The_Enigma Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Anyone know why the valentine tanks after model V lose there coaxial mg? Ive just read, when they made the model X it had a new turret design and so they able to fit the coaxial back in. Well why didnt they just give the models after V up to X a bow mg or a cupola mg? I mean an infatry tank is there to support the infantry so shouldnt a machine gun be somewhat of a necessity? [ January 31, 2005, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Simple enough. Little turret, big gun. Valentine really really is a very small tank! The jump up to 6 pdr also caused them to drop their recently acquired 3rd man in the turret too. I guess it wasn't until after a lot of user complaints that they finally reworked the internal gun mantlet to shoe-horn the coax mg back in again (Italian theater in the game). By all rights the Valentine should've been cancelled outright by '43 instead of upgraded, but it was (unaccountably) tough and reliable compared to Britain's other tanks and they just didn't have the heart (pun intended) to pull the plug. [ January 31, 2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 but still by not add a bow or cupola mg to the tank for the models minus the coaxial? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 No bow to speak of. No cupola at all! Actually, they did have a Besa AA mount I believe. Something that looked like one of those long-necked desk lamps with the spring-loaded elbow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Bren AA mount, not BESA, surely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 plus the valentine was cheap.. very very very cheap 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 There's only the driver in the bow - no room for a 2nd person to operate a MG! IIRC the Valentine only weighed 16.5 tons or soemthing like that? The russians thought it made a superb light tank!! the playground near my grandparent's place in Ohakune used to have a Mk III hull in it - sadly it was removed a couple of years ago - but I used to climb through it a lot - even with everything removed it's still bloody small inside! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 It's bloody small outside too. My guess is the Soviets liked it because it was small, heavily armoured for its day, and came with a radio. I.e. the perfect recon tank, apart from the fact that it is only slightly less fast than a foot-sore penguin waddling across the Wedell Shelf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Mike: There's only the driver in the bow - no room for a 2nd person to operate a MG! so not possible for the driver to do two jobs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Errr. No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 not usually AFAIK - there are/were some tanks with fixed MG's aimed by the driver moving the whole tank (the Lee/Grant for example), but hte driver is usually busy driving - using both hands and both feet all at the same time. So he's got no spare prehensile appendages!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 they could a hooked it up like a fighter-planes guns ... do it all thru a button 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by the_enigma: they could a hooked it up like a fighter-planes guns ... do it all thru a button Not a good solution in this case. Imagine the turret gunner is lining up on a target, a deadly one that could kill his own tank. Just as he is about to hit the firing button, the driver spots a juicy target for the MG and slews the tank. The gunner's aim is way off, he misses his taget, which now alerted puts an 88mm shot right through the glacis of the Val, and the driver as well. End of story. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 The Russains appreciated the 6pdr gun - the best tank AT gun for them until the T34/85mm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Pity about that horrendous liability of a 2 man turret when they did manage to shoehorn in the 6pdr. gun. Positively a liability when blundering around in dusty conditions in the desert, something that CMAK simulates extremely well. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Originally posted by dieseltaylor: The Russains appreciated the 6pdr gun - the best tank AT gun for them until the T34/85mm. How about the Russian 57mm gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Russians had poor AT rounts for it. I bet the allies shipped them 6 pounder rounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 "they could a hooked it up like a fighter-planes guns ... do it all thru a button " That's exactly what Russia did with the KV-85, IS-2, T-44, T-54, etc. Rigidly mounted bow machine guns steered by the driver.(I did a small article on the topic last year). I suspect they got the idea from all the recently delivered lend-lease Stuarts and Lees with their rigidly mounted mgs. But Valentine was so small I doubt there was even room for that, unless they mounted them in pods on the fenders. And no, rigid-mount mgs aren't modeled in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by MikeyD: But Valentine was so small I doubt there was even room for that, unless they mounted them in pods on the fenders. And no, rigid-mount mgs aren't modeled in the game. How much bigger were the original Cruisers? They mamaged to get 6 guys in those, and 2 hull MGs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 A9 was 19ft long, 8ft 2in wide and 8ft 8in high the Valintine III was 17ft 9in long, 8ft 7.5in wide and 7ft 5.5in high 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by Cpl Carrot: A9 was 19ft long, 8ft 2in wide and 8ft 8in high the Valintine III was 17ft 9in long, 8ft 7.5in wide and 7ft 5.5in high OK, so 4 guys and a midget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by MikeyD: I suspect they got the idea from all the recently delivered lend-lease Stuarts and Lees with their rigidly mounted mgs. But Valentine was so small I doubt there was even room for that, unless they mounted them in pods on the fenders. And no, rigid-mount mgs aren't modeled in the game. Yes they are - count up the MG's on those Stuarts and Lee's!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by Pzman: Russians had poor AT rounts for it. I bet the allies shipped them 6 pounder rounds. no - the problem was that it was very difficult to manufacture because of the extremely long barrel. the barrel also wore out quickly. AFAIK there was no particular problem with the ammo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Pity about that horrendous liability of a 2 man turret when they did manage to shoehorn in the 6pdr. gun. Positively a liability when blundering around in dusty conditions in the desert, something that CMAK simulates extremely well.Were there 6pdr Vals in the desert? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Were there 6pdr Vals in the desert? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.