Jump to content


The british valentine tank


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

mr3awsome #41 Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:34 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 17455 battles
  • 3,086
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
Tier 4 will be owned by the Brits

wojtekimbier #42 Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:18 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 5145 battles
  • 147
  • Member since:
    12-19-2010
@Kazomir Are you crazy, or blind? Look: Hetzer has 60mm SLOPED armor with NO WEAKSPOTS. Valentine has 65mm UNSLOPED armor with MANY WEAKSPOTS. See any difference?

Kazomir #43 Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:45 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 16676 battles
  • 4,718
  • Member since:
    08-15-2010

View Postwojtekimbier, on 10 July 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

@Kazomir Are you crazy, or blind? Look: Hetzer has 60mm SLOPED armor with NO WEAKSPOTS. Valentine has 65mm UNSLOPED armor with MANY WEAKSPOTS. See any difference?

Hetzer's lower plate is less sloped and 40mm...

wojtekimbier #44 Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:36 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 5145 battles
  • 147
  • Member since:
    12-19-2010
@Kazomir no, its unsloped but still 60mm

Kazomir #45 Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:08 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 16676 battles
  • 4,718
  • Member since:
    08-15-2010

View Postwojtekimbier, on 10 July 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

@Kazomir no, its unsloped but still 60mm

Still, valentine has better side armor, better yet, 60mm is a great armor value for a tier 4 light (or was it medium) Grants it almolst invulnerability from tier 3 tank's guns.

And the 6 pounder on tier 4 will be a monster. Heck, the 6 pounder on my churchill eats tier 5 meds for breakfast, it might bounce on heavies, but if you reach their weakspot, they vanish aswell..

Edited by Kazomir, 11 July 2012 - 02:09 AM.


Conte_Vincero #46 Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:58 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10402 battles
  • 1,893
  • [BAOR] BAOR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011
Just a though, given the recent comments by SerB on the possibility of amphibious tanks, does anyone think that we will get the equipment for a valentine DD as a purchasable extra? From what I've heard it seems like it would work quite well

Catarraz #47 Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13332 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
I wonder how this tank will be balanced and how it will appear in the tree... The Valentine's 2pdr will probably be undergunned at tier 4,the 75mm will be decent, while the Crusader, which is placed one tier above in the tech tree only had a 6pdr installed... Surely a tier 4's top gun couldn't be a tier 5's as well.
Even the Matilda wasn't fitted with the Valentine's 75mm...

Listy #48 Posted 16 July 2012 - 02:54 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12133 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostUMM, on 16 July 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

I wonder how this tank will be balanced and how it will appear in the tree... The Valentine's 2pdr will probably be undergunned at tier 4,the 75mm will be decent, while the Crusader, which is placed one tier above in the tech tree only had a 6pdr installed... Surely a tier 4's top gun couldn't be a tier 5's as well.
Even the Matilda wasn't fitted with the Valentine's 75mm...

Maybe the totally misunderstood the term "Crusader 17Pdr tractor"?

Catarraz #49 Posted 16 July 2012 - 03:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13332 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostListy, on 16 July 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Maybe the totally misunderstood the term "Crusader 17Pdr tractor"?

I sense fantasy upgrade incoming...

Zevka #50 Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:28 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7759 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostUMM, on 16 July 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

I sense fantasy upgrade incoming...

Or they will screw British low tiers like they did to French ones. :/

tacitus72 #51 Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 65532 battles
  • 260
  • [R_A_C] R_A_C
  • Member since:
    01-05-2012
well the LL Valentine is screwed by the new MM :Smile_confused:

Conte_Vincero #52 Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10402 battles
  • 1,893
  • [BAOR] BAOR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View Posttacitus72, on 19 July 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

well the LL Valentine is screwed by the new MM :Smile_confused:
Really? I was under the impression that it would only fight T4

Listy #53 Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:14 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12133 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostConte_Vincero, on 19 July 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Really? I was under the impression that it would only fight T4

I saw it mentioned somewhere its opponents are likely to get bumped up a tier (like the B2's are as well). If that happens and I can get a Matilda IX, selling my Lend lease one is a VERY tempting idea.

How much are the LL ones again? Just wondering if I'll break even with them. Ya know 50% gold cost (Valentine sale) x 400 = Valentine tank sale price?

spichopat #54 Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:11 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15799 battles
  • 412
  • Member since:
    03-28-2012
Can anyone tell me why the duck does it have 4,86 reload speed (75%) on 75 damage gun? T46 has the same RoF on 100 dmg gun. Why?

Battledragon #55 Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 12362 battles
  • 650
  • Member since:
    05-04-2010
Very annoyed that wargaming are essentially stealing 20mm of side armour off the Valentine compared to what the historical values were.  That said I intend to keep mine, I expect that with 6pdr or 75mm it will be a very pleasant tank to use at tier 4, certainly more so than the standard matilda which only gets a 2pdr or a 3 inch tank howitzer.  Also in the future may be able to get a Valiant from the Valentine.

Edited by Battledragon, 01 November 2012 - 09:24 PM.


ConstantineGorov #56 Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:40 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17812 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011
I'd like to hear from Wargaming, whether the 30mm side armour is a typo/error, as it should be 50mm after being thinned down.

Or is it a gameplay-balance ahistoricality?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users