? I started a QB last night and was given 3 AVREs, but not sure how to use them. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders: I don't have any information on this unit. I am assuming that the 290mm is a Howitzer type weapon. Is this correct? I started a QB last night and was given 3 AVREs, but not sure how to use them. :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 290mm hollow charge spigot mortar. Worked on the same principle as the PIAT, and was invented by the same guy. Only real use IRL was against fortifications. Although I have read of one case where it hit a tree three yards from a Panther, disabling it through the blast. Very short range (effective about 80 yards, IRL) [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 The Churchill AVRE is a AFV designed to destroy bunkers, pillboxes, and buildings. It fires a 290mm Shaped Charge (whoops, that's right, a Hollow Charge Mortar) with the ROF of about 2.25 rounds per minute. The visible projectile in-game is a tan squarish projectile that usually flies at an extreme arc. It has a decent blast radius, but from what I have heard, that there is another weapon that is actually smaller is more effective. I can't recall which, but there was a thread about this a while back. The thread, IIRC talked about that the AVRE really wasn't modelled correctly in-game. Meaning that it isn't as effective as it should be. But as for general use. Use it to destroy buildings and pillboxes. It is NOT an Anti-Tank vehicle. However it would be useful against field guns. [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Maximus ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Saunders Posted July 24, 2001 Author Share Posted July 24, 2001 So, using them to eliminate the Tiger my morter FO sighted on the 1st turn is OUT! This is a meeting engagement in rural hills. No buildings or bunkers expected. I hate computer assignments. Maybe I can find some infantry while avoiding the Big Cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 Recent threads on this subject concluded that the Petard mortar on the Churchill AVRE is incorrectly modelled as Hollow Charge instead of High Explosive. This makes it very effective against pillboxes and armoured vehicles, and useless against buildings or infantry. Yet Another SturmTiger thread: ST vs AVRE AVRE: Key new info, perf.& pics--BTS,grogs, mods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engy Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 Here is one recent thread with a bunch of informative links inside--AVRE thread--but this is quite a docile one. In the past there have been some lengthy threads about the performance of the AVRE, and I'll post the links if I can get the search to work. Edit: Grrrrr. David beat me to it. Grrrr. [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: engy ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 By seconds. I get the search function to work by using my own member #, which of course means that the links I provide are usually to threads I have participated in myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders: So, using them to eliminate the Tiger my morter FO sighted on the 1st turn is OUT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can of course try. If you hit it, you kill it. That hollow charge is probably the most powerful AT shot in the game. And about the least accurate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 Check this out: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/afvgal.htm Make sure to stop by the Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV and the ISU-152M. All are in very good condition and the photos look great. Also check out the Universal carrier. It shows the Brit 3" mortar in storage and the ammo layout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Recent threads on this subject concluded that the Petard mortar on the Churchill AVRE is incorrectly modelled as Hollow Charge instead of High Explosive. This makes it very effective against pillboxes and armoured vehicles, and useless against buildings or infantry. Yet Another SturmTiger thread: ST vs AVRE AVRE: Key new info, perf.& pics--BTS,grogs, mods<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I am not so sure that this is such a big problem. The AVRE was designed to take out pillboxes and fortified houses on the beaches. It takes out pillboxes beautifully, and the blast knocks out guns too, quite easily. I agree that it is crap against buildings (small light - three hits, small heavy - four hits, large light 5 hits, large heavy nine hits required), compared to a 37mm AA gun. All things considered it is not too bad. The round was based on the same principle, and invented by the same guy, who invented the PIAT. Much of its devastating effect came from the application of the hollow-charge effect (or something like this), not from the amount of explosives. Apparently the bunkers for the coastal guns at Cap Gris Nez proved impervious, but all other bunkers just went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 I think the clinching issue, as discussed in the above threads, was that the Petard round was seen to tumble in flight, thus negating the directional charge characteristic of the PIAT. Indeed I argued that the Petard was a bunker-buster, but others had reason to believe that the Churchill mouting a Petard was more of an all-purpose engineering vehicle designed for destroying obstacles, rather than taking on bunkers in a combat situation. For one thing, the loader is extremely vulnerable to enemy fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Saunders Posted July 25, 2001 Author Share Posted July 25, 2001 All I gotta say is this forum rocks! Get all the information you every need in only a couple of hours. It looks like in the current situation, I will have to attempt to ambush the Tigers, cause I haven't got anything but a couple of piats to take them out otherwise. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I think the clinching issue, as discussed in the above threads, was that the Petard round was seen to tumble in flight, thus negating the directional charge characteristic of the PIAT. Indeed I argued that the Petard was a bunker-buster, but others had reason to believe that the Churchill mouting a Petard was more of an all-purpose engineering vehicle designed for destroying obstacles, rather than taking on bunkers in a combat situation. For one thing, the loader is extremely vulnerable to enemy fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The AVRE was both. The Petard was desed to deal with bunkers. The crew had an extra guy (demolition NCO), and the vehicle carried so-called Wade charges for destroying obstacles and bunkers. The Petard was used in combat situations, and although I have not finished the book yet, it does not seem that the loader was that exposed from the quotes by the vets who manned the vehicle. Looking at the Churchill design, it is clear that the loader would only be exposed towards the front, the two high tracks giving cover to left and right. He would slide out, and insert the charge into the hole. The charge would probably have tumbled, but according to what I read, as long as it did not turn over completely during flight, it should still have the shaped charge aspect, since it was a large steel-plate on the back of the explosive load that created the effect. They were certainly used in close combat in many a Normandy village, running around and 'Petarding' (that is a word) the houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 By all accounts the petard was very effective against houses (and was also used to blast holes in bocage) which is not the case in CM because of the way the blast is modelled. I have read that strictly speaking the petard round was not hollow charge; that it was in fact similar to HESH. This would explain why the in flight tumble was not so critical and also it's reported blast performance being substantially greater than that modelled in CM. The exposure to the loader was not very great. Basically the weapon broke downwards for loading which was done through the co-drivers hatch. Only the loaders arm would be exposed. The guy who is the full bottle on the AVRE is ossie osbourn over at the AFV news forum. He posted a lot of his information over there recently and I note that Andreas has been picking his brains too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 Just out of curiosity, who picked your forces? Your opponent? The computer? Tigers versus AVREs? You've been ripped off, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty's Double Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 Sorry, I've only just stopped laughing. You got THREE in a QB? Man, I hope you kept your receipt. PS Good job by the grogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Just out of curiosity, who picked your forces? Your opponent? The computer? Tigers versus AVREs? You've been ripped off, man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not Tigers vs. AVREs. It's AVREs versus German infantry, but the AVREs will have to do an awesome job of staying out of LOF of the Tigers. If the terrain allows it, it could be playable, especially if the Brits have some other form of AT capability. --Rett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 I know a guy (good on you 6+1) who fired an AVRE' (yes, all 290mm/40lb of it) at a sniper. If anyone knows a better case of overkill, I'd like to hear about it. And just for the record the AVRE went under the nickname of "The Flying Dustbin". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 I know a guy (good on you 6+1) who fired an AVRE' (yes, all 290mm/40lb of it) at a sniper. If anyone knows a better case of overkill, I'd like to hear about it. And just for the record the AVRE went under the nickname of "The Flying Dustbin". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fraser: If anyone knows a better case of overkill, I'd like to hear about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One round/one kill doesn't sound like a bad batting average. --Rett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fraser: And just for the record the AVRE went under the nickname of "The Flying Dustbin".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AVRE - Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers Petard - spigot mortar on AVRE 'Flying dustbin' - projectile for spigot mortar Funnies - all the weird tank contraptions Hobart's Zoo - 79th AD At least that is the terminology that I heard of. AVRE's were the base tank, on which various technical gimmicks could be installed, e.g. scissor bridges, Bobbins rollers for getting across soft bits of the beach etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Perdido Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: 290mm hollow charge ... I have read of one case where it hit a tree three yards from a Panther, disabling it through the blast. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The tree or the Panther? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 If infantry is the goal, then CM-wise (not necessarily real-life wise) you would have been better off with the 75mm and 95mm-armed versions. AVREs suck like explosive decompression blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Saunders Posted July 25, 2001 Author Share Posted July 25, 2001 Babra: The computer picked both sides. This is an OnePlayer QB. I started it Monday night got to about turn 3/30. Finished it last night (Tues) after reading the suggestions. AAR: I WON! Marginal Allied Victory. After reading the forum yesterday, I attempted a few shots at the enemy infantry, but the 290mm's range is so short, that I couldn't get any shots. So used my Infantry (company) to advance to Victory Flag position. I also mananged to succussfully ambush the Tiger with my 3 AVRE's!!! (yes, amazing, the map was all large wooded hills, with roads. AFV had to say on roads in most cases, let it spot one AVRE as bait.) The Tiger rolled right over the ambush marker. All 3 290mm's fired within seconds of each other! All 3 missed!! All 3 AVRES died burning in the next 30 seconds. But, the Tiger's tracks had been imobilized (3 huge craters around it) and it was away from Victory Posititon, so my infantry was able to hold until turn 30 and win the marginal victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders: The Tiger rolled right over the ambush marker. All 3 290mm's fired within seconds of each other! All 3 missed!! All 3 AVRES died burning in the next 30 seconds. But, the Tiger's tracks had been imobilized (3 huge craters around it) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God...imagine the concussion effect of that in real life. 3 Flying Dustbins impacting within seconds of each other within a 20 to 30 metre radius. I'm betting that IRL the crew in the Tiger would have been like jelly for at least 48 hrs. after being on the receiving end of that. :eek: Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts