Valentine Tank - Stats & Painting

Slight typo Cacs - you mean the 50mm L42 gun equipped PzIII.I suppose so :l: The PanzerGrenadier rules define the 1941 Panzer type H as being the first with a ''short 50mm'' and previous types (B-F), the ''37mm''. In fact, the 50mm (that's the 50mm L/44/99) was fitted even to type E, all the way through to type J. That's E and F from '39, G and H from '41 and J from '42. PanzerGrenadier rules also give the ''Long 50mm'' to 1942 types J, K, L and M. Whereas I can only find records of the 50mm KwK L/39/78 (assuming that's the same thing) fitted to the 1942 type L. And type M, was already fitted with the L/24 75mm - same as on the Panzer IV A. What do you reckon? No real disagreement here. The short 50mm was more usually known in the literature as L42 & the long 50mm as L60 but the Germans often simply differentiated them as kurz (or short) & lang (or long) barrelled in strength returns. IIRC the short 50 was first fitted to the ausf H but retrofitted to some of the earlier models. Ausf L through M had the long 50, some built nominally as ausf N may have recieved long 50s in place of the usual short 75mm gun, although otherwise the difference between the M & N was minimal. Some late Ausf J might also have received the long 50mm gun. I'll try & find the appropriate Panzertracts next weekend.

Ok - then the PanzerGrenadier rules would be taking account of retro-fitting, which is fair enough. Actually, for gaming of course, you just go with what the model has. But any info you've got ET would be interesting.

Here's a Valantine with the red and white mark: the Matildas had the same - except there was less room with the cannisters to have it on the turret sides

nice pics i know this tank was cac but its a nice looking tank

Cac? It's a lovely tank - it could easily hold its own. For a while anyway. As I can. :(

nope it was rubbish mate just read what iv put up as all the early british tanks it was rushed into service to many teething probs it was a awfull tank

It was theoretically equal in armour and armament to the early panzer IIIs. So dunno what you mean. The Germans could vary their shell type better, but what did for British tanks more at this stage were the anti-tank artillery and their tactics,

And the fact that the gear box kept falling out

I'd except the Valentine from that criticism though, true as it is for most British armour. The Valentine was renowned for its reliability at a time when that couldn't be said for any other British tank & there were examples that made it all the way across North Africa on a single set of tracks without any breakdowns whatsoever. The Russians liked it for it's reliability too. And there must have been some reason why we built so many of them! Nonetheless, the Russians -*test*-('")ified to the quality of the tank, stating that "after proof in battle we consider the Canadian-built Valentine Tank the best tank which we have received from any of our allies and we propose to ask . . . for more." The compliment was conspicuous because the Russians rarely made "any other mention or acknowledgement of the many types of weapon supplied to them" by the Western Allies. (Chris Ellis and Peter Chamberlain, "Ram and Sexton", Armoured Fighting Vehicle, No. 13) http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-arm-can-e.htm

i think the answer to some of that et was we built what we had untill we had something that was good enough in all respects

Cacs, you have stated that the Valentine had a max speed of 24 mph ? well can you or anyone confirm this, as I have always considered the Valentine to be of about the same max speed as the Matilda 2 (+a few MPH) therefore I have always wargame catagorised it as 'Slow Speed' Hello Alex, Both the Valentine and the Matilda II could do 24mph on roads but whereas the Matilda weighed 59lbs, the Valentine weighed just 39lbs and had better suspension. So I guess that's why their performance cross country was rather different: the Matilda's performance cross country went right down to 8mph - the Valentine's was anything between that and 20mph or so if it's suspension could cope. DB rates the Matilda II as 'slow' but the Valentines as 'medium' speed. Hope that helps :l: . Ref: Phil Trewhitt's Armoured Fighting Vehicles

Cacs, Matilda Tank doing 24 mph on road, sorry to be a pain but can you verify that for sure ? if you can then I stand corrected and I will in future class Valentine tanks as 'Medium Speed'.

Re: Valentine Tank - Stats & Painting
Hello Alex, About the speed: actually DB's rules threw me: the road speed should be Max speed: 15mph like the Matilda - you're quite right :???: . '24' is the equivalent in kms. It surprised me, though actually the Valentine III did have a weaker AEC diesel engine: 131hp compared with the Matilda's 2 X 95hp or 97 hp. The Mk IV produced 138hp I think, but I don't supppose that's going to make much difference when a Panzer IV is producing 300hp. The question of the off-road speed is always difficult: DB classes a Tiger I as 'slow' on road even though it's speed was 24mph. Perhaps he was calculating a good off-road speed for the Valentine becuase of it's weight difference: 38,000lbs-odd verses the Matilda's nearly 60,000lbs. But still: a Matilda only dropped 2.5mph off-road so I can't see how the Valentine can significantly top that - in fact I've now seen 8mph quoted as a Valentine off-road speed - that's slightly slower than the Matilda. So, keep as is, I should. What rules do you play with, Alex?

View Full Version: Valentine Tank - Stats & Painting