Valetine IX

[Makes The Jelly Judder]

Just finished playing around with the all armour quick battles and have just discovered what a useful tank the Valetine IX is, well at least in the anti arnour role.

When it first apears it can kill all German tanks except the Tiger at about 500M including the dreaded STUG. It's only real downside is the 2 man turret makes it blind as a bat, its only really good in overwatch where you can constantly unbutton it inbetween turns, the last thing you wan't is them driving around buttoned up. The turret armour is very week but I have still had a few short 50mm rounds bounce off it from 500M, and in return I have not had many of its 57mm rounds bounce of PZIII's which I suppose is its German equal.

I think the real important thing is that the 57mm is very accurate (I take it this is the Brit 6lb gun?). In the last battle I had 6 T34 and 5 Valetine's (Most regular, some green), the T34's hit bugger all at 500M whilst the Valetines hit and penertrated normally with the second shot. The tank of the match award went to a Valetine who killed 3 PZIIM's and 4 PZII's, the best of the T34's was 1 PzIII and 1 PzII (both from behind and point blank range) the other 5 killed nothing.

Also whats up with the auto pick for all amour batlles? The first battle I had the AI selected 5 flame panzers and 2 short barreld PZIV's and 1 short 50mm PzIII, made the battle interesting but come on this is an armoured battle, why is it allowed to pick anti infantry tanks/ AA tanks?

[Ex Bellator]

I've also had sucess against German armour with the Valentine as it has a good gun (6pdr) and decent armour for the time. However it is virtually useless when the armour battle is over as the gun has no HE capability and it has only 1 MG.

It suprised me a little as I always thought that the Valentine was a bit of a flop. The kindest word I've read about it was that it was 'reliable'. In the British army it had a relatively short service life, with them being AFAIK relegated to training duties or converted into Archer or Bishop Self Propelled Guns by the end of 1943. Also nearly half the production (4,000 of 9,000) was shipped to the USSR so I sort of assumed that the Brits and Canadians didn't particularly want them.

But in CMBB if you expect to meet an Armour heavy force they are a good buy

[flamingknives]

They're soooo slooooow. The T34-57 is pretty lethal though.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

It suprised me a little as I always thought that the Valentine was a bit of a flop. The kindest word I've read about it was that it was 'reliable'. In the British army it had a relatively short service life, with them being AFAIK relegated to training duties or converted into Archer or Bishop Self Propelled Guns by the end of 1943. Also nearly half the production (4,000 of 9,000) was shipped to the USSR so I sort of assumed that the Brits and Canadians didn't particularly want them.

The Valentine (couldn't tell the model) shows up in several photographs taken during the battle for the Reichswald. So they seemed to have had some use afterall, though admittedly most depicted have sunk into the extreme mud after the floodings.

If anyone is interested, I'll see if I can find them.

[MikeyD]

I believe (haven't tried it) if you're constructing a scenario you can give your 6 pounder Valentine and Churchill HE. The AI won't give it in a Quickbattle because historically the 6 pounder (and 2 pounder) didn't get a proper HE shell til well into 43... I think.

That's why the Brits happily switched over to 75mm. Worse AT penetration than the 6 pounder but a nice big HE shell.

Still, it's interesting tactically to see what use you can make of an AT-only gun tank.

[Ex Bellator]

Thanks Tweety, I'd like to see those pictures if you can find them - no biggie of you can't. I'm very suprised that Valentines were in active service on the West Front in 1945.

IIRC there were Canadian units involved in the Reichswald battle so I wonder if they were the Canadian variants.

[c3k]

Gentleman,

My understanding, gained through Erickson, Glantz, Zaloga, Sharp, et al., is that the Soviets did indeed appreciate the Valentine. However, that appreciation was in regards to its utility in the reconnaisance role. They were organized and used in recce units.

(Also, the T-34/57 was a purely experimental vehicle with VERY few models produced. Possibly fewer T-34/57's saw action than German Maus. That unit goes into the hypothetical pile as far as I'm concerned.)

Regards,

Ken

[Panzer76]

On leand lease tanks:

"So I found myself in the Saratov Tank Academy. Sometime in June the academy got T-34 tanks, before that we were trained on English Matildas and Canadian Valentines with 57mm guns. Incidentally, the gun on the Valentine was really excellent! It could easily penetrate Tiger's side armor! And Valentine itself turned out to be a very successful vehicle, low, literally human height."

On the "fictious" T34/57:

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_57.html

[MikeyD]

Canadian Valentines at least had some much appreciated cold weather improvements, had a nice diesel engine, and were shipped over fully prepped and fueled. I understand there were a few instances when Valentines were brought into action within 45 minutes of being unloaded from their railcars (around Moscow?). The Brits abandoned Valentines because of the 2-man turret. The Russians were used to 2-man turrets and appreciated the Valentine's dedicated gunner position (as opposed to the T34's commander/gunner) and the radio.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Makes The Jelly Judder:

[snips] I think the real important thing is that the 57mm is very accurate (I take it this is the Brit 6lb gun?).

Mr. Vastleigh-Picky says no, it's the 6-pdr gun.

All the best,

John.

[ February 18, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

Thanks Tweety, I'd like to see those pictures if you can find them - no biggie of you can't. I'm very suprised that Valentines were in active service on the West Front in 1945.

IIRC there were Canadian units involved in the Reichswald battle so I wonder if they were the Canadian variants.

I would have though the most likely explanation for the Vallys in the pictures is that they were used as Battery Commander's vehicles in Archer batteries.

All the best,

John.

[c3k]

Panzer76,

Thanks for the link about the T-34-57.

I stated in my previous post, NOT that it was "fictious" [sic], but rather that it was an unsuccessful prototype.

The write-up you link to states that 10 saw combat between October and November '41, by which time they were all destroyed. None other saw combat. This is one unverified report. Let's assume it's totally accurate and true.

10 tanks saw combat (only 41 gun assemblies were produced). 10 tanks. No more were produced. The guns had a life of 100 to 150 shots. They were "too expensive". The guns were inaccurate. 10 tanks saw combat. No more were produced. Hmmmm.

I would think the T-34-57 can be safely classed as an unsuccessful prototype with minimal combat action. (Okay, MORE of the T-34-57 were produced than Maus, but not by much.. )

Thanks,

Ken

[c3k]

[edited due to the dread double post]

Ken

[ February 19, 2003, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[Grisha]

The Valentine was very appreciated by the Red Army. In fact, it was one of the few lend lease vehicles that the Soviets specifically requested for more. I believe that's why the Canadians kept producing them into 1944 - to send them off to the Soviet Union.

The Valentines were mainly used in the same role as the T-70, with roughly the same armor, a better gun (which got even better with time), and good radio equipment.

[flamingknives]

10 tanks saw combat (only 41 gun assemblies were produced). 10 tanks. No more were produced. The guns had a life of 100 to 150 shots. They were "too expensive". The guns were inaccurate. 10 tanks saw combat. No more were produced. Hmmmm

Different to what I read.

The ZiS-2 was inaccurate in trials, so it was replaced with the ZiS-4.

Not many tanks saw service, true, but there was a re-issue of the design in '43

I count 21 tanks, and the manufacture of 213 57mm guns for tank use

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by c3k:

Panzer76,

Thanks for the link about the T-34-57.

I stated in my previous post, NOT that it was "fictious" [sic], but rather that it was an unsuccessful prototype.

You compared it with the Maus, which never saw any action. If you want to compare the T34-57 with a german AFV I think the Sturmtiger would do nicely.

So, it was NOT common, very rare, but it did exist, and it did take part in combat.

[Firefly]

Quoted from a 7th Armoured (Desert Rats) web page :

The Valentine tank was submitted for approval to the War Office on 14th February 1938, hence the code name. The first ones were ordered from Vickers in July 1939. They were originally called Infantry Tank MK III and reached service in May 1940, with production finally ending in early 1944. They served in North Africa, Madagascar, Burma and the Pacific Campaign, plus in Russia too. The Soviets used 1300 Valentines on the Eastern Front. 8275 were built in Britain and a further 1420 in Canada.

The Valentine used a 6 road wheels on each side, in two 3 wheeled bogie units. The turret varied between the different models, with early models having a 2 man turret and the later ones a 3 man version, but it was always cramped. The main armament was the normal 2-pdr, but this progressed to a 6-pdr and the a 75mm. The Soviets replaced the 2-pdr with a 76mm gun, which made the turret even more cramped.

When it's role a tank was over many were re-used, firstly as the basis for the Bishop Self-Propelled Gun, with a 25-pdr mounted on a large "box" on top and later as the Archer Self-Propelled 17-pdr anti-tank gun. Some were also used as the basis of bridge-layers, flame-throwers and swimming tanks. It is as bridge-layers that the Valentine mainly served with the Division.

[Panzer76]

Some different figures (for Valentine):

"This tank was most massed produced British tank - 6855 units were build. Another 1420 tanks were build in Canada.

Soviet Union received 2394 tanks from UK and 1388 from Canada."

I have more faith in this number when it comes to delivered AFV.

From:

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/valentine.html