Perplexed about the Valentine

[Mark Gallear]

I have checked the armour and this seems accurate. The penetrative power of the 2pdr and 6pdr seem on the well generous side to me but then I have not checked for comparison with the other guns in the game.

The game seems to have the following versions of Valentine - III, IV, IX, XI,

The sources that I could find which state what was sent to the USSR say it was the IV, VI,VII versions. The majority of the Valentines sent to Russia seem to have been made in Canada.

IV is the Valentine II with an American GMC diesel 138 hp engine rather than the British AEC gasoline 6 cylinder 135 hp.

VI is the Canadian model of the Mk IV. Nose plates were cast instead of bolted and it had a Browning .30 cal rather than the British Besa.

Valentine VII: Improved Mk VI with internal changes. Built in Canada.

Valentine VIIA: Improved VII with jettisonable fuel tanks, studded tracks and protective cages over headlamps.

(I think that all of these versions had a 4 man crew.)

I can find no evidence that the versions with the 6pdr were sent to Russia. If they were – I greatly doubt they had HE rounds. These only appeared, as the Valentine was becoming obsolete in late 1943 - 6-pdr AT gun crews had to wait until Normandy before they got theirs. The final Valentine IX with the 75mm was already obsolete when it went into British service – it was only used as an artillery observation vehicle or command vehicle. Seems unlikely that enough were made for a shipment to Russia, has somebody got some evidence for this?

The Valentine III was a mainstay in Britain’s Desert war – I again doubt it was sent to Russia in any numbers as Britain herself was desperate for tanks in this period of the war. It is possible that Churchill made a political gesture to Stalin with a small number?

Quote from WWIIVehicles.com “1,420 Valentines were also built in Canada. All but 30 of these (used for training) and 1,300 built in England were sent to Russia. The Russians are reported to have liked the simplicity and reliability of the vehicles, but disliked the small gun. Some complaints of snow packing the wheels and stopping the tanks from moving. Some vehicles had a 76.2 mm tank gun installed.”

[offtaskagain]

The Russians appeared to like the Valentine. Dmitry Loza in his memoirs on www.battlefield.ru said

After 1943 we largely declined British tanks because they had significant deficiencies. In particular, they had 12-14 h.p. per ton of weight at a time when good tanks had 18-20 h.p. per ton. Of these three British tanks, the best was the Valentine produced in Canada. Its armor was streamlined but more importantly, it featured a long-barreled 57mm main gun.

Edit: He also said this about the Matilda.

In general, the Matilda was an unbelievably worthless tank!

[ February 24, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Mark Gallear]

That's fairly typical - few tankers know what calibre gun they have!

[Andreas]

*cough* *cough* I'd trust a tank battalion commander who was in charge of these machines during a shooting war over a website most of the time. You also probably have not looked very hard if you can find no evidence that the 6-pdr made it to the SU.

Here is some, from one of Valera's interviews. If you had read on in Loza's interview, it would also have become clear that he probably knows a bit more about tanks than your average grunt, just look at his discussion on the Sherman.

[flamingknives]

Both the 2 pdr and the 6 pdr use AP Shot, increasing penetrative ability but reducing behind armour effect. You'll note that most of the other Soviet AT guns (45mm, 76.2mm) have a "large HE charge", which does the opposite of AP shot (lower density)

[MikeyD]

I've seen lots of photo evidence of the 6 pounder (57mm) in Russian service certainly, up into Berlin! Maybe a shot or two of the 75mm gun too. Maybe.

Canada produced lots of Valentines and shipped all but a couple to Russia. But they never upgunned them or altered the turret to fit three men. Britain did, and once Shermans started showing up directed most of their stocks to Russia too. Russia loved 'em. They had radios, they were reliable (surprisingly enough) and a lot of armor for such a small tank. And the Brit 6 pounder easily outpenetrated the Russian 76.2mm gun.

As to He for the 6 pounder and 2 pounder, there was lots of debate on this point on the Beta board. BFC settled for a Valentine's default ammo load to be all solid shot, but you can add your own HE in the scenario editor (strongly advising you to not use HE before mid-43?).

[JasonC]

Err, at least in the fall of 1943, the present default ammo load in CMBB of the Valentine IX is about half HE, half AP.

All the Canadian Valentines were 2 pdr varieties, as were some portion of the British ones. The total sent to Russia I've seen variously reported, ranging from 2700 to 3800, with the Canadian portion 3/8 to 1/2 of the total.

I suspect only about 1/3 of the vehicles sent had the 6 pdr (roughly, the later half of the UK built portion), and that the lower 2700 figure sometimes seen for all Valentines is actually the total for 2 pdr Valentines, with the remaining ~1100 the 6 pdr versions. But that is guess work. (Around 300 were apparently lost at sea en route, incidentally).

[Mark Gallear]

I am more confused than ever! :confused:

Can not find the Valera's interview that Andreas mentions. The Dmitriy Loza interview is here.

Problem with him saying the Canadian Valentines were equipped with 57mm gun is that they had the 2pdr. I can not find the bit that Panzerwerfer42 mentions about him saying that the Matilda having the 57mm gun as well. (The Matilda II was never equipped with 6pdr only 2pdr). What does it mean Andreas when you say that it is better believe a tank commanders memoirs than some website, when these are on a website!

The editor picks him up on saying that his Shermans had 76mm before they were so equipped. He seems to have been a Sherman commander not a Valentine commander.

“- In your book "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" you wrote that the 233rd Tank Brigade's M4A2 Shermans were armed not with the short-barrelled 75mm but the long-barrelled 76mm main gun in January 1944. Wasn't this a bit early? Didn't these tanks appear later? Explain one more time which main guns were mounted on the Shermans of the 233rd Tank Brigade.

- Hmm, I don't know. We had very few Shermans with the short-barreled main gun. On the whole, ours had long-barrels. Not just our brigade fought on Shermans. Perhaps these were in other brigades. Somewhere in the corps I saw such tanks, but we had the tanks with the long barrels.”

Not sure what flamimg knives is getting at 2pdr certainly used AP. (The game seems to suggest it had something more sophisticated - APCBC .)

MikeyD post is more interesting. I can find no British sources saying that models of Valentines other than those I listed were sent to Russia. I would like to see pictures of Valentines with 6pdr and 75mm or links to the sites, please. This would of course prove that at least a few were in Russian service. As MikeyD says as they went out of service they may have been sent to Russia – but bear in mind that they were taken out of active British service at the end of the Desert War and before the invasion of Italy. (The XI would have lingered in small numbers in Artillery OB role.) Hard to believe they were shipped back to England and then convoyed to Murmansk!

The default setting for QB Valentines with 6pdr is with about 50% HE.

The problem with putting in a bigger gun on the Valentine was the small turret size so the later up gunned versions lost a man in the turret. (The game lists most of the early ones with only 3 men).

[offtaskagain]

The part I quoted is in the third paragraph of that interview, after the interviewer states "They delivered the Churchill later".

[Andreas]

Valera Popatov is the interviewer. The mention of the Matilda was not to say it had a 57mm gun, but that it was a crap tank. Loza was on lend-lease armour before the Shermans became available.

Regarding the sources - this is an interview with a Soviet battalion commander that happens to be posted on a website. I think there is a difference between that and some data on another website relying on secondary sources, in many cases.

If we are comparing websites however, here is one that differs from the info you have.

Soviet Union Factbook

[MikeyD]

Russian 6 pounder Valentine picts.

First, scale plans from a russian armor site:

http://www.battlefield.ru/outlines/valentine_01.gif

Second, a rather generic article with a 6 pounder Valentine photo in it:

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

Well, I found less than I expected. Heres some Canadian 2 pounder Valentines (just like my mod!):

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/valentine3_01.jpg

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/valentine3_02.jpg

[Mark Gallear]

Andreas – I am not sure what web site you think I am looking at. Your quoted site is very interesting but it does not say what Valentines were sent to Russia.

Hoggs Allied Armour of World War Two says.

“In June 1940 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company set up a plant for the production of Valentines in Canada. At first it was intended to build the hulls there and ship them to Britain for fitting with engines and guns, but eventually complete tanks were built, using guns and engines made in Canada. Altogether 1,420 were built there, of which 1,390 were shipped to Russia. Over 8,000 were built in Britain, about 1,300 of which also went to Russia. The Soviet Army made one of its few acknowledgements of outside assistance when it reported that “… the Canadian- built Valentine tank is the best tank we have received from any of our Allies …”

The problem is we know what was produced in Canada and it all went to Russia, but what about the 1,300 British tanks? I was lucking at the Valentine in British service when I collected sources for my oob, most British sources apart from mentioning we generously gave the Russian tanks when we were desperate don’t say much about what went.

There is a very nice site on the Canadian Valentinehere

As for MikeyD post, I am not impressed by the black and white drawing. Probably comes from a British source and the site is about WW2 tanks not Russian WW2 tanks.

The photo of the Russian IX Valentine is very interesting – the gun is clearly much longer than a 2pdr and has a muzzle break. However it is not an IX model as it appears to have a co-axial MG gun and the IX didn’t. It is not an XI because co-axial is on wrong side. In fact it appears to be on wrong side for all Valentines! Am I imagining that co-axial? The dates are probably wrong as well? I will look through my picks and try and identify it.

Hero worship to MikeyD for his Valentine mods. I am currently using the British mod – think I better rush off and change to the Canadian version!

I could be wrong about the 4-man crew as all the versions I say went to Russia were based on mark II which apparently had 3-man crew?

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

The photo of the Russian IX Valentine is very interesting – the gun is clearly much longer than a 2pdr and has a muzzle break. However it is not an IX model as it appears to have a co-axial MG gun and the IX didn’t. It is not an XI because co-axial is on wrong side. In fact it appears to be on wrong side for all Valentines! Am I imagining that co-axial? The dates are probably wrong as well? I will look through my picks and try and identify it.

Bear in mind that it's pretty common for old pictures to have been reversed at some point between being taken in the 1940s and finally ending up on the web in 2003. So if you imagine a mirror-image of that picture, do you get a positive id?

[JasonC]

Mark - your source said "Over 8,000 were built in Britain, ***about*** 1,300 of which also went to Russia." But other sources say 2400 were sent from the UK. 300 were lost enroute. See the table on lend lease tanks, here (near the end of the long article) -

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/SovWarProd.html

His total is essentially confirmed by the Russian battlefield site, which says -

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

That "about" in your source is revealing. It means the accounting involved is not exhaustive. My guess is that it is correct for some range of models - types, but excludes others. While the 2400 UK built figure would appear to include all. The 1300 figure from the UK, I've seen mentioned along side the 1400 everyone agrees came from Canada. But it is contradicted as a total for -all- LL Valentines, by seperate reputable sources.

My explanation of the disparate figures, therefore, is 1400 Canadian 2 pdrs, 1300 UK 2 pdrs, and 1100 UK 6 pdrs. 300 sunk enroute, probably divided about evenly between them. That means 2500 2 pdr and 1000 6 pdrs, the former split between UK and Canada, the latter all UK. I am rounding somewhat because I consider any attempt to track these things down to the last tank fallacious. Only the first couple of digits are "significant" (i.e. truly known), it seems to me.

The picture of the 6 pdr version is captioned, winter of 42-43. The tank is clearly a Valentine - look at the running gear. The men are clearly Russian - look at the hats. The gun is clearly a 6 pdr. So there is no question they got 6 pdrs, the only question is how many and from where.

I discount the tanker's report that the Canadian Valentines had 6 pdrs, as probably confused. He knew they got Valentines from Canada. He knew they got some Valentines with 6 pdrs. I consider it most unlikely he knew where any given tank he saw, came from. He would only know by being told.

I take his statement as evidence they did have 6 pdr Valentines (it needs confirmation, but the picture confirms it indisputably), but not as evidence that those Valentines in particular came from Canada. He just assumed they did, because he knew some Valentines did.

[MikeyD]

The long barrel Valentine in the photo doesn't have a muzzle brake, just a cloth cover over the barrel. If it had a muzzle brake it would've been a picture of the 75mm gun vehicle, as the 75mm version was a bored-out 57mm tube with a mizzle brake attached.

As for the coax mg on the left, it DOEs match that scale drawing!

[flamingknives]

Not sure what flamimg knives is getting at 2pdr certainly used AP. (The game seems to suggest it had something more sophisticated - APCBC .)

And I said it used AP, but there are different types of AP.

AP shells, as used by most Soviet guns and most Axis guns, are a heavy, thick walled shell with a small HE filler. This bursting charge is designed to explode after passing through a tanks armour, causing serious damage within the crew compartment.

AP shot, as used by the British, esp. in the 2pdr and 6pdr guns, is a solid metal shell - essentially a large bullet. As the metal used in tank shells, steel, is much denser than HE, this shot has more mass, and therefore kinetic energy than a comparable calibre/velocity using an AP shell. This greater kinetic energy translates into superior armour penetration.

However, the lack of a burster charge means that the damage caused to the inside of the tank is less.

Notably, most Soviet guns in game are rated as having a "large HE charge", meaning that even more steel has been replaced by less dense HE, limiting it's AP performance, but giving far greater behind armour effect.

This explains why the British guns seem so superior to comparable Soviet guns.

I may also be that British ammuntion was better made, but I have nothing to back that up.

Does this clear things up?

[Mark Gallear]

For MikeyD-

I am pretty sure the 75mm in the Valentine is the American 75mm used in Sherman. It was decided to standardise on this mediocre weapon some time in 43 between US and UK and her allies. Not a 6pdr enlarged!

Yet to find a decent picture of the IX and other versions with 6pdr to compare it with. Yep the picture could be reversed - but then it can not be an IX if I am looking at co-axial MG. The cloth cover does not help - sometimes I think it has a muzzle break other times not. It probably is some kind of British variant with 6pdr - however remote outside chance that it is a Russian conversion with the Russian 76mm gun mentioned on one of the sites!

For flamingknives that was good explanation but the in game figures for 2 pdr penetrative power still seem higher than some figures I found for 2 pdr performance. (I don't want to get into that argument as I know that there are grogs who visit the forum who know far more than me!)

Although I would agree Russian 76mm was a fieldgun stuck in a tank - 2pdr and 6pdr were designed as AT guns. They were high quality, fast firing and accurate. British Army realised 2pdr was obsolete in 1939 and wanted to replace it with 6pdr, which was fully designed and ready to go then. However the time to transfer manufacturing facilities to the new gun was deemed to be far too long and it was more important to mass-produce the 2pdr in Britains darkest hour.

[MikeyD]

The Brit 75 chambers the U.S. ammo but the workings (recoil, linkages, etc.) are a straight evolution of the 57mm gun. That's why a muzzle brake on the Brit 75 -- to lesson the recoil load on a gun that had been designed for a smaller round.

U.S. guns (both 75 and 57mm) have a tapered gun tube, while Brit (both 75 and 57mm) guns have a thick section near the breech stepping down to a thinner forward length.

As an asside, the modern Mecar 90mm low recoil gun from Belgium (as seen on Saudi ACs at Kafji during the gulf war) is pretty much a straight steal of Brit 6 pounder technology! That was a mighty good gun and could take a lot of upgrading.

[ February 25, 2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Tanaka]

Just a small thing,

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

For MikeyD-

Yet to find a decent picture of the IX and other versions with 6pdr to compare it with. Yep the picture could be reversed - but then it can not be an IX if I am looking at co-axial MG....

The picture is not reverse...

See side of the road in wish the trucks are moving, as well how the bike is overtaking the valentine.

[Simon Fox]

Websites and pictures posted therein may not be the best method to determine shipping data for lend lease equipment. Failure to locate high quality pictures on the web does not indicate absence of supply.

Original British records for numbers are altogether more useful. It is pointless to speculate regarding quantitative data based upon first person accounts and a few old photos when concrete primary sources are readily obtained.

Chris Shillito has kindly supplied me with the figures for lend lease tank shipments. This data comes from the following document: D.R.A.C. Library Serial 001066, Progress Report No.2 (the page in question comes from an Appendix to Chapter III).

I also have a copy of an original British report which gives the same data courtesy of Leland Ness whose new book incoporates lots of supply data for armoured vehicles.

Tanks Shipped to Russia from Great Britain and Canada, 1st October 1941 to 30th. June 1944

TYPE....................SHIPPED.........SUNK............ARRIVED

Tetrarch................20..............---.............20

Matilda III.............113.............---.............113

Matilda IV..............915.............221.............694

Matilda IV.CS...........156.............31..............126

Valentine II............161.............25..............136

Valentune III...........346.............---.............346

Valentine IV............520.............71..............559

Valentine V.............340.............113.............227

Valentine VII(Canadian).1388............180.............1208

Valentine IX............836.............18..............818

Valentine X.............74..............8...............66

Churchill II............45..............19..............26

Churchill III...........151.............24..............127

Churchill IV............105.............---.............105

Cromwell IV.............6.(in transit)..---.............---

Valentine.Bridge.Laying 25..............---.............25

AFV.Spares..............19,611.tons.....1,966.tons......17,588 tons(excl. 57 tons in transit)

These documents also demonstrate that the Soviet union was supplied with various types of 2-pr and 6-pr ammunition, including substantial quantities of HE for both guns.

BTS is aware of this data

[JasonC]

And lo, 884 arrived 6 pdr versions, the smaller figure for UK Valentines within 10% of the arrived UK shipped 2 pdrs. Like I said, about 1000 arrived 6 pdrs from UK, 2500 2 pdrs split UK and Canada. Yes it is always nice to have the detailed figures, but it is not hard to guess what even fragmented data basically mean.

[flammenwerfer]

Simon-

Thanks for the figures

Just wondering why the Matilda CS wasn't included in the game...

[Wisbech_lad]

Valentines are fast becoming my favourite Ruskie tank, as long as the rarity factor is OK.

OK, so they are slow and poor vs infantry. But they are just soo cute... L'il 16 tonne bundles of fun.

Oops. Time to get a life.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Good question about the Matilda CS. With over 120 of the buggers that actually reached the USSR I would have thought they would get a guernsey in CMBB. Unless of course the Russians depised them so much that they relegated them to rear area guarding but I'd be surprised if that was the case seeing as they were relatively useful against infantry. Bearing in mind the Soviet preference for decent H.E. chuckers over AP performance I would have thought the CS Matilda would have been pressed into service.

Ande before people go on about their relative rarity think about the fact that IS 3's and T34/57's have been included.

Regards

Jim R.

[Mark Gallear]

Some very interesting figures from Simon Fox.

Tetrarch was a light tank developed by Britain in 1940 but production was stopped after 177 were built. Light tanks were now deemed useless after Britains first experience of tank warfare with Germany. The American Stuart was accepted because it was considered a light medium. Tetrarch was only used operationally by Britain as an airborne tank via gliders in Normandy

The Maltida are all versions of the Matilda II. The CS version has a 3in howitzer that fired smoke. (Not HE).

Valentine II - 2pdr AEC diesel engine 3 man crew.

Valentine III - 2pdr Turret modified 4 man crew.

Valentine IV - 2pdr GMC diesel engine 3 man crew

Valentine V - 2pdr 4 man crew and GMC diesel engine

Where is the VI - we know that they got vast numbers of this Canadian version!? (Is it lumped with the VII?)

Valentine VII 2pdr 3 man crew Improved Canadian VI

Valentine IX 6pdr in Mark V 3 crew No co-axial turret MG

Valentine X Early 1943 production with 6pdr GMC engine co-axial Besa, welded construction.

No XI with 75mm listed but then that was a late 1943-production model. They may have got it after June 1944? But I doubt it - production probably ceased in early 1944 after a short run.

Going to ignore Churchills and Cromwell until another time!

Valentine.Bridge.Laying

My info - Valentine Bridgelayer: Mk II with turret removed. Carried No 1 30' scissors bridge. Some used in Burma. Most used for training. Bridge was 34' x 9.5' class 30

I am afraid it is just not possible that both 6pdr and 2pdr versions of the Valentine got HE rounds because no 2pdr HE round was ever produced!

Frankly if the Russians got 6pdr HE rounds I would have thought it would have been after June 1944. I know that they were only supplied to AT crews for the Normandy campaign because of shortages of the round.

I am gob smacked that the Valentine 75mm is a converted 6pdr - I would have thought it was an American 75mm possibly shortened to balance the turret and maybe the flash hider added to cut the extra flash. This gun is also fitted to the Churchill and I always believed it was just the standard American 75mm produced in Britain.

Anybody got details and links on this. :confused: