Tank Chats #11 Valentine | The Tank Museum
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Tank Chats playlist • Tank Chats from The Ta... The eleventh in a series of short films about some of the vehicles in our collection presented by The Tank Museum's historian David Fletcher MBE.
The Valentine - A popular and reliable British tank. It was designed and built by Vickers-Armstrongs Ltd., in 1938 and offered to the Army who accepted it for production shortly before the outbreak of war in 1939.
It made quite a name for itself in the North African campaign and also served with New Zealand forces in the Pacific and with Soviet troops on the Russian front.
tankmuseum.org/...
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum CZcams channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP: ►tankmuseumshop...
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Follow The TIGER Tank Collection on FACEBOOK
: ► / tigertankcollection
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Tiger Tank Blog: ► blog.tiger-tank...
Tank 100 First World War Centenary Blog: ► tank100.com/ #tankmuseum #tanks #tankchats
Ah, the Valentine, the most romantic of tanks! Nothing says "I love you" like a direct hit from a QF 6-pounder. My love is as solid as a 57mm tungsten-cored APCR shot, and you've pierced my heart like it pierces the frontal armour of a Pz.Kpfw. IV!
" Could the world,🗺 war,💥 two,2⃣ British, 🇬🇧 and the commonwealth of nations built, 🏢 Valentine,♥ mark II medium infantry tank go up,👆 against the world,🗺 war,💥 two,2⃣ Nazi German,🇩🇪 built,🏢 Panzer VI tiger, 🐯 1,⚀ heavy tank head on, or go for the un armored rear behind the tall bush hedges of the French,🇫🇷 countryside of Nazi German,🇩🇪 occupied France,🇫🇷 with its QF-6 pounder gun,🔫 57 millimeter solid rounds, during D-day Beach, 🏖 landings of Normandy, June six,6⃣ 1944 during the second, ⚁ world,🗺 war?"💥
I think you meant 2 pdr gun.
@@davidtuttle7556 He's obviously talking about the Valentine VIII!!!!
@@jonesfamily4326 lol. Of course. Silly me. I’m thinking of the Mk Is and Mark IIs who, to quote Father Tankmas, broke down because it was Tuesday and they were bored.
@@davidtuttle7556 lol. YNWA
Important points about the Valentine tank: 1-More of these tanks were built during WW-II than any other type of British tank. 2-Unlike other British tanks of the period, the Valentine was a commercial design produced by a commercial company (Vickers), rather than a British Army design. 3-The British Army wanted Vickers to produce the Matilda II. However, the management at Vickers persuaded the Army that they could produce an "Infantry Tank" of their own design more rapidly, and less expensively, than the Matilda II. The Army agreed due to the impending war situation which resulted from the Munich Crisis of 1938. 4-Although the Valentine was a good tank for its' time, it should be borne in mind that its' time was 1938. During 1941 the British Army declared the Valentine to be obsolete. However, due to the war situation, it was necessary for the Valentine to remain in production. Nevertheless, the Valentine was subjected to numerous improvements, such as a three-man (rather than the original two-man) turret and larger-caliber main guns, in order to enable it to remain competitive. 5-Although officially regarded as "obsolete", many Valentine hulls were modified for other purposes such as self-propelled guns ("Bishop"), bridge-layers, mine clearance tanks, flame-throwing tanks, amphibious tanks ("Valentine DD") and self-propelled anti-tank guns ("Archer"). As a result, the Valentine remained useful throughout the course of the war, and so cannot be adjudged in any way a failure.
A big element in the development of the Valentine was weight and armor. It needed to have at least 50 to 60 mm of armor all around but couldn't exceed 16 tons. The Valentine is as simple as they could make it with everything possible done to lighten it. It doesn't carry much fuel so it's range is short and the ammunition supply also is limited. However the tiny size proved to be worthwhile because it was hard to see and easy in it's use. Despite the small size they still managed to fit the 6 pounder in it. It was essentially a medium tank's worth of armor and firepower but the size of a light tank. The simplicity of everything that was done for weight also made it reliable as well as cheap.
They messed around with the turret a lot to try and fit increasingly bigger guns into the thing, with the coaxial appearing and disappearing based on whether or not that would still fit alongside. Surprisingly, they did eventually manage to fit a 75mm into the Valentine, though by the time that version came about, the Valentine's value as a frontline tank was all but gone.
thanks for that !!
It was a good tank none the less. It's still appreciated. Heavy tanks from the germans were rare anyways and would break before it got to the battlefield. So smaller more reliable tanks would make it instead and the mitilda could pick those of easley with is reliable armour and gun.
@@tacos_with_sauce8887 yes i agree greatly.
The Russians who were supplied thought it the best of the tanks supplied by the West and preferred to the Sherman.
1:40 here we see a herd of wild valentines gathered at the wateringhole
They do look nervous. I wonder if there is a Tiger stalking around.
The Valentine tank was highly valued by the Russians when it was supplied to them by the British. Although on paper it was nothing to write home about, with a slow speed and light gun, it was incredibly reliable. Many had travelled from Egypt to Tunisia without needing a refit. This was in comparison to Russian tanks at the time, many of which broke down just a few miles after being delivered from the factory, especially with transmission problems.
Jon Hart "The Valentine tank was highly valued by the Russians" Source? Just because it feels good doesn't mean it's true, you know. Every source I have states the exact opposite:
The Imperial War Museum:
*"For much of the Second World War, the British Army was saddled with a succession of tanks that ranged from the bad to the barely adequate.* Some were rushed into service too quickly and proved notoriously unreliable. Others spent too long in development, or only achieved a degree of usefulness after numerous modifications. Most lacked the armour to resist enemy anti-tank weapons, and nearly all were under-gunned.
*From 1943, British armoured divisions were equipped en masse with the American Sherman. This tank, though itself nearly always outclassed by the opposition, was at least reliable, adaptable and available in large numbers.* It was a testament to both American industrial might and British procurement failure. Britain's belated equivalent, the Cromwell, was outmoded by the time it entered service. Its more powerful successor, the Comet, was certainly the best British tank of the war, but only saw action in the last weeks of hostilities. The Centurion would have been a game changer, but belongs to the post-war world. So why had it taken Britain so long to produce a truly effective tank?"
www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-struggle-to-build-effective-tanks-during-the-second-world-war
From _When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler_ by US Army Colonel David. M. Glantz (University Press of Kansas, 2015):
"Other Lend-Lease equipment, especially combat vehicles and aircraft, proved less successful [than Lend-Lease jeeps], increasing unfounded Soviet suspicions that they were given junk. Soviet commanders complained bitterly about Western-furnished weapons whose design flaws had nothing to do with Allied politics. *The British Valentine and Matilda tanks, for example, were designed at the start of the war with turrets so small that no gun larger than 40mm would fit, making these tanks almost useless against the heavier German Panzer IV, V and VI. By contrast, the Soviet T-34 and the U.S. M4 Sherman tanks had turrets sufficiently large to accomodate bigger main guns later in the war.* The Sherman, though, disappointed the Soviets because its narrow treads made it much less mobile on mud than its German and Soviet counterparts, and it consumed great quantities of fuel. In fact, U.S. Army Ordnance planners had standardized thid width early in the war to ensure that Shermans would fit into ocean transports and across existing U.S. bridging equipment, two considerations that meant nothing to the Soviets." p. 197-198
kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-2120-0.html
From From _Hitler's Nemesis: The Red Army, 1930-45_ Walter S. Dunn Jr.:
*"The war began with 22,000 prewar tanks supplemented by wartime production of 109,000 tanks and SUs and imports of 14,000 for a total of 145,000.* The total crews were 22,000 prewar plus 136,600 trained during the war for a total of 156,600. More than 35,000 tanks were on hand at the end of the war. The Red Army mechanized force lost over 310,000 men killed, captured, or wounded seriously enough to prevent their return to duty.
Despite the disparity of losses in 1942 between the Germans sand the Russians, *the Soviet Union was winning the production race and had 8,500 tanks at the front in January 1, 1943 compared to a total of 6,643 German tanks. Despite the possession of the productive capacity of all of Western Europe, the Germans were unable to match the production of Soviet tank factories.* The Russians continued to lose heavily in the winter of 1942-43. The Russian offensives from November 1942 to March 1943 were very costly. The Popov Tank Group that broke through German lines was reduced to a skeleton by February 1943 with only 137 tanks remaining. The supply, replacement, and maintenance system had not functioned adequately. However, rapidly expanding production quickly replaced the losses in the following months. The Soviet tank force was in excellent condition in June 1943."
books.google.nl/books?id=xeu3DAAAQBAJ
In short: - Imperial War Museum: British WW2 tanks were at best barely adequate so the British used US tanks as much as possible.
- Historian and US Army Colonel David Glantz: the Valentine tanks were virtually useless against the German Panzers because they were too small to have a large gun.
- Historian Walter S. Dunn: the Soviets had produced 22,000 tanks before the war, 109,000 during the war, and imported 14,000 tanks from the US and UK, which was around 10% of the tanks used by the Soviet army during WW2.
Even shorter: British tanks were barely adequate and only a small part of the tanks used by the Soviets.
Now show me your sources.
I think it was vauled highly until long 50 and long 75 started coming in higher numbers and the increased armour.
It has a really low profile so that count as plus to.
kind of short video this time, would've appreciated a more in-depth look at the suspension since it was so special, how it's made, how it worked
Guillermo Lovato modified Horstmann suspension. The large roadwheel was on one arm, the two smaller roadwheels were on a common pivot that attached to the other arm. A spring was run between those two arms to suspend the tanks weight. Quite any elaborate set-up
It's a brilliant neat looking tank
Has the Chieftain done his track tensioning on it already?
Tanks in the desert (both British and Axis) travelled further than anybody had ever expected. British tanks in particular were short of spare parts (read Allenby's diaries) and were shipped out in a rush. Once the invasion threat receded almost half the tanks in the UK went to North Africa. The Germans had exactly the same tank maintenance issues as the British.
I love the Valentine, one of my favorite British designed tanks
Me too, it has such a nice look. In World of Tanks this is the only British tank I use, unfortunately I can't seem to use it right in battle. :'(
I played a lot of battles in this tank when I was grinding silver to buy a Cromwell... It's a tough little tank, and works best if you use it more like a heavy, it can take a lot of punishment. I found the stock 2-pounder to be the most useful gun, because of it's rate of fire.
The problem with the valentine in wot is the matilda exists and has that very silly mark. X 2pdr that goes through most tanks around that tier like butter. I found the valentine to be a better support vehicle that peeks around corners rather than charging forwards.
I did fall in love with it in WOT but it suffers just like the Matilda either it rapes at top tier or just suffers...
Im company of heroes 2 they dis so this tank can take several shots from a king tiger and the shots just bounce off lol. Then with realism mods its like shooting at paper
Oh, finally the Valentine! Such an interesting little tank that often gets overshadowed by the Matilda. Much appreciated, thank you!
Another superb talk from mister Fletcher
Awesome videos! I really appreciate you guys taking the time to make these videos for people who can't visit your museum in person, any time soon anyway.
The Valentine has the honour of being the only tank the allies sent to Russia that they actually liked. They even asked for it to remain in production till the end of the war. It was a very good vehicle. And better than this tank chat makes it sound.
One of my uncles served in tanks through Africa then Italy, mostly in light tanks/recon. His favourite tank overall was the American Stuart, then the Valentine.
I hope they come back to some of these older tank chats and give them a more in depth talk, the Valentine deserves 10 minutes at least!
Tog II!
I am pretty sure Jingles will see this :P
+bandholm His twiter feed and comment sections will make sure he does
I agree to
+bandholm Will bring much needed views to a great series :)
+bandholm he did and mentioned this series on MWJ today.
kane legacy oh look, a boy who has just found out to use profanity
love these videos. you did not mention the russian usage of the tank, they loved its cross country capability and was the main reason that the valentine was kept in production.
and its reliability, it was engineered as a quality machine.
Almost all of the Canadian production went to the Soviets
In short: - Imperial War Museum: British WW2 tanks were at best barely adequate so the British used US tanks as much as possible.
- Historian and US Army Colonel David Glantz: the Valentine tanks were virtually useless against the German Panzers because they were too small to have a large gun.
- Historian Walter S. Dunn: the Soviets had produced 22,000 tanks before the war, 109,000 during the war, and imported 14,000 tanks from the US and UK, which was around 10% of the tanks used by the Soviet army during WW2.
How do you conclude from this that the Soviets loved the Valentine?
Maybe the soldiers that used it liked it?
@@christinas.4342 The valentine got both the 6pdr and the 75mm gun so that contridicts what you just said there. Even the 2pdr was more than capable of ruining a panzer IVs day. There's various sources to say that the Soviets that used the valentine tanks claimed they liked them. They have good frontal armour and a low profile which is something the Soviets liked so much they use this design on their own tanks up to this day.
I just can't wait for the TOG 2 video
+Dominykas D.
You do realize the waiting will be a little long?
+Origami Chik3n oh no you didn't...
MizutayioGP I just can't help myself...
I really enjoy this series. I will never be able to travel to see Bovington so it is so nice to see displays talked through by David Fletcher especially vehicles that haven't been so widely remembered by public history.
This is an extremely short video for a tank like this one. Definitely a candidate for Tank Chats Reloaded #3
Great comment, this is very interesting approach to summarize in a short time a long story. I read several books about cruiser tanks, but Mr. Fletcher has extraordinary ability to give us "unknown soft facts" about a very important piece of British tanks history. Absolutely fantastic. Thanks a lot Mr. Fletcher!
Vincenzo from Italy.
Visiting he Bovington Tank Museum was one of the highlights of my visit to the UK in 2016. A must see if you visit there!
Very nice video. I really enjoy these and look forward to the next one. Thank you for the time and effort you folks put into these.
I love how he goes from Its a rubbish tank to its an okay tank then back to its a rubbish tank all in the space of a minute.
He does that all the time. lol
It can be a beautifully reliable and well thought out design and a shitty tank for the circumstances at the same time. Of course everything is debatable, as sometimes anything you have is far better than not having anything.
he didnt say it was a rubbish tank at any point, he just mentioned that its original 2 pounder gun was becoming underpowered
As an Italian I can only admire the courage and ardor of the British and Commonwealth soldiers during the 2 world wars.Fate wanted us to be enemies in the last war 🤷🏻♂️ In a thousand other wars we have been allies.
You started it in 55BC 😊
@@EndertheWeek Give us back the cities we founded, give us back Londinum 🤣
Sent here by Jingles, only sorry I didn't get here soonerl
Brilliant and well done, hope there will be more.
Well, I am gonna say it was the UK's best WW2 tank, and a few reasons why, it was small, light, was a simple design, had decent armour, decent running gear and was used during the whole war from 1940, with many variants, and was reliable, so much so some valentines went through the whole North Africa campaign without any refits,.
Never let the old man retire! Not only does he know a lot, but just the matter of fact British way of talking and mannerisms are really enjoyable. I think I've found the David Attenborough of tanks!
these are fantastic would be great if they where around 5 mins long but for the time scale the information is great 😊
+Oliver Usher Uncle Dave doesn't believe in farting around.
Big fan of the Valentine - superb little bruiser for Desert work!
I saw an interview once with a couple of Americans who were in a smaller and under appreciated battle in WW2 North Africa (I’m sorry I don’t recall the name). They were mainly infantry along with a couple of half-tracks. With them was a detachment of four Valentine tanks. Their orders were to prevent an approaching larger and better armored German force from advancing. Everyone was apprehensive about the possible outcome. As those who were interviewed went on to say, it was the performance of the Valentine’s and their crews that won the day for them.
I like this videos. And i would like about 20 minutes format with more details of some battles, just like jingles history lessons (they are not too short or too long). There is certainly a demand for these exclusive shootage. But I undestand that mr. Fletcher is busy man.
Maybe this year i will go to this museum. But I am quite affraid about my knowledge of english language and about whole trip from Czech Rep.
P.S.: Sorry for my English. I am too tired and little drunk
I love the early British Infantry and Cruiser Tanks. Despite their shortcomings, these are interesting machines. And their look is terrific!
For some reason I like the look of this tank a lot.
As a railfan, I'm interested inthe Valentine, due to the fact that many of these were built by the Canadian Pacific Railway, at that railway's Angus Shops in Montreal.
I love the Vickers tanks for some reason. The Valentine is among my favorites but it really needed to be made with a larger turret-ring from the word go. It had all kinds of problems when they tried to up-gun it to the OQF 6-pdr and OQF 75mm, being forced to drop down to a 2-man turret and (on some versions) the coaxial machinegun.
Thank you! for all you do for tank history
Blessed we are for the next video.
Oh the Valentine is pretty cool too.
These videos are absolutely captivating. Thank you and keep them coming!
Love the reviews, very blunt and to the point...
I love this show my only wish is that Mr Fletcher could talk for longer
A spry looking little tank. Thanks Mr. Fletcher.
Tank you, Dr Fletcher!
I must say jingles was right Tour video's are
mighty interesting. Keep up the good work and i for one Will be watching.
I just love these videos and can't wait for the next one.
Love these videos and miss seeing this chap on the history channel documentaries! Keep up the good work I hope the entire collection will be covered eventually.
The NZ Army also used them in the Pacific, my uncle recently restored one to working order.
I love watching these videos too, thanks for posting and please post more!
this dude is spot on..I bet he had a cup of tea and a scone after this video!
Would have been interesting to hear a bit more about the final drive and brakes, in another video showing the tank running the brake drums appear to be turning a lot faster that the sprockets - suggesting some sort of epicyclic reduction.
Hopefully you do another extended chat on this great little tank 😊
Valentine's brake cooling fins probably did work we had some really good tank designers back in the day .
The Valentine tank created an idea for Soviet engineers to create the IFV generation like the BMP-1. Because of the role of a Light Tank like Valentine, it can support infantry attacks, moreover it is small and light to move at high speed. Actually BMP-1 has the shape of a Light Tank rather than a "battle taxi" like the M113.
Unfortunately the Valentines did not have high speed. The British only used them in place of their fast cruiser tanks because the Valentines were the only tanks reliable enough at the time. The Soviets did model their pre-war light tanks not on the Valentines but on the Vickers 6-ton tanks. They moved onto entirely different designs once into the war.
The two stroke 71 series Detroit Diesel must be the most successful diesel in history. Introduced in 1938, available during the war in 1,2, 3, 4, and 6 cylinder inline. Later available in V6, V8, V12, V16, and V24 versions. It powered tanks, trucks, buses, tractors, tugboats, irrigation wells, generators and more. The 4-71 and 6-71 were copied by YaZ in the Soviet Union into the late 1960s. In 1974, a version with a larger bore, the 92 series was introduced. The 71 and 92 series were produced until 1995. Sherman tanks for the Marine Corps and those built for the USSR were powered by twin 6-71 engines. Now I find the British used them to power a version of the Valentine.
such a gorgeous, aptly named vehicle.
The mk11 was, in my opinion, was the best version of the valentine. It had a 75 mm gun, brilliant armour and a better speed than the others
I couldn't help but note it's remarkable resemblance to the Matilda II. The Valentine chassis was used in many other roles over the course of the war, given its ruggedness and reliability.
2:19 i love how he roasts them, pure gold
I never realised there was so many different tanks made !
“The tank itself was very reliable”
... “GM Diesel” ...
Ohhhhhhhh. I see.
To be precise, a Detroit Diesel 671, an ancestor of the "Screaming Jimmy" 2-stroke engine beloved by old American truckers.
@@kristoffermangila ahh yes. THAT engine. :-)
Here on Valentine's Day 2021.
It was just the ticket against Italian tanks unfortunately an outfit called the Afrika Korps spoiled the fun. Love the Stug peeking around the corner.
You mention the suspension system, it would be nice to see more of it.
The tank of love!
David Fletcher, the tank museum's Valentine card. ;-)
The Rocket propelled Jumping Valentine is my favorite "Bloody 'ell!" AFV.
Sw-e-e-e-et Valentine (Uh-uh-uh) Armor n'ver looked so thin
Thicker armour than the T34
Thanks.
HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!!
👍👍👍 i have got to come visit this museum
The brits might didn't build the most effective tanks during WW2, but they definitely build the most beautiful ones. Big fan of the Comet and Valentine design when it comes to model building :D
The Valentine worked well and was a very well worked-out design. The problem was that it was a comparatively small tank by the middle to later stages of the war (16-17 tons, compared to the ~20-21 tons of a Panzer III) and there's a limit to how much you can upgrade the armor and gun of a tank. And by then the Germans were using Panzer IV tanks with 75mm guns, Tigers and even Panthers with 88mm and 75mm guns. The 40mm gun was simply out of its depth by 1941 or so, only really being a match for by then outdated German tanks like the Panzer II and III. But against the Italians, who used terrible tanks in WW2, it was more than adequate.
In terms of numbers built it was the most produced British tank of WW2.
The Valentines the Russians used were generally speaking equipped with the 6 pounder gun and in some Russian war film you can spot them amongst the T34's and such like. A reliable work horse of a tank. Very rare examples did try out a 75mm gun.
The perfect tank for the 14th of February
These are very very good videos. well done!
Great videos keep them coming !
Why does David Fletcher remind me of David Lloyd George?
Thank you uncle ironside!
Also tog 2! woo!
"Manchester" A fine name for a tank
So cheap, armored and has some punch. I like it.
David Fletcher IS the most interesting man alive!
David Fletcher is the best tank that will ever be built.
I scuba dive on a pair of these off swanage in Dorset uk quite often....large conger eels living inside...
Short, but sweet.
Valentine is my absolute favorite British tank from the war. Just cause.
The Australians also used this along with the Matilda quite successfully in Burma and New Guinea.
Canadian Valentines were built by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the same workshops it used for building its steam locomotives.
I wanted more.
People's Valentine: somethint something about love
My Valentine: a 2 pdr WW2 era light tank
I love this tank.
Jingles sent me here :) great videos could listen all day.
Brought here by a link from The History Guy, good show!
I'm assuming here that the Valentine was an outgrowth of the Matilda which, while less than reliable, was so effective in the early days of the desert campaign. Certainly, the two tanks resemble one another and had the same mission.
Kinda short but good none the less
Great video!
Thank you for the video. :)
i've always though of valentines as discount matildas, but also one could think them as perfected matildas, since they were much more reliable and cheaper than matildas without losing too much armor.
Not to mention that throughout the war, Britain built nearly three times as many Valentines as Matilda IIs.
Didn't mention how the Soviets LOVED the Valentine, and kept asking for more via lend-lease right up to the end of the war. Small and reliable, just what the wanted.
PavarottiAardvark Sources? Every source I have states the exact opposite. For example, according to the British Imperial War Museum: *"For much of the Second World War, the British Army was saddled with a succession of tanks that ranged from the bad to the barely adequate.* Some were rushed into service too quickly and proved notoriously unreliable. Others spent too long in development, or only achieved a degree of usefulness after numerous modifications. Most lacked the armour to resist enemy anti-tank weapons, and nearly all were under-gunned.
*From 1943, British armoured divisions were equipped en masse with the American Sherman. This tank, though itself nearly always outclassed by the opposition, was at least reliable, adaptable and available in large numbers.* It was a testament to both American industrial might and British procurement failure. Britain's belated equivalent, the Cromwell, was outmoded by the time it entered service. Its more powerful successor, the Comet, was certainly the best British tank of the war, but only saw action in the last weeks of hostilities. The Centurion would have been a game changer, but belongs to the post-war world. So why had it taken Britain so long to produce a truly effective tank?"
www.iwm.org.uk/history/britains-struggle-to-build-effective-tanks-during-the-second-world-war
From _When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler_ by US Army Colonel David M. Glantz (University Press of Kansas, 2015):
"Other Lend-Lease equipment, especially combat vehicles and aircraft, proved less successful [than Lend-Lease jeeps], increasing unfounded Soviet suspicions that they were given junk. Soviet commanders complained bitterly about Western-furnished weapons whose design flaws had nothing to do with Allied politics. *The British Valentine and Matilda tanks, for example, were designed at the start of the war with turrets so small that no gun larger than 40mm would fit, making these tanks almost useless against the heavier German Panzer IV, V and VI. By contrast, the Soviet T-34 and the U.S. M4 Sherman tanks had turrets sufficiently large to accomodate bigger main guns later in the war.* The Sherman, though, disappointed the Soviets because its narrow treads made it much less mobile on mud than its German and Soviet counterparts, and it consumed great quantities of fuel. In fact, U.S. Army Ordnance planners had standardized this width early in the war to ensure that Shermans would fit into ocean transports and across existing U.S. bridging equipment, two considerations that meant nothing to the Soviets." p. 197-198
kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-2120-0.html
From From _Hitler's Nemesis: The Red Army, 1930-45_ Walter S. Dunn Jr.:
*"The war began with 22,000 prewar tanks supplemented by wartime production of 109,000 tanks and SUs and imports of 14,000 for a total of 145,000.* The total crews were 22,000 prewar plus 136,600 trained during the war for a total of 156,600. More than 35,000 tanks were on hand at the end of the war. The Red Army mechanized force lost over 310,000 men killed, captured, or wounded seriously enough to prevent their return to duty.
Despite the disparity of losses in 1942 between the Germans sand the Russians, *the Soviet Union was winning the production race and had 8,500 tanks at the front in January 1, 1943 compared to a total of 6,643 German tanks. Despite the possession of the productive capacity of all of Western Europe, the Germans were unable to match the production of Soviet tank factories.* The Russians continued to lose heavily in the winter of 1942-43. The Russian offensives from November 1942 to March 1943 were very costly. The Popov Tank Group that broke through German lines was reduced to a skeleton by February 1943 with only 137 tanks remaining. The supply, replacement, and maintenance system had not functioned adequately. However, rapidly expanding production quickly replaced the losses in the following months. The Soviet tank force was in excellent condition in June 1943."
books.google.nl/books?id=xeu3DAAAQBAJ
In short, British WW2 tanks were at best barely adequate, the Valentine was virtually useless against the Panzers, and only 10% of the tanks used by the Soviet Army came from the UK _and_ US.
Those Soviets LOVED the Valentine alright.
"at best barely adequate" WTF are you talking about?
Tank design doesn't stay still. Yes, the Mathilda II and the Valentine had much less firepower than the Panzer V and VI, but they were the goddamn Panther and Tiger. The Valentine might have started with the 2pdr (40mm), but it was later upgraded to a 6pdr, which could fire the APDS Sabot.
The 6pdr was perfectly capable of handling the Panzer III and IV chassis, which were backbone of german tank units during the entire war - the Panzer IV was the most common tank at 8000 units, the Stug 3 was the most common armoured vehicle at 11000. The Tiger was scary, but it wasn't representative of Axis units, which included Italian, Romanian, Czech and other tanks that the 6pdr could handle. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies also point out that Lend Lease made up 40% of heavy and medium soviet tanks in 1941 - important tanks at an important time.
In any case, better British tanks WERE available by the end of the war. The Comet was an excellent design, and the late model Churchill made excellent infantry tanks. In any case, tank gun vs tank armour is an extremely narrow interpretation of performance. The reliability of the Valentine made it popular for second line duties on the Eastern Front, compared to the famously unreliable Panther. Similarly, while the British 17pdr was an excellent anti-tank gun on the Achilles and the Firefly, it was worse against non tank targets - many commanders still wanted a few smaller guns for non-tank targets. Finally, these superior German tanks were hellishly expensive.
The Achilles and the Firefly also highlight why British designs sometimes seem to peter out towards the end of the war - because the allies were *allies*. The Mustang? British Engine. The Catalina? British Radar. Russian Ace Pokryshkin? Made kills in an American P39. British code breaking? Built on work by Poles. British design work went into foreign assets, and vice versa.
The insistence on a diesel-electric drive really makes me think of Ferdinand Porsche. And his constant attempts to get Germany to adopt a petrol-electric tanks (and his only success was the Elefant because he had the hills built for his Tiger before he lost the competition and the Germans were going to get value out of the investment in building them.
The Valentine Mk XI is a very fine looking piece of machinery
My understanding is that the Valentine wasn't a better tank than the Matilda, but it certainly was a cheaper tank than the Matilda. The Russians liked the Valentine better than any other British or US tank they fielded, because it was just so cheap and simple.