I had this argument with a tank buff the other day. He was adamant that the Soviets did upgun the Valentine - otherwise - his argument "otherwise they would have 1,400 odd tanks with an inferior 2pdr or 6pdr gun".
I have never seen a Valentine with a 76.2 and I have doubts if the small turret ring would haven this size of gun and the recoil.
I also get the sense that the Soviets cared little for the quality of the kit they received. Any tank was better than nothing until they were able to get the Urals factories into full mass production.
Any wisdom or sources on the forum?
This has info on Soviet mods to the Valentine:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/valentine-mods-in-ussr.html (http://tankarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/valentine-mods-in-ussr.html)
Very good article Steve. It supports my theory that the 76.2 mm was never in production. The Soviets seem to have trialled the smaller 45mm ATG and indeed bolt on armour.
I read somewhere (Zaloga maybe) that the Valentine was used by the Russians in a recce role as it was quite quick.
Valentine? Top speed 15mph or so wasn't it?
Dick Taylor in his "Into The Valley: the Valentine Tank and Derivatives, 1938-60" (MMP Books, 2012) suggests that "they (the Soviets) attempted to replace the British armament with their 76.2mm tank gun, but this apparently failed." This experiment being conducted on 6pdr armed Mk IX.
Primarily used to replace the T-60 and T-70 in the infantry support role. The Russians liked it so much that it was kept in production for them. The vehicles were mostly shipped from Canada.
IanS
:-\ Yes, the Valentine was not the fastest tank on the block - compared with British and Russian models with Christie suspension.
On the plus side it was (a) very reliable (b) low silhouette, (c) quite heavily armoured for a vehicle its size and (d) available in large numbers.
I know the Soviets did employ tanks such as the T34 on reccy. The slow speed of the Valentine would have been drawback, but in the post 1941 era, I suspect the Soviets were glad to see anything resembling a tank arrive from the Allies, It was an 'infantry tank' in the British tactical sense, so I would agree with Ian that infantry support would have been a nature role.
That raises a question. The 2pdr did not have a HE round. You really need HE if providing infantry support.
There is a Video on YouTube of them pulling a MK IX out of a bog not to long ago
My recollection was that the Soviets complained to the British about the lack of HE round and the British came up with a round based on the 40mm Bofors AA round which was shipped when they beefed up the number or rounds shipped with each tank.
That said, my memory is not what it once was and I may be misremembering!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 24 March 2016, 11:43:42 AM
My recollection was that the Soviets complained to the British about the lack of HE round and the British came up with a round based on the 40mm Bofors AA round which was shipped when they beefed up the number or rounds shipped with each tank.
That said, my memory is not what it once was and I may be misremembering!
That's very interesting - no reason on earth why a 40mm HE could not be developed - pity the 7th Armoured did not have it for the desert campaign!
The US marines had a anti personnel round for the 37mm and it was invaluable in stopping the Japanese wave.
This one gives me the giggles every time I see it, since I have a kitty called Valentine.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 24 March 2016, 11:06:16 PM
This one gives me the giggles every time I see it, since I have a kitty called Valentine.
:-\yes, I often think the Brits have backed themselves into a corner by adopting the last war practice of calling their MBTs with butch words starting with "C". They have already been forced to re-cycle "Challenger".
The Valentine is allegedly so called because the spc. was submitted on February 14th.
The day we acquired the kitten, too.
Quote from: Sunray on 25 March 2016, 03:49:48 AM
:-\yes, I often think the Brits have backed themselves into a corner by adopting the last war practice of calling their MBTs with butch words starting with "C". They have already been forced to re-cycle "Challenger".
The Valentine is allegedly so called because the spc. was submitted on February 14th.
The Yanks had a worse problem.
M3 was the Lee/Grant, the Honey and the White Half Track, and the scout car and the Bradley APC and the Carl Gustav ATand the infrared scope, and the 37mm AT gun and a tacky submachine gun.
The 2pdr HE existed when the gun entered service. It was not issued to tanks as the MG's were thought to be more effective, given the expected engagement ranges. It is probably safe to assume that the Vallies supply to the Russians had normal ammunition load outs.
IanS
I've seen copies of declassified documents in the past which listed 2pdr and 6pdr HE ammo sent to Russia but I think it dated from mid '43. It was many tens of thousands of rounds. Now, of course, I can't find anything online that mentions it.
The Google-fu is weak in this one :(
I've also heard that the Russians used a lot of Valentines in the recce role, not because it was a good tank when compared to the Russian models but because it came with a radio which were in short supply in Russian vehicles.
Compared to the Soviet alternatives - T-60 and T70 it is rather better methinks.
IanS
Greetings
The Valentine served as a 'light tank' but that was a relative term. For example 201 Tank Brigade (195 and 196 Tank battalions) had a mix of Matilda and Valentine (almost certainly 2pdr) at Kursk. Although there are a series of pictures of Valentine IX which claim to be from Kursk the photos may well be a bit later.
Regards
Edward