abuhabib Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 ok, shoot me , but what does the AVRE behind the churchill tank stands for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 It stands for the tank's weapon value : Absolutely Very Rare Effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Head over to www.google.com and do a search for: avre engineers Got about 100 hits with some kind of connection to Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by Mattias: Head over to www.google.com and do a search for: avre engineers Got about 100 hits with some kind of connection to Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. M I can't remember if it was Jary or Carbuncle who had a grumble in the columns of the British Army Review about the namby-pamby "Armoured Vehicle RE" designation replacing the original, more aggressive-sounding "Assault Vehicle RE". I think RE "Assault Engineers" might have become "Armoured Engineers" at about the same time. As a side-note, although the plural of AVRE these days is almost invariably AVREs, several contemporary documents I have looked at in the PRO, with commendable logic, use the plural AVsRE. Another point of pootling significance is how one pronounces the thing. I am used to hearing "av-ree", presumably because trying to pronounce it like the French river would sound too much like "ARV". All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 RE = Royal Egineers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by John D Salt: ...Another point of pootling significance is how one pronounces the thing. I am used to hearing "av-ree", presumably because trying to pronounce it like the French river would sound too much like "ARV". All the best, John.Huh ? Which French river do you mean ?? I'm French and don't know of any Avre river ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 The problem in this game with having an AVRE tank is that everybody thinks that this was it.When in fact it stood to mean any tank used by the Royal Engineers .All though i think the churchill was the only tank called an AVRE. These included bridgelaying tanks and tanks to drop fascines in to antitank ditches(a fascine is basically a big bundle of logs which roll off the front)and armoured recovery vehicles.As well as numerous others. They were called The Funnies and it is now thought that if they Americans had used them they would not have been stuck on the beach for so long on D day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther G Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by gautrek: They were called The Funnies and it is now thought that if they Americans had used them they would not have been stuck on the beach for so long on D day.I assume you are talking about Omaha, as we broke out from Utah just fine. However, the Funnies effect was ancilliary, considering the primary obstacles: (a) Cliffs ( More Germans than anticipated © uselessness of the air/rocket bombardment and naval to an extent I'm sure that there are more that I can't think of right now, but most of the allied problems on Omaha did not stem from the fact that we didn't have an equivalent of Hobart's Funnies. Regards, Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 oh i didnt mean that they would have solved the problems it just that they might have helped . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 I think you touched off a nerve there, Gautrek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther G Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Soddball: I think you touched off a nerve there, Gautrek.No, I just wanted to correct him so that other board members do not get the wrong impression as to the importance of Funnies. I'm sorry if I sounded rather harsh or mean as that was not my intention at all... Regards, Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: The Avre, tributary of the Eure, in Normandy, which runs from the Foret de Perche through Verneuil-sur-Avre to join the Eure just north of Dreux. Verneuil-sur-Avre is at about 0 degrees 55 minutes East, 48 degrees 45 minutes North. Numerous towns called "Quelquechose-sur-Avre" can be seen the Michelin 1/200 000 scale tourist map no. 231, "Normandie". That river Avre. All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 OT and all, but couple of days ago I killed my first Panther with an AVRE at some 100 meters. Big fireball and stuff. Very satisfying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther G Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Juju: OT and all, but couple of days ago I killed my first Panther with an AVRE at some 100 meters. Big fireball and stuff. Very satisfying. Woooahhh! That's amazing! I think it's pretty cool to watch that shell arc up so high... I also destroyed a panther with a AVRE in that scenario Wrong Hill, though it was at much closer range. Regards, Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Panther G: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gautrek: They were called The Funnies and it is now thought that if they Americans had used them they would not have been stuck on the beach for so long on D day.I assume you are talking about Omaha, as we broke out from Utah just fine. However, the Funnies effect was ancilliary, considering the primary obstacles: (a) Cliffs ( More Germans than anticipated © uselessness of the air/rocket bombardment and naval to an extent I'm sure that there are more that I can't think of right now, but most of the allied problems on Omaha did not stem from the fact that we didn't have an equivalent of Hobart's Funnies. Regards, Ryan</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by John D Salt: As a side-note, although the plural of AVRE these days is almost invariably AVREs, several contemporary documents I have looked at in the PRO, with commendable logic, use the plural AVsRE. John.I am not sure that is commendable. The plural of Regimental Sergeant Major is, of course, Regimental Sergeants Major, but the plural of RSM is still RSMs. That is, of course, if you count an abbreviation as a word in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Rock Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Would AVREs have made a difference at Omaha? I would say yes, for the following reasons. The only armored vehicles used by the Americans at Omaha were the DD tanks. The US averaged, IIRC, three-four DD's per LCT. They also released them much further out than the British did, 6000 yards for the US vs a lot less for the British, give or take. Anyway, the majority of the DDs sank. One group of eight LCTs supporting B and C Companies, 741st tank bn lost 27 out of 32 tanks to surf. A/741 tank company was landed as planned (they were not DD's) Another element, commanded by LT Rockwell, USN, disregarded instructions and landed the Shermans from 743rd tank battalion on the beach rather than launch them offshore. 741st supported the 1st ID. 743d the 29th ID. There has been a good deal of argument about what the funnies would or would not have done at Omaha. What they could not have done is climb the bluffs. The draws off Omaha were heavily defended by AT positions, and I am not sure they would have been successful there. AVREs would not have been able to shrug off AT gunfire. Had the US used more funnies, they would have had more tanks on the beach. LCT losses were low, and if some of the DDs were replaced by funnies, they would have been landed, not sunk. The tanks of the 743rd that Rockwell landed did not get off the beach anyway, as the draws were not opened until later in the day. They fought as armored pillboxes. AVREs may not have been able to cross the marshes or range the bluffs to the inland side of the marshes. They probably could have breached a wire obstacle or two. Crocodiles could have ranged the bluffs with their main guns, though. It is also worth noting that 5th Ranger Battalion landed in good order because they steered for grass fires, whose smoke obscured German small arms. A few crocodiles could have lit some fires and started some smoke screens, covering dismounted movements off the bluff, even though they would have had to wait for the opening of one of the draws to leave the beach. Bobbins might have been to lay mat across the soft ground to make it trafficable--I doubt it, though. Same with flail tanks--they could have breached some mines, but if landed opposite the draws they would have been knocked out, and in front of the bluffs they would have gotten as far as boggy ground or the bluffs. Fascines would not have helped much. Bridges carried by AVREs could have flattened the wire obstacles and triggered an AP mine or two. In retrospect, the biggest mistake of the US wasn't in not taking funnies, it was launching the DDs at sea in the first place, from too far out. Had they taken the non-DD capable funnies, they would have inadvertently gotten much more armor ashore. I don't think many of them would have accomplished their assigned missions, as far as breaching through the draws, but they would have provided valuable gunfire support for the troops climbing the bluffs as opposed to a home for the channel fish. There is a very silly argument that the US fights their wars with manpower and firepower and the British with gadgets. This is false. The funnies were ahead of their time, and we ultimately copied almost all of them. For example, half the tanks in a US tank company today routinely mount mine plows and rollers. In the 1990s we began to phase out the CEV, or combat engineer vehicle. It was an M60 chassis with 165mm demo gun and a small bulldozer blade. Guess where we got that idea? Armored plows are still around, (the ACE) and the AVLB (Armored vehicle launched bridge) is still alive and kicking. In desert storm armored vehicles with specialty gear cleared minefields, rather than infantrymen with metal detectors. Armored minefield breach drills today involve plows, rollers, bridges, mine clearing charges, and bulldozer blades in a drill that is a progression from the battle drills of Hobart and the Funnies. [ April 12, 2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Charlie Rock ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt: As a side-note, although the plural of AVRE these days is almost invariably AVREs, several contemporary documents I have looked at in the PRO, with commendable logic, use the plural AVsRE. John.I am not sure that is commendable. The plural of Regimental Sergeant Major is, of course, Regimental Sergeants Major, but the plural of RSM is still RSMs. That is, of course, if you count an abbreviation as a word in itself.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Brian: One of my personal bugbears is Australian Journos pronouncing lieutenant "Lootenant" instead of "Leftenant". Fine if you're an American but not if you're not. We have the same problem in Canada. Sadly, most newspapers have adopted American spelling in mainstream articles, which is even harder to bear than the occasional dumbass talking head saying "Lootenant Governor" or "Lootenant Colonel." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian: One of my personal bugbears is Australian Journos pronouncing lieutenant "Lootenant" instead of "Leftenant". Fine if you're an American but not if you're not. We have the same problem in Canada. Sadly, most newspapers have adopted American spelling in mainstream articles, which is even harder to bear than the occasional dumbass talking head saying "Lootenant Governor" or "Lootenant Colonel."</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Brian: One of my personal bugbears is Australian Journos pronouncing lieutenant "Lootenant" instead of "Leftenant". Fine if you're an American but not if you're not. I wondered about this for a long time (as the dumb foreigner I am ) : where do you get the "Lef" from??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Charlie Rock: There is a very silly argument that the US fights their wars with manpower and firepower and the British with gadgets. This is false. Generally, I'd agree with you but in the case of Omaha, I'd disagree. A conscious decision was made not to utilise technical means to overcome the enemy, with reliance instead being placed upon essentially an all infantry frontal assault. The funnies were ahead of their time, and we ultimately copied almost all of them. I wouldn't say they were "ahead of their time", I'd say they were appropriate to their time. They were the technical means developed to overcome enemy resistance in the most appropriate manner. That essentially the same types of weapons are in service today, indicate that they had the basic ideas right, even then. You should note, that even you emphasis the fact that US military copied them, once it had realised its error in not devoting the necessary resources to their development. Rather like the US Navy borrowing so heavily from the Royal Navy for its development of carriers. For example, half the tanks in a US tank company today routinely mount mine plows and rollers. In the 1990s we began to phase out the CEV, or combat engineer vehicle. It was an M60 chassis with 165mm demo gun and a small bulldozer blade. Guess where we got that idea? Armored plows are still around, (the ACE) and the AVLB (Armored vehicle launched bridge) is still alive and kicking. In desert storm armored vehicles with specialty gear cleared minefields, rather than infantrymen with metal detectors. Armored minefield breach drills today involve plows, rollers, bridges, mine clearing charges, and bulldozer blades in a drill that is a progression from the battle drills of Hobart and the Funnies.Which indicates as I said, they got it right, now doesn't it? However, that is now, not what occurred or was occuring on 6 June 1944. The US Army got it badly wrong and its soldiers paid the price unfortunately. Just as the British soldier paid the price in the Western Desert for ignoring what Hobart, Fuller, Liddell-Hart and Co. had been preaching for so many years before. It is always the way - the PBI are the ones who suffer because of the inadequacies of their commanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 DD Shermans were used to great effect on the Canadian beaches, as they were launched from quite close, some only wading rather than swimming, and their 75s were used to great effect on pillboxes at almost point blank range. At Omaha, as we all know, the DDs were launched too far out and most were swamped and drowned. As for Crabs, Bobbins etc., - not sure how they would have made things any easier at Omaha during the assault phase, though certainly an AVRE or two would have been good for bunker busting. Still wouldn't have got the lads up the cliffs, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Lindan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian: One of my personal bugbears is Australian Journos pronouncing lieutenant "Lootenant" instead of "Leftenant". Fine if you're an American but not if you're not. I wondered about this for a long time (as the dumb foreigner I am ) : where do you get the "Lef" from???</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I am not sure that is commendable. The plural of Regimental Sergeant Major is, of course, Regimental Sergeants Major, but the plural of RSM is still RSMs. That is, of course, if you count an abbreviation as a word in itself.[/QB] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts