Mk III Valentine - British Medium Tank - info?

[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!

[ 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!!

[ 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 ( 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.

[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!!

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

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!

[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.

Define "Failed", please.

[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:

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 ]