Mk III Valentine - British Medium Tank - info?

[George-III]

I was reading the "Russian Battlefield" web site and came across this story about the lend lease Mk III Valentine:

http://history.vif2.ru/library/lend/valentine.html

Its a British tank that, according to the web site, was very common (6,855 were built). Its clasified as a Medium tank but it looks more like a Light tank to me, 40mm gun and 65mm armor. On the web site it says that the russians just loved this tank and compared it to the T-34/76!? This looks like a fairly cool tank and was surprised its not in CM (unless its name is different, but I cant find any unit that matches its stats)

Anyway, I have some questions about this tank:

1. Why is this tank not in CMBO? Was it used in North Africa, and not Europe?

2. Will we see this tank in CMBB?

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: George-III ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George-III:
I was reading the "Russian Battlefield" web site and came across this story about the lend lease Mk III Valentine:
http://history.vif2.ru/library/lend/valentine.html

Its a British tank that, according to the web site, was very common (6,855 were built). Its clasified as a Medium tank but it looks more like a Light tank to me, 40mm gun and 65mm armor. On the web site it says that the russians just loved this tank and compared it to the T-34/76!? This looks like a fairly cool tank and was surprised its not in CM (unless its name is different, but I cant find any unit that matches its stats)

Anyway, I have some questions about this tank:

1. Why is this tank not in CMBO? Was it used in North Africa, and not Europe?

2. Will we see this tank in CMBB?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Because it was no longer used in NWE in 1944/5, since it was undergunned and underarmoured. It was used in the desert, and as lend-lease. The only use I read about post-invasion was as a bridge-layer in 79th AD, and maybe as FOO tank, hmm, also the basis for the Archer. Another one of a long list of failed UK tank designs.

2. I would be surprised if not, a few thousand of these were delivered to the Red Army, IIRC, and it would be a model BTS could reuse in the desert.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Andreas]

Check this out:

Valentine Tank Profile (http://www.panser.dk/profiler/inftkmk3/inftkmk3.htm)

[George-III]

Thanks Germanboy,

I suspected as much. I keep forgeting that the Russian War was so much earlier than D-Day smile.gif

thx

[Cpl Carrot]

Here is what little I could find on it:
Based on Cruisers Mk I and II, but with more armour
Ordered off the drawing board and the prototype was ready on 14 Feb 1940 hence Valentine
Production ceased in 1944 with 8275 built in UK and Canada with most of those built in Canda shipped to USSR
Initial armerment was 2lber, then the 6, then the 75mm. 11 different marks in total.
Chassis used for the Archer and Bishop SP's

Hope this is some help

[Monty's Double]

The Russians liked the Valentine because it was reliable, and against MkIII's it was reasonably useful. Preferring it to T34/76's? Frankly I doubt it. In 1941-2 I'd guess Russion units were being equipped with all kinds of nonsense (BT's for example) and told to go out and treat them like mediums. In that light you can see how they'd prefer a Valentine. I'm sure some fought in Italy, but I haven't got the reference to hand.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty's Double:
I'm sure some fought in Italy, but I haven't got the reference to hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd be interested to see the reference once you have dug it out. I have stuff on the 4th and 8th AB (one of which was in Italy), and 7th AD, and none of this mentions Valentines, IIRC. The tank brigades in the mixed divisions at that stage had Churchills, I thought. I go and dig tonight.

[MikeyD]

MkIII Valentines did see some service in NW Europe, but only as command tanks for Artillery regiments(?) if memory serves. That's how Lees and Grants got to Europe as well. They did see service in Italy though. The final variant of the Valentine fired the same 75mm ammo as the Sherman, using a bore-out 6 pounder. I will be VERY disappointed if the Valentine does not show up in CMBB!

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
[QB]

1. Because it was no longer used in NWE in 1944/5, since it was undergunned and underarmoured. It was used in the desert, and as lend-lease. The only use I read about post-invasion was as a bridge-layer in 79th AD, and maybe as FOO tank, hmm, also the basis for the Archer. Another one of a long list of failed UK tank designs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the latter marks of Valentine were used in Italy and NW Europe - as specialist tanks, usually in a command role. They were issued to Archer SP Batteries for use by the battery commanders. Quite a few were also used as OP tanks for FOO's.

The latter marks were armed with 6 Pdr or 75mm guns BTW.

In reality, far from being "another failed UK tank design", the Valentine was one of the better success stories - essentially the same chassis was in use still into the 1950's by the British Army and into the early 1960's by several client Arab states in the form of the Archer SPAT - not bad for a 1930's design IMO.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
In reality, far from being "another failed UK tank design", the Valentine was one of the better success stories - essentially the same chassis was in use still into the 1950's by the British Army and into the early 1960's by several client Arab states in the form of the Archer SPAT - not bad for a 1930's design IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, I somehow suspected this would happen. Well, if it was so great as a tank, why was only the chassis being used post 1944?

The T-34 was still used as a tank last week somewhere, another 1930s design. The Panther was used as a tank until the 1950s in the French Army. Shermans and Stuarts are still being used by 3rd rate dictatorships everywhere. Does that prove they were good tanks?

If chassis longevity is the question, surely the Czech 38T (or was it the 35?) has to get the crown of achievement - with the Hetzer being in use until the early 1970s, another 1930s design.

If the tank was so great, why did the UK switch to Cromwells (who weren't without their problems) and Shermans?

Sorry, but the UK built and designed some crap stuff, there is no way around it. The Commonwealth WW2 tankers thought so, and there is no use glorifying the achievements of the designers.

Let's face it, the crowning achievement of UK tank design that saw battle in WW2 was the marriage of the 17pdr with the Sherman to create the Firefly. Maybe the Comet, and that says something. Postwar is a whole different story though.

So, IMO the Valentine was another failed British tank design, even though it might have been good for what the UK put out at the time. Amongst the blind, the one-eyed man is king, as they say.

[MikeyD]

The Valentine has been judged by some to be the ONLY successful Brit tank before the Centurion (Churchill fans will disagree). But it was well armored for its size, remarkably reliable for a Brit tank and built in massive numbers (again, for a Brit tank). Its one drawback was its small size, which meant it couldn't keep pace with the upgrade-arms-race after '43. It was quite a feat installing a 75mm gun in that little turret!

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD:
It was quite a feat installing a 75mm gun in that little turret!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was 57mm (6-pdr) and it was only possible by removing the co-axial and reverting to a two-man turret, a concept outdated by 1940.

As I said - it may have been a great achievement for the British, but that does not mean it was not a failed design.

[Triumvir]

Well... to nitpick a bit, Andreas;

1) The T-34 used last week was probably a 1940s design; the 1930's design was, of course, the 76mm gun and I don't think that any T-34s other than T-34/85s are still in use, even in brushwars.

2) The Panther was phased out of French service by 1951 and was used in lieu of a native design (though apparently at one point the Israelis wanted to build a modernized Panther in the early 1950s)

3) Shermans and Stuarts in use today are almost invariably upgunned and refurbished; Chile's Shermans were once Israeli. No active Sherman still uses the same configuration as it did when it came out of the factory doors.

This kinda bangs up against your statement that having only the chassis being used post-1944 versus other designs being used today renders the Valentine a useless tank. Those designs used today are using only the chassis too.

Of course, the Valentine _was_ a crap tank, but that's beside the point for a pendant. 8)

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
Of course, the Valentine _was_ a crap tank, but that's beside the point for a pendant. 8)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The word is PEDANT - the thing hanging around your neck doesn't particularly care about the Valentine at all!

Of course what pple forget is that the Val was an INFATRY tank after the pattern of the Matilda, with the 2 pdr that was standard at the time.

To say that is is a FAILED tank is complete nonsense. Tanks such as the Covenanter are "failed" - so bad they didn't even make the front line of the Brit army!!

To say that is was a good tank is another matter entirely. IMO it was a mediocre tank when it was first produced - it had good armour and reliability, a better turn of speed than the Matilda 2, but was severely limited by the 2 pdr gun.

It was also a very, very small tank - maybe 2/3rds the size of the Sherman for example, and IIRC less than 2/3rds of the weight.

Of course it was outclassed by 1944 - how many 1940 designs were not? The T34/76 was marginal, as was the Pz4 (and then only the upgunned versions can be considered)....and the Pz 3 was obsolete as was the Lee/Grant and every Italian and Japanese design, and who ever heard of the M2 tank in combat?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
This kinda bangs up against your statement that having only the chassis being used post-1944 versus other designs being used today renders the Valentine a useless tank. Those designs used today are using only the chassis too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I take all the other points (having said that, IF the Valentine was that great, why did it need to reduce the crew to upgun), my point about the 35(t) that was the basis for the Hetzer still stands then, even when it comes to chassis use - outclassed :D

I totally agree that compared to other British tanks it looks like it was a decent design. That says more about British tank design than anything else though... IMO there was not a single decent (in the sense of homegrown, up-to-date, ready for combat before 8 May 45) design amongst them. The best of them (Valentine, Churchill, Matilda, Comet) still laboured under the fundamentally flawed Infantry/Cruiser divide. End of story.

You can stand on your heads and try to convince me that compared to the Convenanter the Valentine was a good tank. That is like saying that compared to the Austin Allegro the Rover Van Den Plas is a decent design. I know which one I would choose between them, but I'd take a Mercedes W123 over either of them at any day.

[David Aitken]

At the moment I seem to be wont to mediate. So what if we fought the Second World War with outdated tanks. Nowadays god (and Gordon Brown, arguably one in the same) only knows how much money we spend on ever more expensive high-tech tanks, planes, ships, RADAR, missiles and whatever else we need to be able to kill people in the modern world, and they still don't work, and how badly is our nation compromised by all this misspent money?

In 1938 we weren't expecting another world war, and I'm sure that, as ever, we had far more important things to be spending money on than methods to kill people. The result of the war is that now we channel money unreservedly into the military. Should Germany be revered for excelling in the art of invading other people's countries and destroying their armies? Should Britain be criticised for spending money on better things? Maybe we should have anticipated the war and been better prepared. Maybe we should have better instituted our own ideas on tank employment instead of letting the Germans get ahead of us. But the Germans were intending to fight – we were not. If we'd known what was coming we would have designed better tanks, and done absolutely everything else differently, but that's hindsight for you.

The BEF was routed, but the German advance was not such the success they were expecting. Sealion never happened and the Luftwaffe campaign failed. Sure we could have done things better, but we didn't do too bad a job against a militaristic nation which had been preparing for 'expansion' for years.

It's so easy to look back and kick up a fuss about how bad British tanks were during the war, but at the time things were, and never are, so clear.

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

The best of them (Valentine, Churchill, Matilda, Comet) still laboured under the fundamentally flawed Infantry/Cruiser divide. End of story.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

End of what story? Do you say that the Matilda 2 was a failed tank? Or the comet? Do yuo really expect us to believe that he Comet was a failed tank? I guess you might as well add the Sherman, teh Tiger and the Panther to your list then too!

Perhaps we might be able to understand your point better if you told us what your criteria is for a "failed" tank?

IMO a particular doctrine that a tank was built under does not automaticaly fail a tank - or you'd have to fail the Sherman as it was built for infantry support vs TD's for anti-tank work.

Note that no-one here is saying that the Valentine was a particualrly GOOD tank (except in comparison to T-26's perhaps), but you seem to be hung up on the word "failed"?

[Ex Bellator]

Just to fuel the fire, I've just finished a new book on the Tunisa campaign (The Bloody Road To Tunis) and amongst the few pictures is a folorn looking Valantine bogged down crossing the Wadi Zigzaou in the Mareth Line in March 1943.

It goes on to say that 'Monty was roundly criticised for leading his attack with this obsolescent type of tank'. It seems to me that if the Top Brass thought the tank was inadequate as early as March 1943 then it actually had a pretty short service life.

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Should Germany be revered for excelling in the art of invading other people's countries and destroying their armies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buddy, who do you think allowed Hitler to build up the military? Who made compromisses when Hitler has taken Austria, Czecheslovakia, the Rhineland? Who declared war, but keep sitting on the ass when Hitler invades Poland? What do you think would be the colour of the Europian flag if Germany hadn't slowed the communism? Yes - we did all the crimes, we invaded the all the countries, but PLEASE do not forget - you needed us to do that. Only that Hitler wasn't so good to control as the Western Allies expected.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Should Britain be criticised for spending money on better things? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean good things like the colonies?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But the Germans were intending to fight – we were not. If we'd known what was coming we would have designed better tanks, and done absolutely everything else differently, but that's hindsight for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha - the peaceloving Brits with the biggest battlefleet on Earth in the 1930s!

If you want to continue this, let's move to the general board. This has nothing to do with CM.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
Do yuo really expect us to believe that he Comet was a failed tank? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was, I don't really care what you or anyone else believes. If you think the Valentine was great, hey fine. I've got a used car to sell, interested? Good runner.

Once CMBB comes out, we can have a duel. Date is 1944. You take Valentines 6-pdrs, I take Panzer IV 75L48 or captured T-34/85 or KV-1s. All four are 1930s designs, so that should be fair, eh?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
It's so easy to look back and kick up a fuss about how bad British tanks were during the war, but at the time things were, and never are, so clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David, I did not kick up a fuss. Simple statement. There is nothing political about it. I also know there is an element of 20/20 hindsight (although there was a Labour MP in 1944 trying to get the tank issue on the agenda). So please try and keep this on the technical level. I did not even remotely intend to criticise the political decision-making in the UK then.

Still wouldn't buy a Rover today, so maybe I am just prejudiced ;)

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:


I think it was, I don't really care what you or anyone else believes. If you think the Valentine was great, hey fine. I've got a used car to sell, interested? Good runner.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really are a moron aren't yuo!! Hello? Hello? anyone home - knock, knock!

Several people, myself included, have posted that the Valentine wasn't a particularly good tank, let alone great.

Why do you persist in miserpresenting what's bene posted?

Is it because you're stupid? Or perhaps you're being deliberatly pathetic and obnoxious?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once CMBB comes out, we can have a duel. Date is 1944. You take Valentines 6-pdrs, I take Panzer IV 75L48 or captured T-34/85 or KV-1s. All four are 1930s designs, so that should be fair, eh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. the Velntine with a 6 pdr is a 1942 design - the PzIV with a L78 is a 1943 one, the T34/85 is a 1944 one, and the KV-1 is a heavy tank whereas the other 3 are mediums.

Personally I think the Valentine would be only a bit inferior to the PzIV - which isn't bad for a tank of half the weight. The others would clearly outclass it.

If you have any usful info to add to this debate then now might be a really good time to start saying it.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Username]

Awww roughhouse has turned to tears...

I think that maybe if the brits had melted down all their tanks and turned them into STEN guns, parachuted them to the underground boy scout resistance groups in Sweden, more would have been done for the war effort.

Lewis

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
If you have any usful info to add to this debate then now might be a really good time to start saying it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you seem to be too dense to get it:

The Valentine was another failed UK tank design.

Why (I feel like in Kindergarten now)?

Because it could not be upgraded to compete with other tanks of its generation (KV-1, T-34/76 and PzKpfWg. IV 75L24, all of which played a role in 1945, upgunned and upgraded). Who the moron is I leave up to others, but when I talk about design, I talk about the design. Maybe you should look it up in a dictionary. The T-34 and the Panzer IV allowed for upgunning and uparmouring in the design. The Valentine did not. Hence failed. Like the Matilda. Like the Cromwell/Comet. The Churchill failed a bit less (still failed, if you have ever stood in front of the Black Prince, you know why).

And the offer to play a duel is withdrawn. If you can not handle adult disagreement, may I suggest this is not the right place for you, Kindergarten seems more appropriate. I noticed that before with you though. Some people are just socially inadequate. Since you have to resort to insults, I assume your stock of arguments is used up.

[Scipio]

Were the British tanks bad? Well, maybe they wasn't real bad - only that most others were better.

The German and Russian tanks were surely state of art, also the US had some good designs. Compared to that I would say: the typical British tanks was to slow, with much mechanical problems and not so good armed as it was necessary and mostly to bad armored.

AND - the look of the most British tanks was absolutly ugly :eek: !

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
Since you seem to be too dense to get it:.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh - nothing to get. The T34 wasn't upgunned past 85mm, and the Centurion never carried a 120mm.

Your criteria for a "failed design" is pathetic.

Your point is pathetic, your justification of your point is pathetic, and your continued studied ignorance of counterpoints made against you is pathetic.

You consistantly fail to address any of the comments I have made - I went through your silly little comparison and gave my reasons - you ignored that, just like you ignored my requests that you define what makes a "failed design".

It shall be my great pleasure from now to give your silly posts all the attention they deserve instead of trying to engage you in sensible conversation - an art you clearly are either not interested in or incapable of sustaining! smile.gif

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Triumvir]

Stalin's Organ...

by hitting the hook, you too have proved yourself a _pendant_... 8) as in that which is, well, pendulous.

Back to the fire, I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the Valentine was not an optimal tank by 1944 standards. What detracts from its merits is its poor upgradability -- introduced in 1940 and voluntarily taken out of production in 1944.

(Apparently the last Mark, the XI, had the same 75mm gun as the Churchill or Comet but that wasn't sufficient for 1944 needs)

As for the infantry/cruiser divide, I don't think that the doctrine is all _that_ flawed; the Germans used the same principle throughout the war, or tried to at least, while the Russians did so throughout the war.

An IS-2 is much more an infantry tank than a general tank; same goes for the SU series.

As for Scipio, the victim mentality doesn't quite work here. Other countries may not have wanted to let Hitler build up a military, but to them that was a damn sight better than fighting another Somme; and Hitler himself didn't want to go to war till at least 1942.

Britain spent a lot of money on the colonies, and I'm damn grateful for it. I'm happy as hell that we kicked the Brits out, but far better being ruled by the British, with all their classism and racism, than by the French or the Dutch, with their casual brutality. The British did (a little) more than paying lip service to the rule of law.

Personally, I wonder how the Black Prince would have done, had it made it into Europe in CM scope. A Churchill's armour with a Firefly's punch; not to mention that the Centurion would have torn a huge hole in a Panther's, er, flanks.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scipio wrote:
Haha - the peaceloving Brits with the biggest battlefleet on Earth in the 1930s!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll let the politics go and address this technical point. Britain, as an island, has historically always had a very strong navy. Previously having an empire, and the sea being the way to get around until the 20th century, there was good reason to have the strongest navy in the world. I never claimed that we were peace-loving, but we certainly looked that way compared to Germany... BLEEP BLEEP! Political content identified! Post terminated.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lewis wrote:
I think that maybe if the brits had melted down all their tanks and turned them into STEN guns, parachuted them to the underground boy scout resistance groups in Sweden, more would have been done for the war effort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just an obligatory shut up to Lewis. Sorry we didn't lose the war Lewis. Sorry our weapons actually worked. Sorry the Germans respected us as an opponent. I won't suggest that they credited British troops as more fearsome enemies than Americans, as that is speculation, but I've heard plenty to suggest it.

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
Stalin's Organ...

by hitting the hook, you too have proved yourself a _pendant_... 8) as in that which is, well, pendulous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's fun - you dont' think I'm taking any of it seriously do you??

And being pendulous implies swinging from side to side - one thing neitehr Germanboy nor myself can fairly be accused of!

And you description of the Valentine as "not optimal" for 1944 is a bit quaint - I would have said grossly obsolete!! smile.gif

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
As for Scipio, the victim mentality doesn't quite work here. Other countries may not have wanted to let Hitler build up a military, but to them that was a damn sight better than fighting another Somme; and Hitler himself didn't want to go to war till at least 1942.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Victim? Who feels like a victim? I'm on the side of the winners, I don't need to live in nazi Germany, thanks god. Just between you and me - black uniform don't fits me so well, and I'm allergic vs Zyklon B ;).

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scipio wrote:
Compared to that I would say: the typical British tanks was to slow, with much mechanical problems and not so good armed as it was necessary and mostly to bad armored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't generalise like this. Some of the British support tanks, notably the Matilda II and Churchill, were very well armoured for their time. The cruiser tanks were very fast, but under-armed and -armoured. We later decided that speed was the least desirable aspect, hence the Chieftain.

[Triumvir]

Heh... I love trolling for pendants... 8)

But to answer your understatement point... yes, it was a deliberate understatement; but I think that there could have been a decent place for the Valentine as an infantry support tank; but that the Sherman did a better job of it.

[Priest]

I would love to chime in on this!

Let me just pull out my British Armor resources....

Okay...

I think I will be reading from Chamberlain today.

The Valentine was ordered off the drawing boards in July 1939. Valentine Production ceased in early 1944. The original design carried a 2 pdr gun and a turret crew of two. This was later redesigned in the MKIII and the turret crew was increased to three. With the inclusion of the 6pdr gun the third crewmember was deleted in the interest of higher firepower. In March 1943 the Valentine was used to test the US 75mm gun and the final variant was the MK XI with the 75mm gun.

The Valentine was much like the US Sherman in the respect that the British knew it was inferior technically to the German tanks but at the time needed something competent to put on the line and lots of them with minimal downtime for maintenance. That was the Valentine.

Chamberlain states that the Valentine was an important vehicle for the British (at one point it made up a quarter of Britian's available armor force) but that does not mean it was a great design. The Sherman was important for the US (and the allies in general) but it was not a "great" design either.

As far as the British Cruiser/Infantry mentality (and for that case the Tank/TD philosophy) we must understand that the use of armored vehicles and combined combat in general was a new "art". Just as many errors can be pointed out now about air power and it's uses also. It too was a new "art".

I think that many or most armor designs failed in one respect or another during WWII (hey even the first Panther models had issues!) and that due to the many advances in technology tanks that were considered "great" in 1942 were outdated in 1943 (for example). Just my thoughts.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Triumvir wrote:
Personally, I wonder how the Black Prince would have done, had it made it into Europe in CM scope. A Churchill's armour with a Firefly's punch<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never mind that, what about the 32-pounder gun? 3.7in, it was slated to appear on the Tortoise heavy tank (assault gun really, much like the Jagdtiger in concept) which was designed in 1942. Tortoise never made it and the 32-pounder gun never appeared. This, of course, brings us back to the tank design issue: we never had a tank during the war actually capable of carrying such a big gun, hence our tanks were always underarmed, bar the few that took the 17-pounder, and even that was a stretch.

[Triumvir]

Scipio,

I think _most_ people are allergic to Zyklon B! By the way, when I was last in Frankfurt I saw La Traviata done up to be in 1940s Paris. I still remember shivering when I saw the General Staff officers pop onto stage...

[Stalin's Organ]

Be fair David - if you're going to include the Black Prince and Tortoise in yuor WW2 ambit then yuo've got to include the Centurion too - one of the greatest tanks ever made!

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:


You can't generalise like this. Some of the British support tanks, notably the Matilda II and Churchill, were very well armoured for their time. The cruiser tanks were very fast, but under-armed and -armoured. We later decided that speed was the least desirable aspect, hence the Chieftain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't generalized, David, I've written 'mostly'. But that's only two models, and they were also extremly slow.

But to reach the hand - IMO one of the best British designs was the Cromwell series that can be compared to the PzIV, and especially in the role as close support tank it was even better...slightly. ;)

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:


Never mind that, what about the 32-pounder gun? 3.7in, it was slated to appear on the Tortoise heavy tank (assault gun really, much like the Jagdtiger in concept) which was designed in 1942. Tortoise never made it and the 32-pounder gun never appeared. This, of course, brings us back to the tank design issue: we never had a tank during the war actually capable of carrying such a big gun, hence our tanks were always underarmed, bar the few that took the 17-pounder, and even that was a stretch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the Turtoise had a speed of 12mph, the Black Prince 11mph - the Jagdtiger 23mph, the Panther 30mph. Sounds easy to bring some Panthers behind them.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scipio wrote:
Sounds easy to bring some Panthers behind them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They never went into production. I was talking about the 32-pounder gun.

[Andrew H.]

The design of the valentine (and I'm speaking of the III/IV here) was not very good; its primary flaw was that it was very slow. It's maximum road speed was 15 mph or so; max cross country was half of that. Which means a man on foot could outrun it. The fact that despite being an infantry tank it did not have a HE shell is another disadvantage, one shared with the Matildas.

However, the valentine was an excellent implementation of a bad design. Everything I've read about the tank mentions its reliability.

And reliability is probably why the tank was so popular with Soviet tankers: sometimes the most important feature of a tank is the fact that it's there. Given the poor infrastructure in the USSR, this was probably even more valuable there than it would have been elsewhere.

If you're fighting infantry armed with 37mm AT guns and supported by Pz38(t)s, (or even StuG B's), you would be very happy to have a valentine show up in support. It can easily handle the lighter German tanks, and then use its MGs to help out against the infantry.

Sure, a T-34 would theoretically be better...but if the T-34 doesn't show up because it's burned out *another* gearbox...you're going to be very happy with the reliable tanks that keep showing up.

It is important to keep in mind how things were in the early war: Army Group North's armor consisted entirely of 38(t)s and 35(t)s. The 38(t) is a decent tank...probably a better all-round tank than the but... I don't think it could penetrate a valentine from the front (if so, only at close ranges), and it could certainly be penetrated by the valentine from the front at all practical battlefield ranges.

Once again, I do believe the "failed tank" people are right, generally. But there were a lot of occasions where an operating "failed tank" was good enough.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:


Err, I somehow suspected this would happen. Well, if it was so great as a tank, why was only the chassis being used post 1944?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because there were better available perhaps?

Why did the Germans persist in using the Panzer II chassis or the 38(t) chassis, Germanboy?

'cause they were excellent mechanically and reliable. The same goes for the Valentine.

Does that mean they were a failure as a tank?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The T-34 was still used as a tank last week somewhere, another 1930s design. The Panther was used as a tank until the 1950s in the French Army. Shermans and Stuarts are still being used by 3rd rate dictatorships everywhere. Does that prove they were good tanks?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends upon how you define "good". The fact that they have proved they are (a) reliable and (b) able to fulfill the role they are called upon to fulfill as a "tank", means they must be considered a success.

The Valentine as a tank, was outmoded by 1943 but its chassis was still mechanically reliable and useful in other roles, and in all likelihood, cheap and relatively easy to manufacture. So it must IMO considered to have been a successful design.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If chassis longevity is the question, surely the Czech 38T (or was it the 35?) has to get the crown of achievement - with the Hetzer being in use until the early 1970s, another 1930s design.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it goes beyond that. The Swedes utilised the 38(t) chassis and reused it, until the start of the 1980's, as an APC.

By all metres, it must be considered one of the great success stories, I agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If the tank was so great, why did the UK switch to Cromwells (who weren't without their problems) and Shermans?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically like the Panzer III, the Valentine had reached the end of its development life, as a tank. It had problems with increasing the size of the turret ring, just as the Matilda did (although, Fletcher in his excellent little Vanguard book on the Matilda does have a photo of a Matilda with a larger, upgunned 6 Pdr turret on a new ring).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sorry, but the UK built and designed some crap stuff, there is no way around it. The Commonwealth WW2 tankers thought so, and there is no use glorifying the achievements of the designers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Whose glorifying it? I am merely noting that your classification of the Valentine as a failure is incorrect. If you want to make that claim, then you'd have to say every vehicle which was superceded because of changing circumstance, was a failure as well.

I also believe you are making the classic mistake in assuming that because of teething problems, the British were poor or bad designers of tanks. This is simply not borne out by the evidence. In reality, the problem for the British was not that they designed things badly but that because of the pressure of the war, they rushed into production tanks and issued them to troops well before all teething problems were ironed out with them.

They were not alone in that. The Germans it must be noted rushed the issue of the Panther with the Ausf D being very mechanically unreliable. It took about 18 months of very hard work and the building of the Ausf A (or Ausf D^2 if you like) to correct the problems. Indeed, even the first Shermans had their share of teething problems. So, does that mean they were badly designed from the outset as you attempt to imply?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Let's face it, the crowning achievement of UK tank design that saw battle in WW2 was the marriage of the 17pdr with the Sherman to create the Firefly. Maybe the Comet, and that says something. Postwar is a whole different story though.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Cromwell was quite a good vehicle, as was the Churchill, particular once the early teething problems had been corrected.

Even the Crusader, by 1944, once its chassis had been perfected was quite good, being utilised as a high-speed gun tractor in NW Europe.

Was the Matilda a failure as well? I think not.

So, IMO the Valentine was another failed British tank design, even though it might have been good for what the UK put out at the time. Amongst the blind, the one-eyed man is king, as they say.[/QUOTE]

It appears the only person who that description fits is yourself. Its very obvious that you know very little about the history of British or even German tank development.

[Tripps]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:
[QB]AND - the look of the most British tanks was absolutly ugly :eek: !
QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and thats the only part i'll agree with!! smile.gif
please, Germanboy is kinda correct in saying the Valentine is a failed tank, it never went on to get upgunned, and/or upgraded its armour, but then again, thats not the only criteria for a 'failed' tank, hence, he's right, after a fashion smile.gif
Everyone will have their ideas on what an awesome tank is, the Tiger II? it never continued production after WWII (IIRC??), but, was a damn fine tank IMHO.
The Valentine to me was an infantry tank for the early years of the war, and because there were so many, were still in service later on, even though better tanks were designed... to me the British never really grasped a tank concept comparitable with the T34/panther whatever, but lets not degenerate this tread into an argument over who started the war, and what the poms were doing in the 30's, I too hope the Valentine will be in CM BB because it was widely used by the Russians in the front lines up until around mid 43 (IIRC, books at home)
but to compare it with a T34/85? nah, come on, compare apples with apples! :D

[Michael Dorosh]

I clambered on a real Valentine at the museum in Borden while on my course the past month. I was astonished at how small it was! And at how tricky it must have been for the driver to get out of the awkward looking hatches.

You can say that the Tiger I was a failed design too, because an M1 Abrams will blitz it. For its day, and intended role, the Valentine was an adequate tank.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
[QB]
The best of them (Valentine, Churchill, Matilda, Comet) still laboured under the fundamentally flawed Infantry/Cruiser divide. End of story.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it? Pray tell, perhaps you'd care to explain how if the British divide was "fundamentally flawed" then why wasn't the German Panzer/Cavalry, the American Tank/Tank-destroyer, the Japanese tank/cavalry and the Russian Infantry/Fast-tank divides also fundamentally flawed?

I would suggest that for the first few years of engagement, all combatants suffered from this "fundamentally flawed" thinking in one form or another. The Germans were the only ones in fact, to fully jettison it during the course of the war and their's lasted for the first 2 years at least.

The British perhaps persisted with their "fundamentally flawed" tactically split doctrines until about 1944 when they recognised the need for a "universal cruiser".

The Americans retained their split until war's end, while the Russians continued to toy with their's until the end of the fUSSR.

In reality, there isn't that much of "divide" nor is it necessarily flawed to have one. What is flawed is to equip one side of it with the wrong weapon to accomplish the primary task which it faces, as the British did until 1943.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:


Since you seem to be too dense to get it:

The Valentine was another failed UK tank design.

[QUOTE]

Define "Failed", please.

[QUOTE]
Why (I feel like in Kindergarten now)?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, thats how I feel nearly everytime I log on here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Because it could not be upgraded to compete with other tanks of its generation (KV-1, T-34/76 and PzKpfWg. IV 75L24, all of which played a role in 1945, upgunned and upgraded).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, it could and was. It mounted in succession, the 2 Pdr, 6 Pdr and 75mm guns. It was developed into the Valiant, which had increased armour as well as a larger turret. However, it was felt the improvement was not worth it in light of better vehicles being available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Who the moron is I leave up to others, but when I talk about design, I talk about the design.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what way? Tell me, was the Panzer I, Panzer II and Panzer III's "failures" in the way you're using it with the Valentine?

As to the pointless ad hominem, I'll simply point out, its pointless.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Maybe you should look it up in a dictionary. The T-34 and the Panzer IV allowed for upgunning and uparmouring in the design. The Valentine did not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet they managed to do so, therefore perhaps you have a problem with understanding the fundamental concept of design?

BTW, both the KV and T-34 series had to have a completely new turret, as did the Valentine, in order to accomodate a new gun. Does that make them equally, using your critaria, failures?

Only the Mk.IV, finished the war essentially with the same turret it started, although even it was redesigned at least three times in that period. Does that make it a failure as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Hence failed. Like the Matilda.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How was it a failure? It continued and provided stirling service in the SW Pacific theatre where heavier vehicles were not wanted nor required.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Like the Cromwell/Comet. The Churchill failed a bit less (still failed, if you have ever stood in front of the Black Prince, you know why).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Black Prince was a failure. A bad one. It was underpowered and its drive train was severely strained by the increased weight. This is clear from Fletchers book on the Churchill. The Churchill was actually of all the British tanks, with the exception of the Centurion, the most successful one perhaps. It was by 1944 extremely reliable, well armoured and carried an adequate gun. It had the ability to go where no other tank could, because of its better gearbox.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
And the offer to play a duel is withdrawn. If you can not handle adult disagreement, may I suggest this is not the right place for you, Kindergarten seems more appropriate. I noticed that before with you though. Some people are just socially inadequate. Since you have to resort to insults, I assume your stock of arguments is used up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto.

[Username]

Brian the Brain

Could you figure out how to bold and not-bold already?

[Michael Emrys]

The Valentine was an infantry tank and stablemate to the Matilda II. It shared the same gun, was less well armored, but a little faster over the ground. It could hold its own against the Italian tanks and short 50mm and 75mm German tanks as long as speed was not of the essence. Obviously it was bound to be obsolescent by the end of 1942. So were most of the tanks that began the war.

I agree that most of the tanks that the British produced during and immediately before the war were second-rate (to be generous). Which is ironic. Before the war and after, they produced some of the best tanks in the world. It's just that when the chips were down, they came up short.

Michael

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
[QUOTE]
Brian the Brain

Could you figure out how to bold and not-bold already?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh, look a formating flame! And a piece of ad hominem.

In most debating that usually indicates a paucity of argument. QED.

[Username]

I dont need an argument here. Its about brit tanks. I can kick back and laugh.

Lewis

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
I dont need an argument here. Its about brit tanks. I can kick back and laugh.

Lewis

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each to their own. Typical ignorance. British tanks were, for the period they were concieved usually as good as their enemy's and sometimes even better.

Remember, you must place them in the context of when they were concieved, what they were intended to do, how they were actually used and perhaps most of all, when they were used.

All too often perfect hindsight is applied and that is where such fatous comments as your's fall down.

[Priest]

Well we can argue about design all day but if I were to question anything about British Armor it would be the doctrine in which they operated under. Actually more precisely the "mood" changes that the British High Command fell sway to. While the Brits did conform to their Cruiser/Infantry ideas those exact ideas changed, sometimes very rapidly.

Heavy tanks were always a sore issue with the Brits as the need was recognized (to a point) but the exact specifications were not. SP guns were another shortcoming that the Brits seemed to confuse themselves about, a Bishop being an example. It was not until the M7 Priest (great name) that the Brits saw the "light" and developed the Sexton, which could hardly be called an "in-house" design.

In general the Brits needed more time to formulate solutions to needs. They needed the 17lbs guns on tanks and until the Comet could not build a suitable chassis to mount it (the Sherman was of course US design). When the Germans were presented with the same problem with the 88mm, the Tiger shortly followed (although there were some failed less reknowned designs) the time to production for the Tiger and the Comet were quite different (actually the Comet did not even use the traditional 17lbs gun).

Basically the British tank designs were very sound if they were fighting a war that they were designed for, the Matilda I was a much different tank than the Churchill MVIII even though in the beginning they were somewhat similiar. The Valentine was a "tweener" tank that bridged the gap between Matilda II design path and the Sherman design path.

Those are my thoughts.

[Madmatt]

Guys, what is the deal here?!? All of you need to chill and Stalins Organ I think you are WAY OUTA LINE so back off or face the conscrquences. No one, NO ONE here in this thread is a moron or an idiot and last time I checked everyone was free to hold an opinion, even if diametertically opposed to one that someone else holds.

What the hell are you guys really arguing about? A tank design that hasnt been seen in 50 years?!? Come on, get a life! You are acting like a bunch of Trek geeks talking about the range of a transporter.

Come to grips with your anger and deal with it somewhere else as it is NOT ALLOWED IN HERE.

Am I clear?!? I have more important things to do than come in here and babysit a bunch of members acting like pathetic babies. So put an end to this crap right now!

If you dont agree with someone about something, fine, deal with it like an adult and move on. Case closed, as is this thread.

Madmatt