Valentine Tank available in large numbers before Fall of France?

[pedmore1202]

Inspired by a post in Wiking's "Germans adopt the Pz IV as their MBT in 1938" topic, regarding the Valentine Tank, I was wondering what it would take for the War Office to accept the Valentine Tank during 1938 and place an order for tanks to be produced no later than the end of 1938.

As such, if it is accepted into service and begins production by January 1939, how many tanks could be produced by the time of the German attack on France (10 May 1940), and what effect could they have had on the Battle of France?

 

[NorthernFiend]

Inspired by a post in Wiking's "Germans adopt the Pz IV as their MBT in 1938" topic, regarding the Valentine Tank, I was wondering what it would take for the War Office to accept the Valentine Tank during 1938 and place an order for tanks to be produced no later than the end of 1938.

As such, if it is accepted into service and begins production by January 1939, how many tanks could be produced by the time of the German attack on France (10 May 1940), and what effect could they have had on the Battle of France?

If the BEF had more than about 30 Mathilda IIs fully worked up on the entire Western Front that might have made a big difference! According to Sebag Montefiore's Fight To the Last Man most of the Mathilda IIs that did get to France were half built and had to be hastily assembled on the battlefield. Main armament had to be zeroed in etc etc. Most were Mathilda Is, and even they made a substantial difference at Arras

In most of the 'tank battles' around the Dunkirk perimeter the BEF had to use Vickers Light Tanks and even Universal carriers as armoured units. Really makes you wonder what British tank procurement was doing during the Phoney War.

Valentine is essentially a more reliable, cheaper, easier to produce Mathilda II so not a substantial improvement, in France anyway (?)

Fight To the Last Man - great book BTW, gets across the almost apocalyptic desperation in France in 1940

 

[PMN1]

If the BEF had more than about 30 Mathilda IIs fully worked up on the entire Western Front that might have made a big difference! According to Sebag Montefiore's Fight To the Last Man most of the Mathilda IIs that did get to France were half built and had to be hastily assembled on the battlefield. Main armament had to be zeroed in etc etc. Most were Mathilda Is, and even they made a substantial difference at Arras

Peter Beale's 'Death by Design' says the same thing about most of the tanks with the BEF....also a good book btw.

 

[pedmore1202]

If the BEF had more than about 30 Mathilda IIs fully worked up on the entire Western Front that might have made a big difference! According to Sebag Montefiore's Fight To the Last Man most of the Mathilda IIs that did get to France were half built and had to be hastily assembled on the battlefield. Main armament had to be zeroed in etc etc. Most were Mathilda Is, and even they made a substantial difference at Arras

In most of the 'tank battles' around the Dunkirk perimeter the BEF had to use Vickers Light Tanks and even Universal carriers as armoured units. Really makes you wonder what British tank procurement was doing during the Phoney War.

Valentine is essentially a more reliable, cheaper, easier to produce Mathilda II so not a substantial improvement, in France anyway (?)

Fight To the Last Man - great book BTW, gets across the almost apocalyptic desperation in France in 1940

I wasn't really comparing the Matilda's to the Valentines, nor was I saying that the Valentines would replace the Matilda's (although that is possibly an option).

The Valentine was first given to the Government as an option on 10th February 1938. It wasn't accepted until mid-1939, with an order being placed towards the end of 1939 for delivery by May 1940.

What if, instead, the government accepted it either in addition to, or instead of, the Matilda II, in Early/Mid 1938, with an order being placed soon afterwards. How many could be built and deployed by May 1940 ready for the Battle of France, and what effect could they have had?

Based on the fact that they are cheaper, easier to build and more reliable than the Matilda's, we could see double, if not more, the number of Valentines than Matilda II's available during the Battle of France, which would have had a major effect on the overall battle

 

[PMN1]

Based on the fact that they are cheaper, easier to build and more reliable than the Matilda's, we could see double, if not more, the number of Valentines than Matilda II's available during the Battle of France, which would have had a major effect on the overall battle

Only if they have working guns or are complete which was not the case with a lot of the tanks with the BEF.

 

[Derek Pullem]

If the Valentines get sanction in '38 then I don't think the Matilda II would be produced.

Production of the Valentine was not particularly rapid - it may have been easier to build but it had fewer sites devoted to it. Now obviously without the Matilda II the manfacturing sites may be increased but not prior to the war.

Early Valentines had thinner armour than the Matilda and were not significantly faster due to an anaemic engine.

Maybe there are more 2 pdr tanks in France in 1940 but I wouldn't bet on it.

In terms of impact if any additional 2 pdr infantry tanks were in France, Matilda or Valentine it might have made a difference.

 

[pedmore1202]

*Bump*

Any one else want to weigh in on this?

 

[Sulemain]

I've seen it argued that the approach to the beaches were so narrow and confined, the Germans would have been slaughtered by British anti-tank guns.

Not to mention the fact the Germans were really lucky over-all.

 

[Riain]

Why the Valentine in particular? If the British have that much foresight then why not design a better tank than the Valentine?

 

[pedmore1202]

Because I'm not trying for a "what if Britain designs a better tank to be ready by 1939/1940", I'm seeing what people think about the Valentine being accepted and ready for service during the Battle of France

 

[Simon]

Early Valentines had thinner armour than the Matilda and were not significantly faster due to an anaemic engine.

Yeah, underpowered engines were pretty much the bane of British tanks until they started getting their hands on Rolls-Royce Meteors. It was to blame for just about everything from the initial decision to move away from 'universal' tanks to the infantry/cruiser split to the Matilda IIs being so slow right through to even the Churchills not being as good as they could have been. As has been discussed on several threads in the past if you can get the British tank designers a decently powered engine then practically everything is up for grabs.

 

[sitalkes]

Well a few extra infantry tanks isn't going to stop the Belgians from surrendering, so the British are going to have to retreat anyway. The Valentine can't really be compared to the Pz IV as its turret ring is still too small for the sort of upgrading that the Pz IV got - event to give the Valentine a 6 pdr gun had to be done at the cost of a crewman. Then you've still got the problems with British tank doctrine and guns that don't fire HE (and even the CS versions being mainly armed with smoke shells). The British held only a small part of the front compared to the French, they aren't going to stop France from falling. More infantry tanks means more to leave behind. The British are still going to use them unsupported and Germans can still stop them with artillery like they did at Arras.