Jump to content


Valentine - Tier IV Light Tank

valentine

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
63 replies to this topic

anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #21 Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018
Just found out it doesn't have the correct engine(stats)


See this thread

GibMeister #22 Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16643 battles
  • 593
  • [TS_GG] TS_GG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012
I love my Valentine, I have never faced tier 7/8 so i don't think its classed as a scout, I think Tier 6 is the highest I have faced and with the 6 pounder you can still be useful in these matches. At its own tier its a great tank, although very slow....

I will be keeping mine, historically it was a good well loved tank and I have hardly seen any on the battlefield so far. I think its the equal (although diff) of the Hetzer, PZ38NA and T28 and better than the Lee.

Hammerhead20 #23 Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:13 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29922 battles
  • 2,212
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
It's a good tank in my opinion, only too slow as a light tank + in higher tier battles it's a bit painful to play...

pavus #24 Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8933 battles
  • 1,075
  • [ATAUD] ATAUD
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011
For me, the worst thing in this beautiful tank is the incredible low fire rate of the 6pdr and 75mm, and it cant mount rammer.

GibMeister #25 Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16643 battles
  • 593
  • [TS_GG] TS_GG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012

View Postpavus, on 07 November 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

For me, the worst thing in this beautiful tank is the incredible low fire rate of the 6pdr and 75mm, and it cant mount rammer.

I know how bad is that?! It sorely needs a rammer, how come the 6 pounder fires twice as quick in the Churchill?

Corvi #26 Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 44166 battles
  • 1,311
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010
Well the 6 pdr was quite a bit bigger than the 2 pdr, making loading not so easy and straight forward like in the churchill. Churchills turret is bigger and simply allowed faster and easier operation of the gun.

I tried out all guns on the Valentine now and i found the stock 2 pdr to be the best. Fires fast, has a pen thats more than enough for everything, decent damage output .. Its my little machinegun bunker :) I wouldnt advise to even research or use anything else on it, doesnt really makes sense since the 2 pdr has the highest dpm output and is more than enough for T4.

guusje2006 #27 Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 25428 battles
  • 220
  • Member since:
    05-12-2012

View PostCorvi, on 08 November 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Well the 6 pdr was quite a bit bigger than the 2 pdr, making loading not so easy and straight forward like in the churchill. Churchills turret is bigger and simply allowed faster and easier operation of the gun.

I tried out all guns on the Valentine now and i found the stock 2 pdr to be the best. Fires fast, has a pen thats more than enough for everything, decent damage output .. Its my little machinegun bunker :) I wouldnt advise to even research or use anything else on it, doesnt really makes sense since the 2 pdr has the highest dpm output and is more than enough for T4.

I am now using the heaviest 6 pounder gun on it and it is excellent. However, yesterday when I was still using the 2 pounder, I had a shoot out at point blank range (about 25 meter) with a KV-1 in Ruinberg. He was at 83% and probably thought he was going for an easy kill. So, he was facing my front while I was shooting at his side. Shot him time after time, every time expecting him to finish me off. I might have destroyed his gun since he fired about 1 shot at me and nothing after that. When he was at about 25% I hit something vital and saw him burn down to 0% in no time. So I agree, the 2 pounder gun is very good.

Aiming with this tank could be a bit faster though. My crew is at 82% and I have an aiming divice mounted but it still takes a long time to aim.

GibMeister #28 Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:13 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16643 battles
  • 593
  • [TS_GG] TS_GG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012
Yeh, I have just sold my Valentine to buy churchill1, so am back to stock 2 pounder lol. I like the valentine but it needs to be 10ks faster and the gun and aim needs to be a bit quicker then it would be awesome...yes probably OP, but the slow speed crawl is annoying.

The Churchill 1 at stock is definetly weaker than the fully upgraded Valentine, I got one shotted by a Grille last night in my first battle with it LOL

TrailApe #29 Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:19 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 59906 battles
  • 542
  • Member since:
    11-01-2011

Quote

but the slow speed crawl is annoying.

Yes, the infantry tanks  tend to take their time getting anywhere, but that's the way they were designed, they existed in the period when there were no APC's  - Infantry attacked using LPC's (Leather Personnel Carriers = Boots) and the supporting tanks didn't have to go any faster than a brisk walk.

Anyroads the Matilda, Valentine and Churchill are positively metoric compared to the Matilda BP, so suck it up and soldier on.

I like the gentle pace, gives you time to plan (and avoid deep water - the number of times I have drowned with the fast cruisers is quite embarrasing)

GibMeister #30 Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16643 battles
  • 593
  • [TS_GG] TS_GG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012

  • View PostTrailApe, on 13 November 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

    I like the gentle pace, gives you time to plan (and avoid deep water - the number of times I have drowned with the fast cruisers is quite embarrasing)
Yes, there are some advantages, you get to mop up all the damaged tanks and they are all scouted so should be no surprises. I think I should have gone up the Brit medium line though, the guys in cromwells seem to have a lot of fun!

anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #31 Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:17 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018
As I stated in another thread, the Russian version has a top speed of 32km/h.

Big question is WHY?

WHY did they give superior engines to the Russians?

Oh wait... bias

Edited by Costarring, 14 November 2012 - 12:18 PM.


_Knight_Commander_Pask_ #32 Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3773 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011

View PostCostarring, on 14 November 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

As I stated in another thread, the Russian version has a top speed of 32km/h.

Big question is WHY?

WHY did they give superior engines to the Russians?

Oh wait... bias

Actually, the LL Valentine has a less powerful engine, but the tech tree tank is heavier by about four tonnes.

Bobi_Kreeg #33 Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:55 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33988 battles
  • 1,553
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011
It was a good tank for me, very easy to grind with it.
But it's definitely not a keeper, it's too slow and noone is afraid of it when they are driving a KV-1S.  :Smile_Default:

mr3awsome #34 Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:28 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 17455 battles
  • 3,086
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
I preferred Tilly Senior even if she is slower

Zenon_z_lasu #35 Posted 26 November 2012 - 01:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 4060 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
It may not be a bad tank, but the match-making being what it is, it is hopeless in the game. Woefully underpowered, slow, with a popgun that;s no match for Tier V or VI tanks that it mostly gets paired against, it is a pain in the ass. Were it positioned against less powerful tanks, it could be fun to play, but 90% of the time I find myself at the bottom of the ladder, having to fight againts the likes of the KV-1S and the fast German meds. Mostly I get killed before I get anywhere.

suvicze #36 Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 19927 battles
  • 663
  • [CS-TB] CS-TB
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010
Well i choose valentine over matilda because of its 110pen gun. But now when i researched it I really dont  know if I should buy it :D Pretty funny I know..
The stock gun is pretty awesome in all stats except penetration.I can kill everyone in tier IV easily especially because of that rof only in case of hetzer,matilda and B1 i tend to use gold ammo.

Problem is that i am guite often in T5+ battles with those heavies and in this case that 6pdr should do better job even with such terrible rof but in T4 battle it will be quite a drawback with such low rate of fire..
Really cant decide which one.

Ubertoaster #37 Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16655 battles
  • 824
  • [TAHK] TAHK
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011
Good news everyone!
The Valentine and Matilda will get their historical armor next patch (which will probably make them very OP in their tier)

Frostilicus #38 Posted 02 December 2012 - 10:34 PM

    Colonel

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 23588 battles
  • 3,503
  • [-ZNO-] -ZNO-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostUbertoaster, on 02 December 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Good news everyone!
The Valentine and Matilda will get their historical armor next patch (which will probably make them very OP in their tier)

I thought it was the LL models that were getting the armour changes?

Hope not though, otherwise I shall be selling these too!

Zenith #39 Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 4457 battles
  • 3,237
  • Member since:
    07-05-2010

View PostUbertoaster, on 02 December 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Good news everyone!
The Valentine and Matilda will get their historical armor next patch (which will probably make them very OP in their tier)

Bite my shiny, metal... oh wait.  :Smile_veryhappy:

When WG say 'historical', what they actually mean is 'nerfed'. We've seen this so many times before, and they never fail to live up to expectations in this regard.

builder396 #40 Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10336 battles
  • 749
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
30mm side armor? this thing was supposed to be a cheaper matilda, and history will agree with me when i say it had 60mm side armor, maybe 50, but 30mm is just bias. the lend and lease version got its original armor, that plus a few other things where the same modules somehow are better in russian hands... only one explanation: BIAS. If you dont mind, allos take a look at the russian and british churchhill. at tier 5. 176mm frontal armor on russian side and 89mm on british? okay, technically different versions of the churchhill, still use the same engine, which has 24 more hp in russian hands, not to mention the fire chance. russias churchhill also has a higher top spped despite having the same engine except for magical horse power and diesel fuel (its still a gasoline engine and diesel is russias only reason for having less chance of engine fire) and being heavier. also the russian churchhill got way larger ammo capacity for the 6 pounder. I mean, come on! were not all stupid dammit!

plus the valentine is for all intents and purposes NOT A LIGHT TANK!!!

oh,and by the way, the british matilda also has 15mm less side armor than the russian one (55mm instead of 70mm) and a couple of other drawbacks. have fun!





Also tagged with valentine

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users