Canada!

plan_D · 09-21-2005, 11:46 AM

The Valentine tanks were built by Canadian Pacific in Montréal. They produced 1,420 vehicles of which all but 30 (which were retained for training) were delivered to the Soviet Union. Valentine marks VI, VII and VIIA were Canadian builds.

The Valentines built in Canada were to U.S production standards. The VI was little different from the British built models. Changes included the nose plates being cast instead of bolted and a Browning .30 cal replaced the Besa MG of the originals. The VII changed the radio set and had internal changes. The VIIA had jettisonable fuel tanks, studded tracks and protective cages over headlamps.

"The Russians admired the robust and simple automative design of the 1940 British Mk.III Valentine, but were merely polite about the tank's main armament, which fell well below Eastern Front requirements. Some tanks had their main armament replaced by 76.2mm (3in) guns in factories in the USSR. The narrow tracks were also reported to be a problem in winter, first clogging with snow, then freezing, and immobilizing the vehicle."

Quote from Russian Tanks of World War II - Stalin's Armored Might - Tim Bean and Will Flower.

Technical information provided by British and American Tanks of World War Two - Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis.

Dac · 09-21-2005, 12:42 PM

Some of the weapons produced in Canada wern't as good as the original. Canadian built Lancasters were heavier than British Lancs and performance suffered as a result. Canadian built naval radar wasn't as good as U.S. or British built radar also.

Nonskimmer · 09-21-2005, 01:28 PM

I don't think the weight difference was that significant between the Canadian and British built Lancasters. I've been looking for figures just out of curiosity. Canadian built Lancasters were also powered by Packard Merlins from the States, and this led to some performance issues earlier on. Not to dump on the Packard Merlins FJ, I've read through the thread on Packard vs. RR Merlins, but for whatever reason it effected performance to a degree over the RR powered Lancs. At least at first. Still a damn good plane though, and well built.

In our own defence, and you mentioned this yourself Dac, Canada started the war at practically square one. It was a dead rush to set up production as well as build up the forces, and expertise was gained through the hard experience of trial and error in some cases, with mistakes made along the way. I think we did a helluva job, all things considered.

Dac · 09-21-2005, 07:27 PM

By the end of the war they had most of the bugs worked out. It still amazes me when I think about where Canada was in 1939 and where we ended up in 1945.

Nonskimmer · 09-21-2005, 07:57 PM

Yes, from a tiny squadron of vessels to the third or fourth largest navy in the world (Sources vary. I'm still not entirely sure myself after all these years.), right back to a tiny squadron of ships. He giveth, and he taketh away.

Dac · 09-22-2005, 02:06 PM

With a big brother like the U.S. living next door I guess we get a little lazy about national security here in Canada.

Nonskimmer · 09-22-2005, 04:19 PM

Yeah just a little, and certainly national defence. I'll say it again, it's going to bite us hard in the ass one day. The way the world is these days, it may be sooner than we think too.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-23-2005, 05:45 AM

It is true like most nations Canada rose from the ashes of WW2 a very powerful nation compared to what it was in 1939.

schwarzpanzer · 09-25-2005, 01:25 PM

Cheers for that PlanD!

Quote:

Changes included the nose plates being cast instead of bolted

That's the main improvement - shot could send the nut/bolt pinging round the hull like a KE round on the UK versions.

Also, the joints were weaker.

Quote:

Some of the weapons produced in Canada wern't as good as the original.

Hey, don't do yorself Dac!

Quote:

Not to dump on the Packard Merlins FJ, I've read through the thread on Packard vs. RR Merlins, but for whatever reason it effected performance to a degree over the RR powered Lancs.

I suppose the way to sort that would be Spitfire IX vs Spit XVI performance figures?

Quote:

I think we did a helluva job, all things considered.

Damn right!

Quote:

Yes, from a tiny squadron of vessels to the third or fourth largest navy in the world (Sources vary. I'm still not entirely sure myself after all these years.), right back to a tiny squadron of ships.

Well at least when needs must.

You didn't have to help either, thats very heroic IMHO.

Quote:

I'll say it again, it's going to bite us hard in the ass one day.

Internal security's what matters now.

Nonskimmer · 09-25-2005, 02:18 PM

Didn't have to help? We weren't about to sit it out. Not only was Canada a firm part of the British Empire (as well as the Commonwealth), but the national attitude was extremely pro-Empire back then, with the exception of Québec. Even so, hundreds of young Québécois men volunteered to fight. Believe it or not though, it was actually debated in the Canadian parliament. We didn't actually declare war on Germany until one week to the day after Britain and France did. September 10th 1939.

One interesting thing that many Canadians don't really like to look back upon, and indeed many don't really know about, is the fact that in the days leading up to war the Canadian prime minister had refused Churchill's request to allow British fighter pilots to train in the safety of Canada. It was only later that the Commonwealth Air Training Plan was approved. If MacKenzie King (Canada's prime minister) had allowed British pilots to train here earlier, then perhaps - just perhaps - there wouldn't have been quite the mad rush for pilots at the early stages of the war. It was one of those "Oops!" kind of things. King could be a stubborn man.