catnip Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 Does anybody use this tank? The stats show it as having a 290mm hollow charge weapon with 250m range, but with a velocity of 45meters per second. The penetration stats look great, but can it actually hit anything at 200+ meters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jKMkIII Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 Haven't used them, well once against computer but computer had couple Panthers But if play big enough QB in city as brits I will certainly buy them And for hitting anything.. I don't think they are meant to be used against moving targets. ------------------ jK.MkIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Martin Cracauer Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 I testplayed them against King Tigers. They lost, but knocked out some KTs near their maximum range. Note that the AVRE has thinner armor than the other Churchills. I think historically it was a very heavy APC for engineers, but CMBO does not give it armor protected infantry transport capability. Not sure justice is given here. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 4, 2001 Share Posted March 4, 2001 Originally posted by Martin Cracauer: I think historically it was a very heavy APC for engineers, but CMBO does not give it armor protected infantry transport capability. Not sure justice is given here. Martin First time I hear that. AFAIK the AVRE Petard Churchill was developed to demolish concrete fortifications on the beaches during D-Day. I never heard it was suposed to carry engineers from A to B. Where did you find that info? ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Martin Cracauer Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: First time I hear that. AFAIK the AVRE Petard Churchill was developed to demolish concrete fortifications on the beaches during D-Day. I never heard it was suposed to carry engineers from A to B. Where did you find that info? Don't remember, maybe a wrong impression I gained from varying descriptions on how many troops the vehicle carried and what had to be done outside the vehicle (even the mortar had to be loaded from outside). Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catnip Posted March 5, 2001 Author Share Posted March 5, 2001 Thanks for the replies everbody. It just seemed strange to me that this tank didn't carry any HE rounds at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barticus Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by catnip: Thanks for the replies everbody. It just seemed strange to me that this tank didn't carry any HE rounds at all. The notation of 'c' in a weapon's ammo box denotes 'chemical' or shaped charge weapons which are superior to HE against hardened fortifications (as well as armour). Since this was the intended use of the AVRE, I can see why no plain HE rounds were included. However, they WOULD come in handy now and again. 290mm, I mean, EGADS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 7, 2001 Share Posted March 7, 2001 During the Dieppe Raids engineer couldn't clear obstacles so the AVRE's were built to provide cover. They weren't to actually carry the troops just to help them get there. ------------------ And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh. -Steve My website! A major source of Wild Bill scenarios! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 Actually Martin is right, they were meant to carry engineers. The ARVE is a RE vehicle and the crew were all engineers. They carried a host of other goodies in addition to the spigot mortar. The crew (or part of it) would frequently dismount to perform engineering tasks (place beehive charges etc). The side hatches on the Churchill were ideal for this purpose. They did fantastic work on D-Day (where they landed first in advance of the infantry) and they and the Crabs really made a difference in British casualties. I bet the US could have used a few at Omaha. I am not completely convinced that the 290mm spigot mortar was a true hollow charge round because I can't find a reference on it and it was designed for obstacle removal rather than pill boxes. The flying dustbin as it was known doesn't look right for a true HEAT round maybe it was more shaped HE (which is different), any further enlightenment appreciated. The ARVEs had beehive charges and others for concrete emplacements. Anyway the Brits found them very useful for urban warfare and the spigot mortar was good for blowing holes in bocage too. I would suggest 250m is extreme range, for a moving target 100m or less BTW the PIAT is a spigot mortar too. ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 Originally posted by Simon Fox: Actually Martin is right, they were meant to carry engineers. The ARVE is a RE vehicle and the crew were all engineers. They carried a host of other goodies in addition to the spigot mortar. The crew (or part of it) would frequently dismount to perform engineering tasks (place beehive charges etc). The side hatches on the Churchill were ideal for this purpose. They did fantastic work on D-Day (where they landed first in advance of the infantry) and they and the Crabs really made a difference in British casualties. I bet the US could have used a few at Omaha. I am not completely convinced that the 290mm spigot mortar was a true hollow charge round because I can't find a reference on it and it was designed for obstacle removal rather than pill boxes. The flying dustbin as it was known doesn't look right for a true HEAT round maybe it was more shaped HE (which is different), any further enlightenment appreciated. The ARVEs had beehive charges and others for concrete emplacements. Anyway the Brits found them very useful for urban warfare and the spigot mortar was good for blowing holes in bocage too. I would suggest 250m is extreme range, for a moving target 100m or less BTW the PIAT is a spigot mortar too. Great stuff Simon - learn something new every day. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 BTW the name "petard" was actually a codename for the spigot mortar. The ARVE (and all the British funnies) was a top secret vehicle, they trained in isolation with it, and came as a complete suprise to the Germans on D-Day. In order to disguise the nature of it's weapon the "petard" codename was used. Of course in time this crept into common use. The round was nicknamed the flying dustbin and I still am not convinced it was a hollow charge round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 Originally posted by Simon Fox: BTW the name "petard" was actually a codename for the spigot mortar. The ARVE (and all the British funnies) was a top secret vehicle, they trained in isolation with it, and came as a complete suprise to the Germans on D-Day. In order to disguise the nature of it's weapon the "petard" codename was used. Of course in time this crept into common use. The word 'petard' goes back to at least the Middle Ages and originally meant "to fart". It came to be applied to any cased explosive charge intended to break down a wall, a door, or a gate (a satchel charge being a classic example of the type). So its use to describe the projectile of the AVRE was purely descriptive and was never a codename intended to deceive. The round was nicknamed the flying dustbin and I still am not convinced it was a hollow charge round. It's been years since I last read a detailed description of the device, but I do believe you are right. It was definitely not a shaped-charge device. Whether it was in any sense a precursor of the Squash-Head munition is an open question in my mind. Somehow I don't believe that it used the spreading plastic charge of the true Squash-Head, but it did operate on the same principle of breaking up concrete by an advancing shock wave causing spalling from the interior. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts