By: genfunk
First notes:
Hello everyone,
Back in 8.2, Wargaming surprised us (in a way) by adding Chinese tanks to WoT; fast forward 11 patches later (now 27, this was written at patch 9.1), I have had a lot of fun in them. However, one cannot help but notice the lack of completeness for the Chinese trees – no TDs nor artillery. One of the reasons the Chinese tree is hard to complete is due to the notorious lack of reliable data and information regarding these types of vehicles. However, that does not prevent us from speculating, or creating, a possible Chinese TD line. A previous discussion had occurred, but for this series both the previous discussion, and proposals by lujunlin001 on NA forums will be consolidated and worked upon.
Originality:
A common complaint (and cause of disinterest) for Chinese tanks are that they are straight copies of Russian tanks, and thus are not worth playing. To an extent, that is true – Chinese tank development took off in the 1950s with a lot of Soviet assistance, so it is not peculiar to see Soviet design influences in Chinese tanks. However, to keep things “interesting”, the TD line discussed here will not reflect, or be similar to the Soviet TD lines in World of Tanks. Out of the nine tiers, 7 vehicles will be unique while 2 will be modifications.
Historical Accuracy and Balance:
The mentioned 7 vehicles are all historical, but for many of them their mentioned specification in game cannot be verified. Due to the lack of reliable information, historical accuracy is hard to prove or verify on many of the tanks here. Many presumptions and ideas will be based on lujunlin001’s discussion. When possible, historical specifications are factored in to the design of the line. In the discussion of every tank per tier, I will include a relative percentage of how historical they are, and comment on the accuracy. Being a fairly seasoned player, I have also tried to balance the tanks à la Wargaming (via HP, gun traits, mobility etc.) to make them competitive in their respective tiers.
Other notes:
Names of some guns may feature “FT” at the end as it stands for anti-tank; in Chinese anti-tank guns are called “反坦克炮” (fantankepao). This is similar in style to the AT versions of the American guns; I am using this as a balancing factor.
Okay, let us begin!
Tier 2: Renault UE 37
Historical background:
In 1936, China (then Nationalist China, under the KMT) ordered 10 Renault UE chenilettes from France, armed with a 7.7 mm MAC machine gun. However, many were intercepted by the French Indochinese authorities en route, under Japanese pressure. By 1940 these original vehicles finally arrived in China. By then, Renault also received a new order from China for 200 more, but with modifications for an external mount for the 7.7 MAC. The modified vehicle is shown below.
By the end of 1940, the Nationalists had purportedly received 20 of these to replenish their losses from the Battle of South Guangxi. The vehicles were used successfully in combat.
Lunjunlin001, in his discussion, echoed the Chinese source used that the tank, post-modification, had the potential to fit a 20mm or 37mm anti-tank gun. Personally, I am not too convinced by the argument there, but there are definitely modifications that were made by others (ex. Germany) to test the mounting of a 37mm gun. The result was something that resembled this:
Assuming that the Chinese made such modifications to their Renault UEs and mounted a 37mm anti-tank gun, where would the Chinese get a 37mm anti-tank gun? Actually, during the war the Chinese were manufacturing 37mm anti-tank guns!
In 1934, the Nationalists ordered twenty 3.7cm Pak-35/36 anti-tank guns from Germany, and in 1936 they ordered another additional one hundred twenty. These anti-tank guns were highly effective against the invading Japanese armor. However, due to their limited numbers, the Chinese were never able to put them to effective usage. In 1938 the Nationalists went into further negotiations with Germany to order five hundred more Pak 35/36 guns; however Germany only managed to deliver one hundred. Thus, in May of 1938 the Nationalist government ordered copies of the Pak 35/36 to be made. They managed to obtain the material and blueprints necessary for production, and production commenced in 1940. In 1941, the first successful Chinese Pak 35/36 copy was tested. The gun met the original requirements, and the Nationalists subsequently renamed the copy “Year 30 37mm anti-tank gun” in 1942. The gun represented the best equipment the Chinese made at the time. Note: Year 30 refers to the 30th year of the Republic of China Calendar, which is 1941.
In game potential:
This would make a very decent tier 2 TD. Almost everything is identical to the Renault UE 57 at tier 3, minus the gun. Therefore I would assume the mobility and armor would be the exact same as the tier 3 counterpart and I will not discuss them here. HP could be balanced at ~120.
Firepower is unfortunately not very strong for the tier. The firepower would be similar, if not the same as a stock PzJg I with the 37mm gun. However, this can be balanced by insane camo and a very good RoF. Historical gun stats mention the Chinese 37mm anti-tank gun has a muzzle velocity as 825 m/s, highest range of 6000 m and can penetrate 40 mm in less than 400 m distance. I would assume this to be similar to the gun on the PzJg I. So the gun stats in game might be like this: (Note: this is where I will make the most of balancing factors)
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| II | 37mm Year 30 FT | 96 | 40/40/45 HP | 42/74/18 mm | 29 r/m | 0.39 m | 1.7 s |
I would imagine this TD to be the new “rat,” hiding in bushes to use its camo and RoF and gun down enemies. It would be a real glass cannon. Interesting to play, but will still be at the mercy of the ultimate T18 seal clubber (at the time of writing the T18 was not an artillery and was still a TD)
Historical Accuracy: 60%
The vehicle, albeit in a different form, existed and was used in China. The 37mm gun is perfectly historical. The in-game modification however cannot be verified. Considering historical context, the modification could have existed. Therefore, I would give this “tank destroyer” a 60% historical accuracy. This is also an unique vehicle, in its own way.
Sources:
http://www.stwaracademy.com/thread-34624-1-1.html (Original discussion on Chinese forums of the vehicle; 1st picture from here)
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/Renault_UE.php (English site with history and specifications of the Renault UE; 2nd picture from here.)
http://military.china.com/history4/62/20140604/18541226_1.html (Chinese site describing the history of the 37mm Chinese anti-tank gun development.)
http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Renault_UE_57 (For those interested in the characteristics of the Renault UE 57 at tier 3, I didn’t bother to mention them here since they would be the exact same)
WoT Wiki for balancing tank specifications.
Tier 3: M3A3 Stuart
Historical background:
After the lengthy civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists, the Communists prevailed in mainland China and forced the Nationalists to retreat to Taiwan. The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) of the Communists got hold of some of the U.S equipment the Nationalists were using, including these M3A3 tanks. In 1949, along with the formation of the PRC, thirty-six of these M3A3 Stuart tanks were put into service. Due to their aging nature, lack of serviceable parts and repairs, they were retired by the end of 1950.
Lujunlin001 mentioned that during the 1950s, some of these retired vehicles were modified by the Chinese to mount the 57mm gun from the T-34 (in this case the Chinese copy of the ZiS-4) and subsequently used as TDs. Later on, the Chinese stopped maintaining these makeshift TDs and subsequently dismounted the gun for further uses, while restoring it back to the original configuration and sent to museums, or dismantled and sent to the smelters. This configuration was also mentioned in the previous discussion, saying the SerB himself had mentioned it along with pictures and such. Unfortunately, I was unable to find proof of such material.
In game potential:
This is a fairly strong tier 3 TD. It would be the lowest tiered TD with a turret, and has decent mobility to accompany it. Firepower is on par with most tier 3 TDs; many of them are equipped with a 57mm gun option. Armor would be very similar to the M3 Stuarts in game. HP could be balanced at ~150.
Below is a suggestion of how it can be configured in game:
Armor: reported in same fashion as WoT
|
Front (mm) |
Sides (mm) |
Rear (mm) |
|
| Hull |
25 |
25 |
25 |
| Turret |
38 |
32 |
32 |
Gun shield/mantlet is 51 mm thick.
Armoring is a tad bit worse than the light tanks, but that’s okay.
Mobility:
|
Tier |
Name |
Power |
|
III |
Guiberson T-1020-4 | 245 hp |
|
III |
Continental W-670 | 262 hp |
Mobility will be a key strength of this tank, coupling with the turret. I left out the top engine configuration from the M3 Stuart, because IMO that would just make the TD op. With the top engine listed here, and the tank weighing at ~15 tons, the hp/ton ratio will be a very decent 17.47. Should be able to reach the top speed of ~50 km/h easily.
Guns:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/APCR/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| II | 37mm Year 30 FT | 103 | 40/40/45 HP | 42/74/18 mm | 30 r/m | 0.39 m | 1.7 s |
| IV | 47 mm Gun Type 1 | 73 | 70/70/90 HP | 81/131/25 mm | 24 r/m | 0.42 m | 2.3 s |
| V | 57 mm 55-57FG | 66 | 85/85/95 HP | 112/189/29 mm | 19 r/m | 0.39 m | 2.5 s |
Firepower is fairly good for a tier 3 TD. Of course, it lacks the 76mm that many of its counterparts can use, but this tank has a turret! (Plus the turret cannot mount a 76mm) The 37mm is carried over from tier 2 to use as a stock gun, with some relevant buffs made to RoF. The intermediate gun will be the Chinese Chi-Ha’s top gun (continuing the tradition of the Chinese tanks sharing modules) as it is suited for intermediate grinding purposes (with relevant buffs compared to the Chi-Ha), plus it fits the philosophy of the Chinese using post-WWII material to modify their tanks and gain firepower; normal M3 Stuart firepower is weaker than the 47mm. Finally, the top gun is the same gun shared by the Type T-34, albeit with relevant nerfs to RoF, accuracy and aim time. Despite that, its firepower is still nothing to shrug at.
I would imagine this TD to be similar to the tier 4 M8A1 American TD. Both have excellent mobility and similar firepower when armed with the 57mm, although obviously this one is a tier lower, having slower mobility and less HP. Still, it would be a very flexible and dangerous foe on the field.
Historical Accuracy: 65%
Again, the vehicle, albeit in a different form, existed and was used in China. The 57mm gun is perfectly historical, but used on a different tank. The in-game modification however cannot be verified; although SerB did mention it at one point, and given Wargaming’s access to info that loans credibility. Considering historical context, the modification could have existed. Therefore, I would give this “tank destroyer” a 65% historical accuracy. Again, this is also an unique vehicle, in its own way.
Sources:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2009-08/04/content_11822858.htm (Original article from Chinese government news site; picture from here)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3stuart.html (English site for researching M3 Stuart specifications.)
WoT Wiki for balancing tank specifications.
Tier 4: LVT(A)-4 mod.
Historical background:
Along with other equipment, the PLA got hold of amphibious LVT(A)-4 tanks after the war. It was on this basis that the PLA established their amphibious armored warfare troops in November of 1949. The LVT’s proved useful for the PLA until the 1960’s, when the Chinese finally developed the Type 63 amphibious tank.
The above picture shows an unmodified LVT(A)-4 captured by the PLA, currently at the Beijing Tank Museum. As you can see, it’s originally armed with the open-topped M8 turret, fitted with the 76 mm M3 howitzer.
For many other LVT’s, the Chinese decided to upgrade the firepower for an anti-tank role. This involved removing the turret, and fitting the LVT’s with the 57mm ZiS-2 with a simple gun shield. The picture below shows these modified LVT’s.
Also, in some military exercise in 1957, the Chinese were also shown to have equipped the 76mm ZiS-3 on the LVT’s in a similar fashion. The caption below supposedly describes that, but I can’t read it.
In game potential:
This is a very interesting tier 4 TD. It would have below average firepower for its tier, and unfortunately it would also be a HUGE TD, measuring 7.95m long, 3.25m wide and 3.10m high. Armoring is not very good, perhaps even worse than the previous tiers. Mobility is sufficient, but not stellar. It would feature a huge crew (probably around 6 members). I will mention the HP at the end as I mention balancing factors.
Below is a suggestion of how it can be configured in game:
Armor: reported in the same fashion as in WoT
|
Front (mm) |
Sides (mm) |
Rear (mm) |
|
| Hull |
13 |
6 |
6 |
| Turret 1 (M8) |
38 |
25 |
25 |
| Turret 2 (57/76 mod) |
10 |
0 |
0 |
Gun shield/mantlet is 38 mm thick for Turret 1.
Yeah, what is armor? There is virtually none on the top configuration.
Mobility:
|
Tier |
Name |
Power |
|
III |
Continental W-670 | 262 hp |
|
IV |
Continental R-975-C1 | 350 hp |
Mobility will be quite decent. I finally added the top engine from the Stuart to buff this tank’s mobility. The second engine listed is actually the historical engine used on the LVT(A)-4. With the top engine listed here, and the tank weighing at ~18 tons, the hp/ton ratio will be a solid 19.44. That means it should be able to reach the top speed of ~40 km/h in a fair manner; unfortunately the low top speed does not help with the size of the tank.
Guns:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/APCR/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| III | 75 mm Howitzer M3 | 100 | 175/110 HP | 38/91 mm
(HE/HEAT) |
18 r/m | 0.51 m | 2.3 s |
| V | 57 mm 55-57FG | 150 | 85/85/95 HP | 112/189/29 mm | 29 r/m | 0.34 m | 1.7 s |
| V | 76 mm 54-76T | 100 | 115/115/165 HP | 85/106/38 mm | 17.65 r/m | 0.36 m | 2.3 s |
Firepower is rather mediocre for a tier 4 TD. The stock M3 howitzer reflects the real historical loadout of the tank, with some relevant buffs made to RoF. The 57 mm is carried over from tier 3; technically it is the ZiS-4 mounted here, but the statistics are very close to the ZiS-2. RoF, accuracy and aim time are all buffed to make it the most competitive gun on the LVT. The final gun is the Chinese copy of the ZiS-3, the 54-76T that is shared on the tier 6 59-16 light tank; again this continues the module sharing tradition. The statistics on the 76mm are serviceable, but rather weak. All in all, the firepower is not top-notch, missing the 85 or 105 mm guns that others in the tier equip but overall it is usable. The LVT would look like this artist impression below:
Funnily, I would associate this “beast” to the TOG II. Both suffer from a similar in-game syndrome – huge profile, little armor, and a rather weak gun compared to other contemporaries. In this case, this can be balanced by strong gun stats, and of course high HP; I would think this TD should have ~400 HP. Otherwise, this tank is very unique for its tier. Obviously, the amphibious nature of the tank will have to be negated in game.
Historical Accuracy: 95%
This vehicle is the most historically accurate vehicle in this tree. Every single variant listed here existed in Chinese service, with sufficient evidence to back it up. Some of the other traits, such as mobility and armor may not be exactly historical, but should be rather close. Therefore, I would give this tank a 95% accuracy rating. This is an excellent tier 4 candidate for the Chinese TD branch.
Sources:
http://www.stwaracademy.com/thread-34669-1-1.html (Original discussion on Chinese forums of the vehicle; 1st, 2nd and 3rd picture from here.)
http://ww2db.com/vehicle_spec.php?q=301 (English site with specifications on the LVT)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/lvta4.html (English site with specifications on the LVT)
WoT Wiki for balancing tank specifications.
Tier 5: Type 63
Historical background:
In the late 1950s, the Chinese (if unclear still, from now on by Chinese I mean the PRC and the PLA) finally got hold of Soviet PT-76 amphibious tanks. On that basis, the Chinese developed the improved Type 63, with the first prototype being made in 1959. After revisions and more testing mass production was approved in 1963, and the Army started to equip it in the mid-1960s with the Marines following suit. The tank was designed to engage in patrol, reconnaissance and amphibious warfare roles while also supporting infantry in engaging lightly armored targets (note: we are talking about lightly armored targets in 1960s terms.)
In game potential:
Although technically an amphibious light tank, this tank would be a powerful tier 5 TD. It would have very strong firepower in its tier, arming a rifled 85mm gun – in fact the same 85mm on the Type 62 and the second 85mm on the WZ-131. The hull armor is almost non-existent, but the turret is the same as the Type 62, featuring the legendary T-54-clone-shaped turret. Mobility is extremely good. The HP should be ~350 HP, close to the standard across tier V.
Below is a suggestion of how it can be configured in game:
Armor: reported in same fashion as in WoT
|
Front (mm) |
Sides (mm) |
Rear (mm) |
|
| Hull |
11 |
14 |
10 |
| Turret |
45 |
35 |
20 |
Gun shield/mantlet is 11mm.
Hull armor = lol. Turret is semi-armored, but considering the shape and angles, occasional bounces may happen.
Mobility:
|
Tier |
Name |
Power |
|
V |
Type 102 |
400 hp |
|
V |
12150L-3 |
430 hp |
Mobility will be excellent. The first engine is historically used on the Type 63 (the original 12150L). With the top engine listed here, and the tank weighing at ~19 tons, the hp/ton ratio will be a very strong 22.6. It can reach its top speed of 64 km/h easily. One will notice that these engines are shared on the 59-16.
Guns:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/APCR/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| V | 57 mm 55-57FG | 90 | 85/85/95 HP | 112/189/29 mm | 26 r/m | 0.34 m | 1.7 s |
| V | 76 mm 54-76T | 80 | 115/115/165 HP | 85/106/38 mm | 17.65 r/m | 0.36 m | 2.1 s |
| VI | 85 mm 56-85JT | 47 | 160/160/280 HP | 128/172/43 mm | 12 r/m | 0.38 m | 2.3 s |
| VII | 85 mm 62-85T | 47 | 180/180/300 HP | 145/250/43 mm (AP/HEAT/HE) |
8 r/m | 0.38 m | 2.5 s |
Firepower may seem rather anemic in the beginning. The 57mm and 76mm are carried over, with the 57mm getting nerfed RoF (my reasoning is that it’s a smaller tank) and almost identical stats, while the 76mm only improves on aim time by a bit. Firepower is quickly upgraded to the 56-85JT, the gun shared on the Type 58 and stock gun of the WZ-131, with respectable RoF, accuracy, aim time and okay gun penetration values for the tier. The top gun is the very powerful 62-85T that packs very good in-class gun penetration (even a 250mm HEAT shell!) and alpha, but the historically accurate rate of fire and longer aim time balance it out. This gives the Type 63 a very strong firepower, but it must be careful to not abuse it.
I can kind of associate this TD to the American T49. Sporting a turret and strong mobility, both tanks can use these strong points to their advantage. However, the Type 63 has significantly lower RoF, and thus DPM compared to the T49. All in all, it is definitely a strong tier 5 TD candidate.
Historical Accuracy: 90%
This vehicle is also highly accurate, history-wise. The tank obviously existed in Chinese service, and the historical configuration is reflected in the module choices above. Mobility and armor values are accurate. There is good evidence out there to support this. Only the 57mm, 76mm and first 85mm variants are unproved, and probably never existed; I only put them here for game purposes. Therefore, I would give this tank a 90% accuracy rating. Another excellent, this time tier 5 candidate for the Chinese TD branch.
Sources:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_63.htm (English site with description of the Type 63 history and specifications)
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/Type63.html (English site with more detailed specifications on the Type 63.)
Tier 6 and 7: 63-AA-1 and 63-AA-2
Historical background:
After the Korean War, the PLA found that it was necessary to develop their own SPG and SPAA platforms for combat. The “Type 63 Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun” was the first Chinese produced SPAA. The design was actually based off a Soviet proposal back in 1946, but the Soviets were able to develop the ZSU-57-2 shortly after and therefore had no more need for this design. In the years of Sino-Soviet friendship (mid-1950s to 1960) the Chinese had wanted to order ZSU-57-2’s from the Soviets, but due to their low production the Soviets were unwilling and instead sold these old plans to the Chinese.
Unfortunately, by the time it was produced it was already obsolete; the gun required manual aiming and was largely unable to combat jet aircraft. Thus, the Chinese produced very limited numbers of these “tanks” and most were used to assist North Vietnam in the Vietnam War. In 1972 the Americans captured a Type 63 AA numbered 045; the picture above is the captured tank at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
The PLA was unpleased with the results, and various modifications were put forward. Lujunlin001 mentioned in his discussion that some factory in 1964 wanted to modify it to hold the “Type 59” 57mm AA or 100mm AA gun. These solutions couldn’t solve the accuracy problem (of hitting an enemy aircraft) and were eventually scrapped.
In game potential (63-AA-1; tier 6):
The 63-AA-1 in game would obviously not be an anti-aircraft gun, but transformed into a turreted-TD role. Being built on the Type 58 chassis (aka T-34/85) the TD would feature decent mobility with okay hull armoring; the turret continues the trend of being thin… Firepower will be okay, as the top configuration will mount a 100mm, the same one as on the T-34-1, except it will be the FT version (for in game balance reasons; from here on, guns are no longer shared with other branches). HP should be ~600.
Below is a suggestion of how it can be configured in game:
Armor: reported in the same fashion as in WoT
|
Front (mm) |
Sides (mm) |
Rear (mm) |
|
| Hull |
45 |
45 |
40 |
| Turret 1 (37/57/85) |
15 |
15 |
15 |
| Turret 2 (100) |
15 |
15 |
15 |
Gun shield/mantlet for both are 15mm.
Hull armor is okay, basically a medium’s armor that won’t bounce much. The turret has virtually no armor.
Mobility:
|
Tier |
Name |
Power |
| VI | V-2-34 | 500 hp |
| VII | Type 102S1 | 500 hp |
| VIII | 12150L | 520 hp |
Mobility is okay. All engines are shared on the Type 58 medium. With the top engine listed here, and the tank weighing at ~37 tons (this is a guess), the hp/ton ratio will only be 14.1. It may take a bit to reach its top speed of 50 km/h.
Guns:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/APCR/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| V | 37 mm 63-37FK | 350 | 30/30/40 HP | 63/101/23 mm | 40 r/m | 0.45 m | 1.7 s |
| VI | 57 mm 59-57FK | 250 | 85/85/95 HP | 112/189/29 mm | 26 r/m | 0.45 m | 1.7 s |
| VII | 85 mm 62-85T | 60 | 180/180/300 HP | 145/250/43 mm (AP/HEAT/HE) |
9.5 r/m | 0.38 m | 2.3 s |
| VII | 100 mm 44-100FT | 36 | 250/250/330 HP | 175/235/50 mm | 6.45 r/m | 0.42 m | 2.9 s |
The first two guns are here for historical reasons to reflect the nature of the AA vehicle, and have no anti-tank role at this tier; the 37mm gun in reality is a copy of the Soviet M1939 (61-K). I found that AA guns have a much higher rate of fire, too high for in game purposes. The 37mm gun was also reported to have similar characteristics as the 40mm Bofors, so I took note of that. I borrowed the 57mm gun traits from the earlier 55-57FG gun. Realistically, the TD firepower begins with the 85mm 62-85T carried from the Type 63, with relevant buffed stats. The final upgrade would be the 100mm 44-100FT, a gun similar to the T-34-1’s top gun and the IS-2’s stock gun. The 100mm offers firepower on par with most TDs at this tier, with decent DPM, alpha and pen for the tier. The 63-AA-1 will be an interesting TD at tier 6.
Ingame potential (63-AA-2; tier 7):
The tier 7 will be an extremely similar vehicle, probably minus the intermediate and stock engine of the tier 6 and a different turret to mount the large caliber guns. Firepower will continue to be increased, mounting the Type 59’s 100 mm (including an autoloader) and ending with the 100mm that is similar in characteristics to the 110. An intermediate 122mm gun will also be presented as an option. Armor will not improve significantly (if not at all) and mobility worsens due to the decreasing hp/ton ratio. HP should be ~850.
Guns:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/APCR/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| VII | 100 mm 44-100FT | 36 | 250/250/330 HP | 175/235/50 mm | 7.00 r/m | 0.42 m | 2.6 s |
| VIII | 100 mm 59-100FT | 36 | 250/250/330 HP | 181/241/30 mm | 7.00 r/m | 0.39 m | 2.6 s |
| VIII | 100 mm 59-100FT Gai |
36 | 250/250/330 HP | 181/241/30 mm | 4 in clip 30s reload3s inter-round |
0.39 m | 2.6 s |
| VIII | 122 mm 37-122FT | 20 | 390/390/465 HP | 175/250/61 mm (AP/HEAT/HE) | 4.30 r/m | 0.48 m | 3.4 s |
The firepower on the 63-AA-2 is very interesting. It starts off by carrying over the 44-100FT which was used on the previous tier, with relevant buffed stats. Firepower is upgraded with the 59-100FT (pretty much the Type 59’s gun, in this case also representing the Type 59 AA gun) which is marked by its increased penetration and accuracy values. An intermediate 122 mm is also offered with a great boost to damage, but sacrificing penetration values, rate of fire, aim time and accuracy; this gun is very similar to the T-34-2’s top 122mm. Most interestingly however is the offer of a 100 mm autoloader! The autoloader is called the 59-100T Gai, which more or less accurately represents the Type 59 AA gun (Gai here means modified) because the AA gun had an autoloader clip. It shares the same gun characteristics as the 59-100FT. This would mean the 63-AA-2 can offer insane burst damage at the tier, around 1000 HP burst per clip! This is the primary, distinguishing aspect of this “TD” against all the other tier 7 TDs. I would think this might be an interesting addition to WoT.
According to lujunlin001 this is the Type 59 AA gun. As you can see it does contain a 4 round clip mechanism.
This is my impression of what the second turret would look like on the 63-AA-1 (and by association the turret on the 63-AA-2).
Historical Accuracy: 60%
This vehicle did exist in history, and was in Chinese service. However, it only mounted a 37 mm AA gun, and was used for AA so it is not accurate to call it a TD. The plans for the 100 mm AA guns are rumored but not confirmed (I sourced from lujunlin001). The vast majority of 100 mm anti-tank guns here were never mounted on the tank, and certainly not the 122 mm. Mobility and armor are fairly accurate, based on in-game Type 58 stats. All in all, I would give this tank a 60% accuracy rating. A pair of interesting candidates for tier 6 and 7 of this Chinese TD line!
Sources:
http://wiki.kongjun.com/doc-view-1335.html (Chinese site about history of the Type 63 AA tank)
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/type-63-aaa.htm (English sites with basic stats and the diagrams of the tank)
Lujunlin001’s thread on NA forums for information and picture of 100 mm Type 59 AA gun
Tanknumbers and WoT Wiki for ingame balancing purposes.
Tier 8: Type 80
Historical background:
Fast forward to the 1980s, the Chinese still, apparently, did not get a hand on Soviet ZSU-57-2’s for domestic use, especially since the Sino-Soviet split from 1960 onward had deteriorated their mutual relationship. However, the Chinese were able to launch development of their own ZSU-57-2’s when they were approached by Iraq in the early 1980s for copies to be exported. The Chinese were able to reverse-engineer the system and build an analogue – the Type 80. The Type 80 continued in limited production for export, but was never used in PLA service; perhaps by then the PLA had developed more advanced and modern anti-aircraft systems.
The Type 80 was built on the chassis of the Type 69-II, itself an improvement of the Type 59 (I believe in the way that the T-62 was an improvement over the T-54, more of the technology and modules, less of the armoring). It mounted the twin-barrel 57 mm Type 59 AA gun on an open-topped turret. There was no modern fire control in place, and it could only be used in clear skies. The Iraqis used them to limited effect during the Iran-Iraq war and the First Gulf War.
Ingame potential:
Again, although technically this tank is a self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon, it provides an excellent basis for an in-game transformation into a TD. For in-game purposes the hull will be based on the Type 59, so armoring is now existent. However, the open-topped turret has very limited armoring in turn. Mobility should be good, sharing similar engines with the 110 (and in turn the WZ-120). HP should be ~1100.
Below is a suggestion of how it can be configured in game:
Armor: reported in the same fashion as in WoT:
|
Front (mm) |
Sides (mm) |
Rear (mm) |
|
| Hull |
100 |
80 |
45 |
| Turret |
14 |
14 |
14 |
Gun mantlet is 15mm.
Hull has decent armoring, sharing the same layout and values as a Type 59, it can bounce quite a bit of lower tier fire or poor shots. However, the Type 80 shares the same flaw with most of the Chinese TDs so far – terrible turret armor. (Note: I used ZSU-57-2 values for the turret since both vehicles are virtually the same, and I couldn’t find values for the Type 80.)
Mobility:
|
Tier |
Name |
Power |
| VIII | 12150L | 520 hp |
| IX | 12150LS | 580 hp |
Mobility is decent. Historically the Type 80 mounted the 12150L, but it makes sense here to mount the 12150LS for a boost; both these engines are shared on the WZ-120 (Type 59) and also the 110. My estimate is that the tank will weigh into ~36 tons, so the power to weight ratio would be a solid 16.1. Acceleration would be okay enough to reach its top speed of 55 km/h.
Guns:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/APCR/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| VI | 57 mm 59-57FK | 300 | 85/85/95 HP | 112/189/29 mm | 30 r/m | 0.45 m | 1.7 s |
| VIII | 122 mm 37-122FT | 40 | 390/390/465 HP | 175/250/61 mm (AP/HEAT/HE) | 6.0 r/m | 0.48 m | 3.4 s |
| VIII | 100 mm 59-100FT Gai |
56 | 250/250/330 HP | 181/241/30 mm | 4 in clip 30s reload2s inter-round |
0.39 m | 2.3 s |
| IX | 100 mm 62-100FT | 56 | 320/320/420 HP | 215/265/50 mm | 7.5 r/m | 0.38 m | 2.5 s |
| IX | 100 mm 62-100FT Gai | 56 | 320/320/420 HP | 215/265/50 mm | 4 in clip 30s reload3s inter-round |
0.38 m | 2.5 s |
| X | 122 mm 60-122FT | 40 | 440/440/530 HP | 249/340/68 mm
(AP/HEAT/HE) |
5.5 r/m | 0.38 m | 2.9 s |
The choice of firepower on the Type 80 is definitely a strength, and I would say there are around two viable final upgrades for this TD. The first line would be based on the 100 mm “Gai” autoloaders, the second would be based on upgrades to the 122 mm gun. The stock 57 mm is a reminder that this tank was an anti-aircraft vehicle (just like the two TDs before) and has no practical use at this tier. One of the first guns mountable would be the 37-122FT, a 122 mm that has inadequate gun handling and penetration characteristics for the tier. Fear not, as there is an immediate alternative available – the 100 mm autoloader, 59-100FT Gai carries over from the 63-AA-2. Although most of the gun stats are pretty poor for a tier 8 TD, the autoloader can still unleash quite a bit of firepower. The intermediate gun is the 100 mm 62-100FT, a gun that has similar characteristics to the 110’s top gun (and also the top 100 mm on the WZ-120.) This gun has a great improvement over the previous 100 mm in damage and penetration values, but is still fairly weak for a TD. After this comes the two paths I mentioned earlier; one path would be to upgrade the 62-100FT to the Gai autoloader version, which would transform the consistent DPM into higher burst damage and a more unique playstyle. Another would be a more time-consuming path to get the 122 mm 60-122FT. The 60-122FT would have the highest damage out of all the other choices, with increased penetration but a slightly longer aim time. With this gun, the Type 80 would finally have decent firepower for a tier 8 TD.
The “turret” reminds me of the T110E4 for some reason… Anyways with the 100 mm Gai autoloader I would associate this TD to be something like the AMX-50-100, able to do a good amount of burst damage. With the 122 mm gun it would be a much faster T28 Prot. but with much less armor.
Historical Accuracy: 50%
This vehicle did exist in history. However, it was just anti-aircraft and mounted a 57 mm gun. The upgrades listed here are purely fictional and adapted for use in game by myself. Mobility and armor wise though the tank is rather accurate. All in all, I would give this tank a 60% accuracy rating. A different choice for a tier 8 TD.
Sources:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3492.html (English site on history and some stats of the Type 80)
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/type-80-aaa.htm (English site with a bit more detailed stats of the Type 80)
http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum_pic/china/Type_80_anti-aircraft_fl_001.jpg (First picture from here)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/13150208@N05/14028499359/ (Second picture, very recent so HD quality I did wish it was a frontal shot though but this is cool)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-57-2#Armour_protection (Used for turret armor values)
Tanknumbers and WoT Wiki for ingame balancing purposes.
Tier 9 and 10: PTZ-89-1 and PTZ-89-2
Historical background:
From 1960 onwards, especially after the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese recognized the critical importance of developing their own tank programme. In 1967 the Chinese attempted to launch an ambitious project to develop a second generation MBT, involving development of a 120 mm smoothbore anti-tank gun. However, due to insufficient military technology and capabilities, the program failed and was temporary put aside. In 1969, the Sino-Soviet border conflict finally raised the urgency to the Chinese military about the gap in armored warfare between itself and other rivals. This led to another ambitious program that started in the 1970’s, with focus on developing anti-tank weaponry. A 120 mm high pressure smoothbore gun was one of the targets. As the Soviets put the T-72 into service, the Chinese also aimed to develop weaponry to counter them. The Chinese had tried to borrow technology from West Germany (in this case for the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44) but were rejected. Thus, the Chinese were more than ever determined to independently develop their anti-tank weaponry.
Even before the development of the gun, in 1977 the Chinese had commenced development on a chassis that would mount the 120 mm gun, a chassis that would evolve into what we call a tank destroyer. Between 1978 and 1979, rapid development of the 120 mm gun occurred, with the gun finally being developed and tested in the end of 1979. However, the tank destroyer programme folded for some odd reason, and the 120 mm gun production and fate was threatened. One factory, trying to salvage the program, decided to secretly mount the gun on the Type 321 chassis (a common Chinese chassis at the time for its 152 mm artillery etc.) and test it. Surprisingly, the prototype was successful in trials. This was the first prototype of the Type 89, or PTZ-89 tank destroyer, as pictured below (probably early 1980s).
Development continued to refine the prototype. By 1986 the PLA had ordered the tank to be put into production, and production began in 1987. By 1989 limited amounts of Type 89s were put into service. The project was successful, and became China’s first tank destroyer. However, realistically by the time it entered service (early 1990s) the Cold War had ended. A new generation of lighter, smarter and more mobile warfare was evolving, rendering the tank destroyer’s original role more and more obsolete. A total of around 230 vehicles were produced, with production ending in 1995. The Type 89 still remains in service today, although in a limited fire-support role.
Well, finally this is a real Chinese tank destroyer! One might ask if the tank is too modern for the game, and indeed it is – at least Wargaming retains a strict no-smoothbore gun policy in determining candidates. But lujunlin001 mentioned in his thread an interesting modification/prototype; this prototype involved mounting the 130 mm Type 59 rifled gun, the one reminiscent to the one on the WZ-111 1-4 ingame. Unfortunately I cannot find the picture he linked (now broken) or any other specific proof. Considering the designing of the prototype and to a certain extent the history around it, the Chinese may have also tested earlier anti-tank guns on the chassis, aka the guns that we have access to in game. This allows for two plausible candidates, “prototypes” of the Type 89 that may or may not have existed. I will call them the PTZ-89-1 and the PTZ-89-2.
Ingame potential (PTZ-89-1; tier 9):
The first “prototype”, the PTZ-89-1 will be the tier 9 of this Chinese TD line. Overall, mobility should be good, the historical engine was the same old 520 hp 12150L, but in this case it can be upgraded to the top engines of the Chinese line, probably sharing the engines of the WZ-120. Armoring is a bit better than on the earlier tiers, especially the turret; however it will still stay relatively thin. HP should be ~1550.
Below is a suggestion of how it can be configured ingame:
Armor: reported in the same fashion as in WoT:
|
Front (mm) |
Sides (mm) |
Rear (mm) |
|
| Hull |
50 |
40 |
25 |
| Turret |
50 |
50 |
50 |
Gun mantlet is 50mm.
Armor is actually a mystery for this tank. A source states that is
Mobility:
|
Tier |
Name |
Power |
| VIII | 12150L | 520 hp |
| IX | 12150LS | 580 hp |
| X | 12150LT | 600 hp |
Mobility is great. The top engine, same as the WZ-120’s, has a meaty 600 hp. My estimate is that the tank will weigh into ~32 tons (in real life it was reported to be 31 tons, but we got different guns here), so the power to weight ratio would be an excellent 18.75. Acceleration would be stellar to reach its top speed of 55 km/h.
Guns:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/HEAT/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| X | 122 mm 60-122FT | 40 | 440/440/530 HP | 249/340/68 mm | 6.5 r/m | 0.38 m | 2.9 s |
| X | 130 mm 59-130FT | 30 | 490/490/640 HP | 244/340/65 mm | 6.0 r/m | 0.38 m | 2.9 s |
| X | 122 mm 60-122FTG | 40 | 440/440/530 HP | 258/340/68 mm | 7.0 r/m | 0.35 m | 2.5 s |
The firepower featured on this tank is pretty good. The stock gun is the 122 mm 60-122FT carried over from the Type 80, featuring decent damage and penetration, serviceable but quite weak in comparison to the firepower of other tier 9 TDs. The 122 mm 60-122FTG is a direct upgrade, featuring increased penetration, better rate of fire, accuracy and aim time. This gun, similar to the gun on the 121, has an excellent rate of fire that nearly rivals the British Tortoise’s 120 mm. The alternative 130 mm 59-130FT is also a serviceable gun, with better damage but worse rate of fire, accuracy and aim time; notably the penetration is very low for a tier 9 TD, the gun is similar to the WZ-111 1-4’s top gun. Interesting to note is that the 120 mm in real life had a rate of fire of 10 rounds/minute, and the gun elevation range was -8 to +18 – this tank does not suffer from the infamous Chinese tank gun syndrome! I would think the gun elevation values should be retained. I did away with the autoloaders (the tank did use a semi-automatic loader) because I think the burst damage impact at these high tiers is getting… out of control; instead I opted for a consistent, high RoF.
Overall, this is pretty much a bigger, faster Waffenträger auf Pz. IV with smaller guns but would have a similar impact ingame, a premier source of support fire in a TD. Obviously the camouflage won’t be as OP haha. It looks like the FV215b too, rear mounted turret and all… A fine (I am starting to run out of adjectives lol, poor vocabulary) TD for tier 9.
Ingame potential (PTZ-89-2; tier 10):
The second “prototype”, the PTZ-89-2 will be the last and final TD, the tier 10 of this Chinese TD line. Mobility continues to be upgraded to share the same engine as the 113, and firepower is upgraded to an ultimate 130 mm gun. Armoring stays the same. HP should be ~1900.
Mobility:
|
Tier |
Name |
Power |
| X | V-2-54SC | 750 hp |
Mobility is incredible. 750 hp pushing ~32 tons would mean a whopping power to weight ratio of 23.44. Acceleration would be above stellar to reach its top speed of 55 km/h.
Gun:
|
Tier |
Name |
Ammo |
Damage |
Penetration (AP/HEAT/HE) |
Rate of Fire |
Accuracy |
Aim Time |
| X | 130 mm 59-130FT | 40 | 550/550/750 HP | 290/380/75 mm | 6.0 r/m | 0.35 m | 2.5 s |
Well, the ultimate antitank gun of this Chinese TD line is here. Very solid damage, penetration, rate of fire and good accuracy & aim time make this TD pretty lethal. DPM is a whopping 3300 HP! The tier 10 PTZ-89-2 is very close to the infamous Waffenträger auf E-100 now the Grille 15except it has much less armor (but more at the turret hahaha) and lacks the burst damage. I modelled it more after the Object 263. A reasonable and well-thought (at least I think) choice for a tier 10 TD!
Above picture is a diagram of the Type 89. Below is a picture of the Type 89 firing.
This vehicle definitely existed in history, and was in Chinese service. The vehicle may be deemed too new for WoT, but with lujunlin001’s sourced discussion, possible prototypes may have mounted a 130 mm gun. Mounted 122 mm guns are unverified. Armor is unknown, so it is unverified and probably inaccurate. Mobility is fairly accurate, save the tier 10’s engine. All in all, I would give this tank a 50% accuracy rating. A pair of interesting candidates for tier 9 & 10 of this Chinese TD line!
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/type_89_tank_destroyer.htm (English site with brief history and good stats on Type 89, second picture from here)
http://bbs.news.163.com/bbs/mil/65983895.html (Chinese site with long discussion on Type 89, including history etc. First picture from here)
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2389.html (English site with long discussion on Type 89 and also stats.)
http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10044/upfile/201202/20120216213201.jpg (Diagram from here)
http://en.valka.cz/attachments/2009/TYPE89_stihac_01.jpg (Cool firing picture from here)
Lujunlin001’s thread on the NA forums for information on the 130 mm Type 59 gun prototype.
Tanknumbers and WoT Wiki for ingame balancing purposes.
Final Words:
From this Chinese TD line, we can see an unique composition of tanks, patched together to form an interesting branch. A trend we can observe is that the first 3 tiers (II,III,IV) are tanks of foreign origin, subsequently modified by the Chinese into an anti-tank role; this commonality is shared with the early tiers of the current Chinese line. Tier IV and V are both amphibious tanks, while transitioning into tier V and on, the tanks are Chinese-built. Tiers VI through VIII are all anti-aircraft vehicles, adapted into this line for use as tank destroyers. Finally, tier IX and X represent real Chinese tank destroyers. This line is certainly unique in its own way; no other line ingame really reflects this composition (gamestyle maybe) and this unique factor I think is a great bonus to the Chinese tree. With this Chinese TD line, there is no more “lol wow Soviet copies all over”.
Unfortunately, if the line is to come, I highly doubt my composition here will be the one in the game. The vehicles below have a “confirmed” history, but they are not unique. They are blueprints made in Chinese factories and still in archives, out of my reach and even difficult for Wargaming to get a hold of. But these tanks have a better chance of getting in…
Sourced from lujunlin001’s post.
To conclude, I truly enjoyed writing this article. I learned a lot about Chinese tank history and development, and I had a fun time trying to juggle around and balance the tanks for ingame purposes. I mainly thank lujunlin001 for sparking my interest; my article was built and extended on his discussion and his research was valuable for me. Thank you TAP for providing a platform to share this story and also the lovely historical content that is posted there; I have gained great knowledge about tanks from there. I am no tank historian or WG employee, so I apologize in advance for any errors in terminology, balancing factors etc. It would be nice to see feedback in the comments. Last but not least, I hope everyone gets to enjoy my similar experience of learning and having fun from reading this article. Thank you!
