Talk:Valentine tank

Tank name
There are several theories as to the origin of the tank's name; this should not be presented in the article as a settled subject. One is that the design (not the prototype) was presented to the war office on Feb 10 1938. Two is that it is a play on words "Vickers Armstrong Limited on Tyne (V A L on Tyne) Three is that it was named in honor of Sir John Carden, whose middle name was Valentine.

The fact is no one knows which is correct. See Paul Roberts, "Valentine Infantry Tank", p. 3

The article as written is incorrect. The first valentine came off the production line in April 1940.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I only put in info from a book available to me, and there isn't a lot on the Valentine in it, barely half a page, plus a few other pages on types derived from it. I can only guess that it wasn't really that loved by anyone, ironic, given the name. It really is a pity we can't talk to the guys that designed it.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * DMorpheus,can you please reinstate my references or yours, as the article really is in need of references, maybe we could have both (or three) theories showing in the article. As you say, the first valentine came off the production line in April 1940, could that mean the first production Valentine? You know how fast development moved during WWII.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Role... heavy tank?
I know that the British army's indigenous tank designs were either classified as infantry or cruiser, but would this tank have been used in the ROLE of a heavy tank? -93.97.255.48 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, its role initially was to defend the infantry from enemy tanks. The ability to supply a useful HE round was added but whether or not that was to aid the infantry or defend itself from anti-tank guns, it doesn't make it a heavy tank. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay thank you for that information. Another question: which was superior in tank vs tank combat: this Mk VIII or the Churchill Mk IV? - 93.97.255.48 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't answer that authoratively, but Mark VIII Valentine had only two men in the turret which is not a good thing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Churchill III and IV had a 6 pounder gun fitted, which had much greater range (1,510m against 914m) and armour penetration (94mm against 85mm). The Valentine couldn't upgrade to the 6 pounder because the turret and the ring that it turned on were far too small. Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Valentine Mk VIII-X did mount 6-pounder. Bukvoed (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Engine power
The article states that "Its armour was weaker than the Infantry Tank II Matilda but, due to a weaker engine, the lighter tank had the same top speed". The wording of this puzzles me; the Valentine seems to have a lighter chassis and a more powerful engine than the Matilda, and should therefore be faster, but the sentence suggests that (a) it was not and (b) this was a positive attribute. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Riverbed Valentine
While the pictures do show a Mark IX plate, the Telegraph states Mark X. This is early days so I expect a more definitive news article will appear with a fuller reference in English that we can use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

New image
I found this at the LAC. Canada's 1st tank built in 1941. I had it in the ram tank article and it was removed Aug 11/2012 as being a Valentine tank. Could someone will more knowledge than I confirm what type it is and possibly include it in the correct article? The categories on commons for the image may need adjust as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely Valentine. Bukvoed (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is the first Valentine built in Canada, the variant should be easy to figure out. However it would be better if there was a source saying the self-same thing. That said it's probably a Mark VI.GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked at the ref desk: Reference_desk/Humanities They were kind enough to find evidence that supports Mark VI here. "The Canadian-built Valentines were officially designated as Tank, Infantry Mark III*** at first and later as Valentine Marks VI, VII and VIIA." --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Post WWII
this article http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article47822742 indicates that Valentine tanks were converted to tractors for use in Western Australia. Not enuogh detial in the article to warrant immediate inclusion but worth being held here if more can be found Gnangarra 08:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

CE
Tidied references as they had red on.Keith-264 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Valentine tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225033746/http://wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/valentine.asp to http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/valentine.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CE
@Graham, thanks for that, apols for the mistake. Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Question
The Valentine was better armed and faster than the Cruiser Mk II. This can't be right can it? Better armoured perhaps? Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This may be out of context without time. Valentine was in use a lot longer than the Cruiser A10, and had different engines and turrets later in production. Lkchild (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume both had 2-pounder guns and that the Val was better armoured. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

3D Model of Valentine Tank
I dived on a Valentine Tank located in Burghead Bay on 2 Mar 2019 and thereafter produced this 3D model from video.

Please feel free to incorporate this in your most excellent Wiki page.

3D Model of Valentine Tank in Burghead Bay

BjFaeTorphins (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Entry into service date?
The article says that the Valentine "entered service from July 1941", which is referenced to "Newsome 2016 p. 8". I have found Newsome 2016 p. 8 in Google Books and there is no mention of July 1941. Given that there were no prototypes and the first production models began testing in May 1940 during an invasion crisis, 14 months to get it into service cannot be right surely? Alansplodge (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * According to AFV Profile, the first tanks were delivered in June 1940 and they were coming off production line at 45/month "a year later". By October 1941 three armoured divisions had 900 Valentines (in lieu of cruisers) across them.
 * Chamberlain and Ellis say first "service deliveries" were in "late 1940 and for a period in 1940-1941 Valentines were used in the cruiser tank role in armoured divisions". The tank brigades in 8th Army got Valentines in June 1941.
 * So service entry does seem to be 1940.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Graeme. Could you please find me a citable ref for one or more of those, so that we can fix the article? Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * AFV Profile is "White, B. T. (1969)" in the article references, it doesn't have page numbers. the other is from page 60 of "Chamberlain, Peter; Ellis, Christopher (1969)" ,currently under "Further reading" in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Graeme. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)