avatar

Cacadores

Posts: 10,218 Field Marshal Cacs

#22 [url]

Mar 22 08 8:52 PM

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,

Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

Apr 11 08 5:35 AM

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 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) http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-arm-can-e.htm

Quote    Reply   

#25 [url]

Apr 11 08 8:03 AM

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'

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Cacadores

Posts: 10,218 Field Marshal Cacs

#27 [url]

Apr 30 08 10:17 PM

Alex Testo wrote:
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

Quote    Reply   

#28 [url]

Apr 30 08 10:40 PM

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'.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Cacadores

Posts: 10,218 Field Marshal Cacs

#29 [url]

May 28 08 5:28 PM

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?

Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

May 28 08 6:39 PM

Cacs, thanks for that, I can now rest assured. I will play with any set of rules but I prefer to use my own (Rommels Battles) for the 'big grand tactics battles' and Rapid Fire sits comfortably with me. The problem for me, with ww2 wargaming is that 'I like to be as realistic as can be realistically acheived' and I like to have lots of different weapon types. Therefore with a small scale skirmish level set of rules then it is always stretching it a bit when you have lots of different weapon & AFV types in one game and I'm also a 'grand tactics' type of guy not a 'is he crawling, running or jumping' type of player, 'horses for courses' of course. so there you go. Regards to you

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Cacadores

Posts: 10,218 Field Marshal Cacs

#32 [url]

May 31 08 12:13 AM

Yes, Thanks Alex. I'm still digesting all your mixed metaphors :l: . The Valentine was an infantry tank anyway - perhaps DB thought it was a Cruiser type - it does look the part. Have you played Panzer Grenadier?

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help