"Valentine with Soviet 76mm?" Topic

A book I was perusing today mentioned that some lend-lease Valentines were refitted with Soviet 76mm cannon.

This is the first I'd seen of that, anyone got anything to add or confirm?

I believe it was tried as an experiment but it wasn't successful.

iirc a lot of the Valentines the Russians got were the later models with 6pdrs and 75mms, which was a bit if a squeeze in the tiny turret in any case.

That's kind of what I was thinking, the 6 pdr was already pushing the turret space.

Pretty sure Russians only received 2 pdr marks (mostly canadian)- some were the 3 man turret i think, but still 2 pdrs- happy to be proved wrong -

These happy chaps are riding a Mark IX. taken in 1943 I believe:

Ooer, 6pdr Valentine, those Tigers had better watch out:)

Dmitry Loza had this to say:

"Of these three British tanks, the best was the Valentine produced in Canada. Its armor was streamlined but more importantly, it featured a long-barreled 57mm main gun. My unit switched over to American Shermans at the end of 1943. "

hmmm interesting…. the canadian marks were all VI and VII…. both 2pdr,
the mark IX being an upgunned mark V which was a British build….

could be that Mr Loza actually had a British built mark VIII, IX or X..
whatever, pretty sure the number of 6pdrs was miniscule compared to the 2dr marks

Tigers indeed watch out! did the Russians ever get an APDS round?

Lend Lease supplied 3782 Valentines, 1388 coming from Canada.

From the units I have records of in 1944, in them alone there is over 300 Valentine IX. 19th Tank Corps in April 1944 returns 61 Mk IX. Ive no idea sadly how many overall were supplied with the 6-Pounder.

3rd Guards Mech Corps reports 70 of them in June 1944 and still had 26 left in January 1945.

On 14th January 1945, 6th Motorcycle Regiment reported having 10 Mk IX.

So Im not sure it was that rare really.

Don't have it handy to double check, but I believe it was in the Valentine AFV Profile that I read that the later mark Valentines were used as command tanks in SU-85 units. According to that note there was a desire to have a turreted AFV when units were operating in wooded or otherwise restricted terrain.

At any rate, here is link to thew RKKA in WWII page on Lend Lease AFVs in Soviet service -

link

Looks like in '44 most were Mk IXs and Xs. Amvas lumps the two together on this page -

link

There is no listing for Mk XIs on the RKKA site. Don't know whether they were included in the Mk IX totals as were the Xs, or whether any were sent.

While it's not the Valentine I can remember seeing some photos of a Soviet 76.2 put on the turret of an M4A2 (75). I don't think it ever was a general thing, especially once the Soviets got the M4A2 (76). They liked the American 76 because of its accuracy.

Lets be very generous and assume 500 6pdr valentines made it to Russia…makes it about 8% of the total lend-lease AFV's and about 0.5% of the total AFvs employed by the Soviets between 43 and 45….I suppose Unicorns and hen's teeth were a bit rarer on the Eastern front, as indeed was rocking-horse do-do, but not much rarer.

well, Christot, from the RKKA site, the 3rd Byelorussian Front in June of '44 seems to have had the most Lend Lease AFVs in service.

The four units listed there had just short of 1000 tanks and SPAT and assault guns. Of those just over 400 were Lend Lease and 202 of those were Valentine IXs (with 170 Shermans).

20 percent is not what I would consider scarce.

It would all depend on what units one is dealing with and what period of time in the war – on March 25th, 1945 the 1st Gds. Mech.Cav.Group (2nd Ukrainian Front) had 22 T-34s, 41 Mk IXs, 63 SU-76s, and 20 M3 Stuarts.

And considering that some of the units are Guards units, these were not second line or reserve formations.

I don't really understand your point…yes in ONE unit it might have been quite common…heck, in several single battalions it would constitute 100% of the AFV's…but in terms of the overall tank strength of the Soviet Union it was a drop in the ocean.
It is less significant than say the KV85 for example, which although it was only in service for a few months was nonetheless an important AFV during those few months…6pdr Valentines were available in similar small numbers stretched over a much longer timeframe..18 months…2 years?
During that time the Soviets employed over 50,000 afvs…500 really is miniscule potatoes.

Rarity has never stopped gamers from doing something, judging from all the stats for obscure German assault guns :-)

So 490 Tiger IIs (not all of which saw action), 90 Elephants, 79 Jagdtigers and so on are each such a small percentage of the approximately 50K tanks, SPAT, and assault guns built by the Germans in WWII that they are not worth considerating either.

No gamer should field anything but Stug IIIs,Pz IIIS, IVs, or Panthers depending on time period.

I don't think anyone would deny that the vast majority of Valentines were 2pdr, but in particular units at particular times, better versions were concentrated. It isn't a huge surprise that 6pdr versions ended up as a higher proportion of of some late war front line units.

Overall production run comparison can be very misleading. Matilda I comprised less than 0.5% of total British tank production. Does that mean it is a historical to use them? Hard to do 1st Army Tank brigade without them.

Proportions of vehicles at a particular point in time are more useful, or historical OBs.

"Proportions of vehicles at a particular point in time are more useful, or historical OBs."

Exactly, Martin, more concisely put than I managed..The impact of various vehicles is dependant on time and place as much as quantity, and these markIX s were spread about in both aspects.
I read somewhere that there were never more than 500 panthers at any given moment on the entire Eastern front. which (if true) is a good little factoid, but the point being those 500 (or however many) were always where the critical action was.

So Christot, then the fact that approximately 20 percent of the 3rd Byelorussian Front's armor in June of 1944 was Valentine IXs makes them relevant.

Whereas their miniscule percentage of total Russian AFV strength is immaterial.

That fact makes them relevant on 1 front out of 4 during during the start of Operation Bagration.
No more, No less

Are you guys trying to have an argument over something?

Valentines in general do not seem to get the same kind of loving that Matilda and Churchill infantry tanks get. Then again, on paper 2 pdr Valentine does not seem to be much of an upgrade over Matilda II – and meanwhile Jerries have come up with a meaner array of anti-tank weapons to pit against it.

I've always felt the Valentine was most unsung (and under-rated) Allied tank…both as a frontline vehicle, and, perhaps just as importantly, a training and research platform

Sadly for the Valentine, it came along just as the Allies had developed more suitable general purpose tank (and the British, a much batter I tank in the Churchill).

It did comprise a huge chunk of British and Commonwealth AFV production though, and the Russians genuinely seemed to like them – as light tanks:)

Not really looking for an argument, just find a statement out of the blue stating that based on the total number of AFVs in service that a particular tank is 'insignificant' due to its small total numbers.

Just seemed a bit snarky in a topic on variants of the tank in Russian service. And inaccurate in simply viewing significance as measured by percentage of total vehicles in service for a particular period.

British certainly experimented a lot with the different Valentine variants and derivatives. Various turreted versions with 2 pounder, 6 pounder and 75 mm guns, minesweeper, bridge layer, Bishop (25 pounder) and Archer (17 pounder).

It is interesting to hear that also the Soviets experimented with up-gunning Valentine, since to my knowledge they did not usually bother too much on doing that with lend-lease or captured vehicles (exception being a number of PZ III chassis that were converted into 76.2 mm assault guns).

Grief the original Valentine wasn't really an upgrade on the Matilda II, its main selling point was being a lot easier and cheaper to build.

its main selling point was being a lot easier and cheaper to build

Good point, and one that is usually not very highly appreciated by gamers, who prefer focusing on battlefield performance rather than on logistics.

Of course, when it comes to buying models to field on the tabletop, we tend to care a lot about the cost and easy of assembly for ourselves.

My understanding is that the Valentine design actually pre-dated the Mathilda II, or was at least contemporary with it.

It was developed as a private undertaking, based on Vickers-Armstrong's experience with earlier cruiser tanks A9 and A10, and the A11 Infantry Tank Mk 1. The war office wasn't interested when it was submitted in February of 1938. The A12 project had already been given to the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich to design, even though the first A12 Mathilda II prototype was not submitted until April of 1938.

It was not until a year later (mid-1939) that the War Office took interest, and ordered some for delivery by mid-1940.

So even though it entered service as a follow-on to the Mathilda, it was actually a contemporary design, not a follow-on development.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

'Of course, when it comes to buying models to field on the tabletop, we tend to care a lot about the cost and easy of assembly for ourselves'
Hmmmmmm, how's this? Tank models that we buy, have a number of parts equivalent to they're rarity, and ease of 'real life' manufacture. You buy a PzIII, or IV? it has 6/10 parts to build, a 1/72 Sherman, three parts, a jadgtiger? 136, tiny parts! Then maybe our war game tables would reflect the action more accurately.

John

IIUC, within the spectrum of British designed/constructed tankss, the Valentine was highly regarded as a very mechanically reliable tank.

B

on March 25th, 1945 the 1st Gds. Mech.Cav.Group (2nd Ukrainian Front) had 22 T-34s, 41 Mk IXs, 63 SU-76s, and 20 M3 Stuarts.

I think I just found my Soviet tank force!

Are those T34/76s or /85s?