Tank Chats #11 Valentine | The Tank Museum

you well this tank is the Valentine it’s the British infantry tank mark 3 now Valentine sounds an odd name for a tank it was actually a code word used by vickers-armstrongs for the tank when it was new and it did nothing to do with any of the other silly suggestions that are put out by people and it’s powered by a General Motors diesel engine and they were used extensively in the desert the two pounder gun which was the standard British gun for most tanks in the early part of the war it’s a 40 millimeter weapon a good anti-tank gun but really not quite up to the rapidly encroaching German tanks with the guns which are getting bigger it’s a very cramped little tank it has a driver sitting in the front and two men in the turret and that’s all but it does have quite a brilliant suspension system it was called the bright idea of suspension and it was invented by Sir John Cobb and it seems to be the best part of the tank in many respects the tank itself though was very reliable that’s more than you can say for almost any other British tank of the period the general motors diesel thing here boxes everything else the whole thing very reliable package but the tank is very small the two pounder gun quite hard-hitting but not quite up to the pitch of the latest weapons that were about but otherwise it’s quite a useful little tank they went on right through the war the gret the gangs gradually getting bigger but the tank itself really rather losing out in comparison with some of the later tanks we had but quite good for its day and certainly in the in the desert it did very well it would especially with reliability which counted for a lot in tanks in those days it’s quite well armoured because it was an infantry tank rather than a cruiser tank but it tended to be used as a cruiser tank later on so it it fulfilled both roles really this one’s quite an early one it’s a mark 2 the final drive which is at the back there with the drive sprockets has got fins around the edge because they put the brake drums outside the drive sprockets and the fin bit was to cool them down while it was going along but whether that was really much juice or not is another matter I think probably there wasn’t enough room inside for them that’s the most likely explanation but that’s the Valentine the smallest of the lot you you

100 thoughts on “Tank Chats #11 Valentine | The Tank Museum

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Let's be honest here, this tank was simply glaringly inadequate for it's purpose and that's what matters. An I tank without an effective HE shell? Ridiculous. Giving the infantry this tank to support them effectively was little more than British criminal negligence. The best use for the chassis was as the Archer, a 17pdr gunned tank destroyer but about five years too late.

  6. Unused British tank names from ww2 : pansy, gaylord, daffodil, weakheart, pink unicorn, limp wrist, bunny, Matilda 3, daisy and flower. Unused German tank names from ww2 : cheetah, death bringer, dominator, destroyer of worlds, masher, vengeance, killer and executor.

  7. 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 😀

  8. а почему дед не ходит вокруг танка и не показывает его со всех сторон?

  9. When i was playing wot and using valentine
    A heavy tank just drove by me and a
    Couple more tanks bigger than me like im using
    A turtle ;-;

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. I love the tank stereotypes. "See how that one is covered in machine guns? That means it's American. That other one that went 30 feet and broke down? Clearly British."

  13. 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.

  14. You said it was an infantry tank, I read that it had no official designation and was used in many kinds of roles because of it.

  15. 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!

  16. 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.

  17. Were I a crew member of that tank, I'd have been thinking that the "9" on the side of the turret looks a bit too much like a bullseye.

  18. 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

  19. + reliability
    – gun
    – turret

    speed ok
    range ok

    If US war industry hadn't helped with M4, rather shitty I suppose.

  20. 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!

  21. I love the early British Infantry and Cruiser Tanks. Despite their shortcomings, these are interesting machines. And their look is terrific!

  22. Does the museum have an Archer tank destroyer in it's collection? It was based on the Valentine, and was notable for having it's gun mounted backwards. Sounds ludicrous, but it was the only way it could stay balanced, and it allowed the vehicle to fire on the run.

  23. Was British tank manufacturing a little behind in assembly practices to other countries or was there a benefit to riveting the armor plates rather than welding the plates? Was it to speed the assembly process? Anyone know?

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. Davids MBE doesn't stand for 'Member of the Order of the British Empire', rather it is the last words he says before he leaves the house in the morning after looking in the mirror.
    Moustache Bushy Excellent

  27. Is it true that the British six-pounder 57 mm gun was bored out to 75 mm to use American M3 75 mm shells?

  28. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *