Talk:Valentine tank

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tank name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, Valentine Mk VIII-X did mount 6-pounder. Bukvoed (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role... heavy tank? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Engine power 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Riverbed Valentine 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's definitely Valentine. Bukvoed (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I asked at the ref desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Mystery_Tank 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)
thread_title:  New image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post WWII 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I assume both had 2-pounder guns and that the Val was better armoured. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  3D Model of Valentine Tank