Soviets and Valentine tanks

[daveh]

The Soviets have tended to denigrate the quality of the tanks sent through Lend-Lease (with the exception of the Sherman) and the overall importance of these supplies. Yet when the British wished to discontinue production of the Valentine, they kept the lines going strictly for the benefit of the Soviets. Why?

[Mark V]

Valentine was very usefull little tank,

- reliable
- (late models) used diesel fuel
- reasonably well protected (for that weight class)
- and it could take care 95% of the targets with minimal cost and bulk

...and above all, it filled perfectly the gap in Soviet own tank production: There was the ISs, KVs and T-34 on the heavy side, and T-60 and T-70 light tanks, but nothing in between them.

Soviets also had good habit: If something works, there is no need to design it 5 times again. Good is enough. Germans never understood that...

Regards, Mark V

[Caldric]

As far as I know the Valentine was also built in Canada. They built 1407 I think and 1400 of them went to the USSR just from Canada, the Valentine had some nice advantages for the cost. There is a lot to be said for simple and dependable.




http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/

[kelty90]

Just a small point MARK V, but the T-34 was not exactly a "heavy" tank. A T-34 weighed about 32 tons, while a Panther weighed about 43 tons and the later Shermans about 33 tons.
If the T-34 was a heavy then the Panther must be a "super-heavy"!.

[Mark V]

Just a small point MARK V, but the T-34 was not exactly a "heavy" tank. A T-34 weighed about 32 tons, while a Panther weighed about 43 tons and the later Shermans about 33 tons.
If the T-34 was a heavy then the Panther must be a "super-heavy"!.

I know. I was talking about the task that Valentine fullfilled, not the exact categorisation to heavy/medium/light.

BTW. By which both, T-34 and Panther fall to medium category...

Mark V

[daveh]

How significant was the reliability aspect of the Valentine?
Were Valentine's more durable than Soviet tanks?

[Mark V]

How significant was the reliability aspect of the Valentine?
Were Valentine's more durable than Soviet tanks?

Quote from battlefield.ru site:

What concerns its reliability and durability lets refer to one example: at the beginning of Melitopol Operation (October 24, 1943) the 19th Tank Corps had 101 T-34/76 and 63 Valentine tanks. During a battles Corps lost 78 of T-34's and 17 Valentines tanks and all tanks were used with identical intensity.

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

[Aufklarung]

Caldric
Just to let you know that your #s are little off. We kept 30 of the 1420 we built. The rest went to the Reds. This is from Cdn sources. I was called in by an excavation crew here on my base about 3 months ago to ID a tank hull they had dug up when preparing a building site. It was a Valentine but it was so far gone,only the drivers armoured flap and the Road wheel arrangement made it identifiable. The thing was beyond any sort of restoration ot repair tho'.

The Valentine in the Canadian War Museum was lost by the Reds and recovered in 1990. It was given back to Canada in 1992. It has a bit of an interesting story.
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/plast/ftsteps/cwm_e.htm

Also a quote for you ref this thread topic:

Nonetheless, the Russians testified 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


regards
A

[Caldric]

Caldric
Just to let you know that your #s are little off. We kept 30 of the 1420 we built. The rest went to the Reds. This is from Cdn sources. I was called in by an excavation crew here on my base about 3 months ago to ID a tank hull they had dug up when preparing a building site. It was a Valentine but it was so far gone,only the drivers armoured flap and the Road wheel arrangement made it identifiable. The thing was beyond any sort of restoration ot repair tho'.

The Valentine in the Canadian War Museum was lost by the Reds and recovered in 1990. It was given back to Canada in 1992. It has a bit of an interesting story.
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/plast/ftsteps/cwm_e.htm

Also a quote for you ref this thread topic:

Nonetheless, the Russians testified 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


regards
A

Yeah I used Chamberlin's book US/UK/Commonwealth Tanks 1938-1945. It could just be bad memory also since I did not have the book in front of me. I knew that most went to the Reds. Nice tanks though for the cost.

Not sure if it is true or not but I think the Soviets put the 76mm gun in that little turret.

[daveh]

In 1942 the Soviets attempted to fit a 76.2mm gun into the Valentine. However the turret was to small and the attempt failed.

The Soviets recieved c 1390 Canadian and c 2394 British built Valentines. the later represented c 30% of British production.

[Lars EP]

BTW. By which both, T-34 and Panther fall to medium category...
Mark V

That actually depends on which system you use. The Soviets would call a panther a heavy tank, while the Germans called it a medium tank. Maybe Oleg can explain the difference between the systems, I just know that this is how it was.

Regards --- Lars

[Alejandro]

Russian used the weight of tanks in order to qualify them between heavy and medium, in contrast Germans used the caliber of the main gun (cannon).

[Rob Stuart]

Can anyone say how many of the 1390 Valentines shipped to the Soviets from Canada were sunk in route?

Thanks,

Rob

[phylo_roadking]

One aspect that wasn't mentioned in the earlier incarnation of this thread was that the Soviets liked them because they were quiet! SO quiet in battlefield conditions that they used them to outmanouver and hunt Tigers

[Tim Smith]

One aspect that wasn't mentioned in the earlier incarnation of this thread was that the Soviets liked them because they were quiet! SO quiet in battlefield conditions that they used them to outmanouver and hunt Tigers

I don't really get how sound is used by tankers. Surely, to hear an enemy tank, you have to halt your own? Probably stick your head out of the turret?

And with a huge engine like the Tiger's, who knows, maybe a Tiger engine at idle is louder (if you're sitting on top of it) than a Valentine engine at full throttle, 500 meters away?

Still, I wish I had a Valentine of my very own - a little tank I can park in the garden without upsetting the neighbours... it might even fit in the garage!