Polish historians bid to dig up British Second World War tank

MontyB

MontyB

All-Blacks Supporter
50897dc068878_o-1024x685.jpg

Polish historians bid to dig up British Second World War tank

By Pavel E. on April 24, 2015 Tanks Wrecks
Military historians in Poland are struggling to salvage a rare British tank that has lain at the bottom of a Polish river since January 1945.
The Valentine Mk X tank is believed to have fallen through ice covering a tributary of the River Warta in western Poland as it rolled towards Berlin as part of the Soviet Red Army’s massive assault on German defences in the east.

Around 2,000 Valentines were delivered to the USSR as part of Western military aid to Moscow, of which there was only one survivor until the discovery of the tank in Poland.
“We’re having difficulties getting the machine out,” said Jacek Kopczynski, a collector of historic military vehicles. “Divers are using high-pressure water jets to try and free the tank, which is apparently in a very good condition.”
Reports that the Valentine has survived its watery sojourn with little decay has excited historians.
“If it’s true then it would be a world sensation,” commented Janusz Zbit, a military historian. “After three years of restoration it might be even able to drive it again, which would make it the only surviving Valentine Mk X to have seen combat.”
To help free the tank from its muddy embrace the salvage crew has called in an excavator, and are also contemplating calling on the fire brigade, if all else fails.
The Valentine saw heavy action the North African campaign, and although lacking the necessary firepower to give German tank crews serious cause for concern it developed a reputation as a well armoured and reliable tank.

508aad96626e2_gd.jpg

508aaed4b5640_o-1024x685-1024x685.jpg


50897dc068878_o-1024x685-1024x685.jpg

50897e95f377a_o-1024x685-1024x685.jpg


50897e4565257_o-1024x685-1024x685.jpg


http://worldshipwrecks.com/valentine-tank-from-ww2-discovered-warta-river/
 
I recall the Soviets (who were desperate for American aid particularly: trucks "6 wheelers" and food) were not so enthusiastic about the allied tanks they received. They could produce 10's of thousands annually on their own, that were come the winter 41 - spring 42, superior to allied tanks. I.e.: the mainly the T-34.
Perhaps the Tank having being found in Poland was from the early part of Barbarossa in summer of 41? Although I didn't know that they were receiving tanks this early either. I would be hard pressed to see the Red Army using Valentines in late 44 - 45 when they reoccupied Poland.
 
Last edited:
It is said to be a Mark 10 Valentine so there is no way it was around in 1941, the Russians used the Valentine from the Battle of Moscow until the Battle of Berlin although by the end of the war they were mainly in reserve units.

According to unit breakdowns there were at least 380-400 Mark IX Valentine tanks in Russian units in mid-1944.

Personally though it doesn't look like a Mk 10 to me it looks more like a late Mark 9 going by the engine compartment but that would put its manufacture date at around late 1942 to early 1943 but with the long 50 caliber (as opposed to the shorter 43 caliber) 6pdr gun it would most likely be early 1943 rather than late 1942.
 
Last edited:
Although not a particularly impressive tank, if viewed within the confines of when it was originally developed it was adequate for the times. When one considers it was being produced in the later stages of it's production era in tandem with the Sherman Firefly one has to wonder why they keep it going.
 
I think they manufactured it for many reasons but the primary ones would have been that:
1) It met a need at the time.
2) There is a bit of security in making your own weapons during war time and not being entirely reliant on another country.
3) Good or bad the vehicle is a test bed for the next one so without the information they gathered from all these designs they would never have produced the Centurion or Challenger designs which were successful.
 
I wouldn't want to be part of the poor crew inside one facing a Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger or any of the German tank destroyers. Of course this was true to a certain degree of most allied AFV.
 
The problem with most tanks used by Britain during WW2, they were seriously under gunned. The exception being the Sherman Firefly with its cracking 17 pounder gun.
 
BritinAfrica said:
The problem with most tanks used by Britain during WW2, they were seriously under gunned. The exception being the Sherman Firefly with its cracking 17 pounder gun.
Click to expand...

Yes Brit the firefly was one that could hit back with that big 17 pounder. The Allies had to wait to near wars end for a better tank with the heavy Pershing with its 90 mm gun.
 
It really surprises me how blinkered the British Military Procurement bods were and still are today.

Just one example, there are many others. During WW2 the British were issued the 3.7 and 4.7 anti aircraft guns, if I remember correctly the Soviets converted either a 3.7 or 4.7 (I cannot remember which) to a anti tank gun, it turned out to be an excellent tank destroyer.
 
BritinAfrica said:
It really surprises me how blinkered the British Military Procurement bods were and still are today.

Just one example, there are many others. During WW2 the British were issued the 3.7 and 4.7 anti aircraft guns, if I remember correctly the Soviets converted either a 3.7 or 4.7 (I cannot remember which) to a anti tank gun, it turned out to be an excellent tank destroyer.
Click to expand...

They did much better in the design of aircraft: Spitfire, Lancaster, Mosquito, Typhoon, etc..
 
JOC said:
They did much better in the design of aircraft: Spitfire, Lancaster, Mosquito, Typhoon, etc..
Click to expand...

To a point, the Lancaster only had 8 303 machine guns, while the Canadian built Lancaster had if I am correct 50 calibre machine guns in the mid upper turret, the first Spitfires and Hurricanes were only fitted with 8 303 machine guns, some Hurricanes were fitted with 12 303's, when both the Spitfire and Hurricane were fitted with cannons they became more effective knocking down enemy aircraft.

The fighter version of the Mosquito on the other hand was very well armed, being fitted with 4 303 machine guns and 4 cannon. A very good and versatile aeroplane.

The Typhoon or Tiffy as she was known to RAF crews was very well armed with 4 20mm cannon, but she had a serious defect which allowed exhaust fumes into the cockpit. The problem was never entirely solved.
 
Yes but Brit if you look at what some of these planes accomplished "going by memory here". The Lancaster carried the largest payload of any allied war plane in the European theater. The Typhoon doubled as a ground attack aircraft as needed. The Spitfire held there own in the BOB against greater numbers.
 
JOC said:
Yes but Brit if you look at what some of these planes accomplished "going by memory here". The Lancaster carried the largest payload of any allied war plane in the European theater. The Typhoon doubled as a ground attack aircraft as needed. The Spitfire held there own in the BOB against greater numbers.
Click to expand...

Correct, the Lancaster could carry a 22,000 bomb load, although take off was touch and go. A Lancaster pilot told me he would power the Merlins up to full power while holding her on the brakes, then finally releasing the brakes. He said he was never certain his aeroplane was going to get in the air.

While the Spitfire did a brilliant job during the BoB, it was the Hurricane that shot down 2/3rds of all enemy aircraft. South African Sailor Malan in his memoirs said he didn't want to shoot a bomber down, he wanted them to get back to base with dead and dying on board.

The Hawker Tempest which was an improved Typhoon turned out to be one of the best fighters of WW2 in RAF service. A variant was the Hawker Sea Fury.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
Correct, the Lancaster could carry a 22,000 bomb load, although take off was touch and go. A Lancaster pilot told me he would power the Merlins up to full power while holding her on the brakes, then finally releasing the brakes. He said he was never certain his aeroplane was going to get in the air.

While the Spitfire did a brilliant job during the BoB, it was the Hurricane that shot down 2/3rds of all enemy aircraft. South African Sailor Malan in his memoirs said he didn't want to shoot a bomber down, he wanted them to get back to base with dead and dying on board.

The Hawker Tempest which was an improved Typhoon turned out to be one of the best fighters of WW2 in RAF service. A variant was the Hawker Sea Fury.
Click to expand...

Hehe Squadron Leader Desmond Scott said of the Typhoon... "Should its temperamental engine stop in the air, he recalled, ‘you were faced with two alternatives – over the side, or the gliding angle of a seven-ton brick’; in a forced landing it was apt to somersault and crush the pilot or explode." He later became the youngest Group Captain in the RNZAF commanding a wing of Typhoons.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Didn't the Lancaster carry the largest bomb of them all during the war? The grand slam or something like that
Click to expand...

Yes she did, you are correct the 22,000 pounder was the Grand Slam or Earth Quake Bomb. It was nicknamed "The Ten Ton Tess." It was only dropped by Lancasters of 617 (Dambuster) Squadron.
 
BritinAfrica said:
It really surprises me how blinkered the British Military Procurement bods were and still are today.

Just one example, there are many others. During WW2 the British were issued the 3.7 and 4.7 anti aircraft guns, if I remember correctly the Soviets converted either a 3.7 or 4.7 (I cannot remember which) to a anti tank gun, it turned out to be an excellent tank destroyer.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere where one AA gun, when measured in metric, was an 88mm, but they refused to supply A-P rounds for it because it was an AA gun, not an A-T gun. Blinders indeed!
 
George said:
I read somewhere where one AA gun, when measured in metric, was an 88mm, but they refused to supply A-P rounds for it because it was an AA gun, not an A-T gun. Blinders indeed!
Click to expand...

That is typical of the British powers that be, they cannot think outside the box. If the Air Ministry had listened to Frank Whittle, the RAF could have fought the Bob with jets. Some so called experts called his jet engine "Unworkable."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top