Let us turn to the Allies. The USSR was the only country, where "valentine" delivered by Lend-Lease program. We sent for the war 3782 tanka, or 46% all outstanding "valentine", including almost all of the machines, produced in Canada.
To the destination reached 3332 of them, 450 machines went down with transports, they are transported. Delivered us seven tanks modifications: 2-7, 9 and 10, and "Valentine" modifications Mk IX and Mk X continued to be requested by the Soviet side for the Lend-Lease until near the end of the war.
In the Red Army, "Valentine" received different assessments. Command rather appreciates the tanks because of tactical and technical characteristics, and in August 1942 year even sent a request to increase the supply of the USSR. Tankers had an opinion. «Vali-Thani», like the rest of the British equipment, It was difficult to use and often out of order. Especially in hand, who had no idea about proper maintenance of the British art.
Expected and logical "Valentine" were completely adapted to the climatic conditions of our country. It was too weak 40mm cannon, but still lacking to her OB-shells. This has resulted in attempts to install on Mk.III domestic 45-mm cannon, but in the end it turned out to be easier to set up production in 1942 year high-explosive shells.
"Valentine" war on the entire Soviet-German front, from Murmansk and ending Caucasus, where they are distilled by the Iranian channel Lend-Lease. Especially prized "Valentine" our cavalry. For agility and good (with a hammer and a file revision) passability.
Recently, the use of "Valentine" in the Red Army took place already in the Far East during the Soviet offensive in Manchuria.
Such is the brief history. What can be said, surveying the tank is not in terms of numbers, and touch hands?
Reviews "they" is not enough, due to the fact that, that half of the tanks 8 thousands have fought issued. British historians have noted the excellent reliability of the propulsion system and the tank as a whole, especially when compared with other British cars of the period.
I will not comment at all, perhaps, that in comparison with other "Valentine" was just beautiful.
That blamed the British?
surprisingly, but critics called ... cramped crew compartment, bad driver working conditions, twin tower and insufficiently powerful 40mm cannon, in addition to which there was no shrapnel shells.
About the gun and shells said above. I agree. As for the rest ... It's just a fat British besilis. They are T-34 climbed, here and criticize.
In fact, the tank is very comfortable and roomy. That is not a wild boar tank dimensions (I) placed there.
Probably, 75-mm gun took place with pleasure, but nonetheless, her appearance even on easy (if classified by weight) tank after 1943 year very justified. But there is a purely British things, which can applaud.
armor wall (not very impressive, but then again - there is!) between engine and fighting compartment substantially reduces losses in the carriage in a fire and retains motor-transmission group at explosion shells.
Observation devices are simple and effective.
Here it is - the best, what can expect a driver.
According to principle “I am not greedy, i thrifty”. I do not know, whether the British analogue, but the tank all literally strewn with boxes, boxes, hatches for storage stuff.
Fair? Brute force as is. clear, the stock - it is necessary, but one thing-sealing or an armored tank, Another thing - the usual cans.
Interesting, but how long life was in that the pump? Before the first battle, apparently…
On the whole, “Valentine” It gives the impression of a very good car. For light tank - the more.
