Talk:Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers

Engineer tank versus AVRE
I can't find any authoratative reference to most of the vehicles covered here being referenced as AVRE. By contrast, the final report if the 79th, The history of the 79th, and the history of the 1st Assault Royal Engineers refers to AVRE as being a very specific type of engineer tank, alongside a number of others. This appears to continue for Centurion AVRE. This article seems be very confused with the Engineer tank concept, and the ATM of 1943 distances AVRE from the general purpose engineer tank designation.

I'd suggest the article is split between Engineer tanks and the subset specifically referenced as AVRE.Lkchild (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * To provide some background to this, Engineer tanks were first proposed by Martel in 1916 (see Our Armoured Forces) and ran through the experimental bridging, mine clearance etc. AVRE is a type of engineer tank that was specifically made to protect engineers during operations, such as demolitions, where they were vulnerable in the assault and require stores to be carried.Lkchild (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Up to 1943 (at least) these were called "Engineer Tanks". The name was used pre-war (I haven't checked WWI) and was applied to the Churchill in late 1943 (see the drawings reproduced in Fletcher's Vanguard of Victory on the 79th. By D-Day, this had become AVRE as Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers, even within their Assault Brigades (Fletcher in V of V and Universal Tank). It was also applied as a name to the mooted AVRE Sherman. After WWII, this AVRE term became generic.
 * I can see no robust source for the Assault Vehicle Royal Engineers you claim from your forum source. Nor would it be appropriate to apply that name to this whole article, even if (as you claim) it was a name applied to the Churchill AVRE. Yes, a whole bunch of forums use it (I bet WP's favourite source, the World of Tanks game will have something to say), but that is hardly enough to mention it, and far from enough to rename this article to the exclusion of Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Andy, please check the sources that I added. I understand why you didnt like the forum one, but the other two references are authoratative, as below.


 * Army Training Memorandum No.46 1943 notified in ACIs 16th October, 1943 states on page 18 in a section on Nomenclature AVRE "Tanks manned by RE will in future be known as Assault Vehicle RE (abbreviation AVRE)."


 * 79th Armoured Division Final Report, July 1945 states in Append "I" AVRE that "The Assault Vehicle RE is a Churchill tank on which a 12" spigot mortar (Petard) has been substituted for the main armament. ... "


 * further confirmation comes from A.R.E. The strory of the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers published after the war by the very unit that was armed and used AVREs in the 79th which states on page 7 "This then was the genesis of the Churchill "AVRE" (Assault Vehicle Royal Engineers)"


 * Note there is a typo in the official history of the 79th, which states that it was rushed into print and contains errors. It states "Armoured Vehicle".  This terminology  is not used within official documentation until much later, but has been picked up as a popular source for other books.  Churchill and Centurion variants up until they were withdrawn from service in the 1990s were Assault Vehicle which was the forum discussion I mentionned in support.


 * I'm trying to improve this article with referencable facts, and it would be nice if you checked the references before undoing. I'd be grateful if you put them back.  Thanks.  Lkchild (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly as I said last night, this is no reason to change the name through the whole article. "Nor would it be appropriate to apply that name to this whole article, even if (as you claim) it was a name applied to the Churchill AVRE." The COMMONNAME here (with many sources) is Armoured, not Assault. If Assault was used at all for the Churchill, it was used for some brief period, between Engineer Tank and Armoured VRE. That could be reason to add it to the article, but not to replace it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK Andy, what sources? Other than the typo, I'm not aware of any official reference to Armoured until the introduction of CHAVRE, which is a different abbreviation Lkchild (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:SECONDARY sources, I'm only seeing "Armoured" (again, as I said last night) Fletcher uses this, as does Ian V. Hogg, as does Chamberlain & Ellis' British and American Tanks of World War II. Are you seriously claiming that all of these sources are wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. I can't find any primary sources to back them up.  Lkchild (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm common use of Assault Vehicle, it's listed in Jane's AFV Recognition Handbook 1992. Jane's is one of the Defence industry's most respected sources. Lkchild (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh? Really? I'd never heard of Jane's before!  8-(   What a comprehensive book it must to be listing the Churchill in the 1990s (I'll dig my '60s, '70s and '80s copies out, if I can find them)  Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's information here : Jane's Information Group and here : Jane's Defence Weekly. It's referencing later vehicles, not Churchill. Lkchild (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which later vehicles? The Centurion with the 165mm? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - the two most notable AVREs for the article are both Assault Vehicle. Churchill AVRE, the first AVRE and the most famous one based on it's use in the 79th/Hobarts Funnies was an Assault Vehicle.  Centurion AVRE, the longest serving AFV, also used in the gulf war, was also an Assault Vehicle.  The longest running and most notable use of the term is as Assault Vehicle.  I know it's been confused, and I'd like to disambiguate the confusion in the article.  Lkchild (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I have seen both used, although "Armoured" seems the most common and I suspect that it has become the accepted name more-or-less by default but I don't think "Assault" is wrong and it is possible the name was changed in WW II for security reasons and has since stuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.203 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-RE vehicles
Either I'm badly out of date, or there's some non-RE vehicles listed. Armoured Repair and Recovery? I can see an armoured RE unit having one--their stuff breaks down too--but classing it as an AVRE is like calling it a tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.41.123 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the whole point of this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManStan (talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the whole point of the Royal Engineers...armoured engineering vehicle != AVRE.--usmarox (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is mixing apples and bananas; the vehicles classified as AVRE were developed by the 79th Armd Div *AFTER* the Dieppe Raid in Aug-1942. Up to that point there had been dozens of engineering vehicles around, but none of them were called AVRE. A Valentine Bridgelayer was called Valentine Bridgelayer, not Valentine AVRE... there were only 3 versions of a Churchill AVRE (Mk III, Mk IV, Mk VII), and several versions of Centurion AVRE, including one Al Tariq AVRE (which was a Centurion). The main characteristic of an AVRE vehicle was the large Petard mortar, and of course a bridgelayer will not have such weapon (or it would blow the bridge off)...66.26.70.185 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The confusion is through the incorrect name. AVRE is Assault Vehicle Royal Engineers.  It's clarified in Army Training Memorandum no. 46 1943, and also used in A.R.E. The story of the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers, written by the part if the 79th that was actually armed with them.  It's mistaken in a lot of other official sources (including the story of the 79th, which was rushed to print when the division disbanded).Lkchild (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the purpose of the vehicle is demolitions for assault purposes. Thats where the article has got confused with other types of vehicle like dedicated bridgelayers and ramp carriers.Lkchild (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080527100326/http://www.remuseum.org.uk:80/articles/rem_article_assaultbridge.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/articles/rem_article_assaultbridge.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928004135/http://defence-data.com/dsei99/pagedi45.htm to http://defence-data.com/dsei99/pagedi45.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202072541/http://www.nasenoviny.com/CovenanterEN.html to http://www.nasenoviny.com/CovenanterEN.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Major rewrite
I've completed a major rewrite of the article specific to the meaning of AVRE which had become confused with other types of engineering vehicle. I've moved these to a related vehicles section, although we could really use a separate articles on AVLB, ARK, and mine clearance vehicles. I'll be adding to this in the coming weeks.Lkchild (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202072541/http://www.nasenoviny.com/CovenanterEN.html to http://www.nasenoviny.com/CovenanterEN.html
 * Added tag to http://jdw.janes.com/public/adlink/ads/1185554.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www2.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/org/re_armdwing/dmschool.htm
 * Added tag to http://jdw.janes.com/public/adlink/ads/1185554.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Massive explosion of Congers at IJzendijke in 1944
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/67/a1985367.shtml