General de Brigade

Cacadores · Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 75

I notice the Valentine tank varients (about 8mph off road) is classed 'medium' speed while the Matilda (8.5mph) is classed 'slow'. Anyone have different info? Wink

_________________
WARGAMES SOCIETY http://ilovewargameing.21.forumer.com/index.php

http://wargamessociety.wordpress.com

alanmccoubrey · Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 58

The information in all the books I have agrees with you they were both 15 mph on road and 8 mph cross country. Alan

DCRBrown · Brigadier Joined: 05 Oct 2001 Posts: 1031 Location: UK

C,

Its a misprint - the Valentine should be a SLOW AFV.

BTW - While on this topic if anyone can confirm that the Valentine has approx. 60mm of armour to front and sides I'd be grateful.

Thanks.

Ross Mcpharter · Joined: 26 May 2008 Posts: 14

Hi DCRBrown,

According to'British Equipment of the Second World War' website they did. BTW this website is brilliant!

Hope this helps, Dave

alanmccoubrey · Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 58

Dave, As Ross says, yes they did have 60mm side plates but the Mark III had them reduced to 50mm. Alan

DCRBrown · Brigadier Joined: 05 Oct 2001 Posts: 1031 Location: UK

R/A,

Many thanks!

Great website BTW 8)

I think I might have to place the Valentine in Armour catagory C!! Shocked

DB

Cacadores · Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 75

Thanks, DB.

Well, I originally thought the Valentine would be faster, for sure - fooled by its looks I guess. Light-weight but weak engines: designation: 'Infantry' tank.

Trewhitt's 'Armoured Fighting Vehicles' gives it's armour varying from between 8 and 65mm, although it doesn't say where. As opposed to the Matilda II's 20 to 78mm (BGPG category C) and the Panzer III Astbt M's 30mm (cat. E) or the JagdPanzer IVs 11-80mm (Cat. C).

Tricky. Confused

Alexb83 · Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 95

Well, I certainly wouldn't have put a Valentine in with the Matilda in terms of armour - but it really depends on how DB's banded it!

Does 50-60mm plating really compare to 78 (front only?) Similarly 8 to 20...

The valentine was a clear foot shorter (height) but with no significant difference (by eye) to the armour sloping.

Would you really bump the Valentine down to slow? 10 tonnes lighter than a Matilda, better suspension and another 30hp on the engine might improve its off-road performance (despite them having a similarly listed top speed)?

DCRBrown · Brigadier Joined: 05 Oct 2001 Posts: 1031 Location: UK

A,

I'll keep the Valentine as Armour Category D and as a Slow AFV.

You're right that although it’s exceptionally well armoured it doesn't fully qualify for entry to the Matilda's C category.

I appreciate its generally better performance but it's still very slow in comparison to most other tanks and to class it as medium would be stretching its performance perhaps a bit too far.

DB

alanmccoubrey · Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 58

Dave, I fully agree with you here, although the Valentine was lighter and had a better engine it still had almost exactly the same speeds as the Matilda. The bigger engine made it very much more reliable rather than faster. Alan

alanmccoubrey · Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 58

Something else to consider for the low speed of the Valentine is its suspension which was a "slow motion" system incapable of high speed cross country movement. Alan

Alexb83 · Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 95

Val's are armour category E on the list in front of me - is this a misprint, or are we discussing alterations in 2e? Smile