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

[George-III]

Thanks Germanboy,

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

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

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 ]