This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
We really need a ref to this, if anyone is near the IWM (or Bovington?) archives. 3 pages long, and supposedly quite a funny read for just how bad it was. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the reputation this tank has for being a "terrible design" and a unbelievable folly, there must have been more wrong with it than that the driving position was difficult and the controls dangerous to operate (curious why and how that should be as well); there is no way that some problems with the controls would rate someone saying "I hope they have all day to find its flaws (because they'll need all day)" (to paraphrase). Simple ergonomic flaws with the controls could have been remedied with relative ease, so either there were a lot of things wrong with it that this article has just neglected to mention, or it wasn't a hopeless design, but they didn't bother to improve it because it was surplus to requirements at that time, and it has since picked up an undeserved reputation as an "utter failure" and completely flawed beyond redemption...which seems to be the idea most people have. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recently a lot of new information has been shared regarding the Valiant, from Ed Francis and the Tanks Encyclopedia team. Things like the Valiant not being based on the Valentine, but the Vickers Vanguard, which Fletcher completely missed in his early research. A lot of things have also been corrected, like some of the issues being overblown or completely made up. You can find Ed Francis's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-x829Hj7qs and the TE article here: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/A38-valiant.php and of course you can talk to them on their discords for further information. LeCharCanon11:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tanks-Encylopaedia has more detail on the issues with the design as tested but it was obviously still an ergonomic nightmare in that respect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They could provide sources for citation. Even if it was still an "obvious ergonomic nightmare" there are still things obviously outdated with the article that could be fixed. LeCharCanon12:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AsWikipedia:Verifiability says "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you don't feel like editing yourself, feel free to add the Tanks Encyclo link, and Armoured Archives youtube vid to the external links and someone will pick up on it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
