ruf9ii Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 why is it that the churchill avre's 290mm gun only has a blast value of about 150? extremely expensive and it doesnt do anything... was it like this in real life? regards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Don't think of it as a regular tank, but more as a specialized assault gun. The main weapon was a 290mm spigot mortar firing a shaped charge, and was intended to destroy concrete bunkers and the like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vskalex Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 As seen here, if I am correct 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Originally posted by vskalex: As seen here, if I am correct http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk/images/articles/avre/2245-E-3.jpg Thanks for that, never saw a photograph of them before. If you are looking at the 164 blast value you are looking at the wrong value. Check out the penetration value on the AVRE. 1001! :eek: :eek: :eek: That's going to ruin your day even if you are behind a meter of steel. Or concrete, as the case may be. That's what it was there for, taking out bunkers and pillboxes. Though you have to wonder why they didn't field a HE round for it though. Probably the Royal Engineers weren't too keen to be direct fire artillery. I'm also guessing since it's range was exremely limited lobbing a HE shell could be rather hazardous. With a shaped charge directing most of the blast away from the firing tank that may have been a lot saver, particulairly for tank tracks and the infantry support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Two things about the ARVE. One, they're one of the few weapons that can K.O. a concrete bunker from the side (no firing slit penetration needed). And two, its loads of FUN to watch 'em shooting in that slow lazy trajectory! I'd mostly say they weren't worth the money, but I haven't been having much luck lately killing AT bunkers before they kill me, using regular tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Churchill AVRE Note the 5th pic down which shows the main gun. The main gun had to be loaded from outside of the tank, making the loader's job extremely dangerous. In reality this vehicle shouldn't be able to use its main gun if it is buttoned up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 The ARVE bow mg/loader's hatch slid open instead of the usual hinge. When the gun muzzle pivoted vertical for loading a small armor plate swung down to protect the round as it was pushed up into place. The modern equivalent would be a Bradley AFV reloading its TOW rounds from the back. I feel less sorry for the loader's exposure to fire than his having to ram that big heavy round straight up from a sitting position! Good thing the ARVE does have such a slow rate of fire, any quicker and the poor loader would collapse from overwork! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 AVRE, Mikye. Not ARVE. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Muffley Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I recommend only firing at big targets and when stationary. In a recent game I fired on the hoof at a MG nest on the edge of field #1. The round gracefully arced over their heads. And over adjacent field #2. Finally it landed in (non-adjacent) field #3, much to my surprise and my nearby forward squad who got a bit of a fright. I think it landed about 150m away...the original target being about 70m away - so accauracy is not a word I now associate with these things. Good for a laugh though - your very own slow motion playback, even at normal speed. Crocs are even more fun though, given a choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Kingfish, I was under the distinct impression that the round was HESH (high explosive squash head), not HEAT. The Flying Dustbin projectile was basically a container of plastic explosive, together with a spike? and a fuze. Impact squashed the explosive into the target (possibly held there with assistance of spike, memory fuzzy), and it was then detonated, with the shattering shock waves passing from the front of the target, through it, then causing enormous spalling of the inner face of the wall, armor plate, etc. In real life, I believe it was capable of destroying roadblocks. Alas, in the game it can't. The CMBO Archive has a wealth of material on the AVRE. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Originally posted by John Kettler: I was under the distinct impression that the round was HESH (high explosive squash head), not HEAT.That is my impression as well. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I'm pretty sure I've seen a cutaway of a Petard mortar round that shows it as a shaped charge. HESH was developed for use with Burney recoilless guns during WW2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Whether it was HESH or not, I am strongly of the opinion that it was not HEAT. Just looking at the round in the photo linked to above should be enough to convince you of that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 The round fired by the AVRE was not a HEAT round. HESH was developed by the British specifically for spalling concrete, but proved to have a good penetration capability. I could be wrong, but isn't HESH a type of shaped charge? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 in a very loose sense of the term. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I can't see the photos in the links above, but I do clearly recall seeing a shaped charge cavity in the nose of somethign that I'm sure was the Petard round - I'll keep checking. It did not have a stand-off nose cone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 The AVRE is an engineering vehicle rather than an assault vehicle. The petard mortar is for demolishing obstacles under fire thus minimising the exposure of the poor bastards that might normally be required to get out and place charges by hand. It may also be useful for taking out pillboxes or other reinforced structures which are defended but I don't think that was it's primary use. In fact in such assaults it was the flail tanks which were tasked with taking out pillboxes etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Originally posted by Simon Fox: In fact in such assaults it was the flail tanks which were tasked with taking out pillboxes etc. Now that's a new one on me. What could a flail tank do to a pillbox that an ordinary tank couldn't do? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Originally posted by Simon Fox: The AVRE is an engineering vehicle rather than an assault vehicle. Odd, then, that the designation stood for "Assault Vehicle, Royal Engineers" before it was changed to the more namby-pamby "Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers". All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox: In fact in such assaults it was the flail tanks which were tasked with taking out pillboxes etc. Now that's a new one on me. What could a flail tank do to a pillbox that an ordinary tank couldn't do? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 If it was a wood/earth bunker, could the flails beat it into kindling? Now THAT would be cool! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Geepers, it's frustrating trying to research the Petar motar on-line. Every site seems to repeat the same useless description over-and-over (Grrrr...). But I thought I had read once the big mortar was indeed hollow charge. I think those demolition guns on the postwar Churchill, the Centurion, and the M60 used a squash head round, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 My guess is that is the mortar bomb on the right. Can't tell if it had a standoff spike, or if it a HEAT or HESH round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox: The AVRE is an engineering vehicle rather than an assault vehicle. Odd, then, that the designation stood for "Assault Vehicle, Royal Engineers" before it was changed to the more namby-pamby "Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers". </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox: In fact in such assaults it was the flail tanks which were tasked with taking out pillboxes etc. Now that's a new one on me. What could a flail tank do to a pillbox that an ordinary tank couldn't do? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.