Upcoming Chinese TDs?

[sahtila 95]

With those stats its worse than 268.

Worse armor, 160mm with those angles is autopen for most t10 tanks unlike 268's trolly armor. Profile is bigger both frontally and side as 268, another weakness. Mobility does not seem especially good to compensate. -3 gun depression bad for normal tanks, its lot more worse for TD with no turret and high profile. 268 has -5 and even that is limited its potential lot.

Good things: gun is located high on hull so probably small target if it manages to find spot where to hide hull (though good luck with -3 depression). Even better if that big mantlet is well armored.

Gun seems to have good stats, if it has also good shell speed it should be one of better TD guns.

[leggasiini 1,567]

1 hour ago, sahtila said:

With those stats its worse than 268.

Worse armor, 160mm with those angles is autopen for most t10 tanks unlike 268's trolly armor. Profile is bigger both frontally and side as 268, another weakness. Mobility does not seem especially good to compensate. -3 gun depression bad for normal tanks, its lot more worse for TD with no turret and high profile. 268 has -5 and even that is limited its potential lot.

Good things: gun is located high on hull so probably small target if it manages to find spot where to hide hull (though good luck with -3 depression). Even better if that big mantlet is well armored.

Gun seems to have good stats, if it has also good shell speed it should be one of better TD guns.

Eh, no. It has more DPM and should have much better shell velocity. Main reason why 268 sucks is horseshit velocity combined with no gun arc.

We dont know ammo type and gun arc, either, those are deciding factors imo. If it gets 704 gun arc and APCR it will be fucking awesome even with -3 depression, tho gold has so much pen that im almost certain it has HEAT, not APCR. 

And while 268's armor is better, its not really amazing either and the view ranger is weak as fuck (evem though its small weakspot).

[LostCosmonaut 88]

113 was real project, prototype was built but later destroyed in nuclear testing. Think it had a 130mm irk, will post more when not on phone.

[Zesshin 86]

Appearently someone did the calculations and with BIA, vents, food, and rammer the reload can be reduced to below 13 seconds. 

[leggasiini 1,567]

Where you did find that info?

I did hear also from somewhere that it had 130mm gun and it was built... but none of info i heard confirmed the existence. There is one blueprint pic, and that is only, and only thing that is confirmed to exist about 113.

[Zesshin 86]

2 minutes ago, leggasiini said:

Where you did find that info?

I did hear also from somewhere that it had 130mm gun and it was built... but none of info i heard confirmed the existence. There is one blueprint pic, and that is only, and only thing that is confirmed to exist about 113.

The official WoT Chinese WeChat account (Facebook equivalent) posted this less than 24 hours ago.

[leggasiini 1,567]

Just now, Zesshin said:

The official WoT Chinese WeChat account (Facebook equivalent) posted this less than 24 hours ago.

Sorry, didnt mean you, was talking for @LostCosmonaut . We just posted on very similar times with you just before me. I ahould have been more clear, tho.

So, will this legimately mean we will get Chinese TD branch soon? Last TD branch we got was UK 2nd line which is so horseshit line that no one cared for expect maybe Charioteer and Firefly (but thats med lol), so it should be rather interesting, especially when China actually can have a full TD branch, and judging from what ive seen, should be little less clones than other Chinese lines (low mid tiers are still from other countries but atleast are stuff that isnt either in game or has weird armament slapped on, stuff like stuart TD etc.)

[t___a 139]

The existence of the 113 is not seriously contested by Chinese tank historians, there even exists a picture of it's remains somewhere behind the great firewall.

[LostCosmonaut 88]

Here's a couple links that were posted on another forum I'm a member of; http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2082270787#27885055493l

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2086694352

I can't read Chinese (and google translate is terrible) but it appears to talk about the 113 a bit, and has the one blueprint picture.

 

Also, WZ-122 in game when

 

[t___a 139]

11 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

The WZ-132 never existed

It existed:

 

in multiple iterations:

 

[zapyoug 2,141]

I heard 113 TD and was like "ooh that sounds pretty looking"

OH DEAR GOD, ITS FUCKING HIDEOUS, KILL IT WITH FIRE 

[Unavailebow 107]

6 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

Here's a couple links that were posted on another forum I'm a member of; http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2082270787#27885055493l

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2086694352

I can't read Chinese (and google translate is terrible) but it appears to talk about the 113 a bit, and has the one blueprint picture.

Also, WZ-122 in game when

The 113 part:

大倾斜常规形状首上，横置发动机，大直径负重轮明显带有59的色彩。
而车体侧面设计则类似WZ111，火力计划也采用60式122坦克炮

Extremely angled UFP, horizontal engine placement, large road wheel similar to Type-59.
Side profile similar to WZ-111, Type-60 122mm (Licensed D-74 I guess) was planned. Oops.

Apart from these two sentences are tank advertisements and "reasons to develop", which basically is another kind of advertisement.

We (I mean H.K.ers) generally don't trust things from the mainland China, especially anything from the war time, until there are multiple evidences.

2 hours ago, zapyoug said:

I heard 113 TD and was like "ooh that sounds pretty looking"

OH DEAR GOD, ITS FUCKING HIDEOUS, KILL IT WITH FIRE 

After seeing this and Grille,

I suspect WG introduce tanks based on how far the gun can extend itself from the hull. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[leggasiini 1,567]

Am i only one who likes its design? 

Then again i also like design of Jap heavies, so my opinion is probably retarded...

[TheMostComfortableTanker 958]

42 minutes ago, leggasiini said:

Am i only one who likes its design? 

Then again i also like design of Jap heavies, so my opinion is probably retarded...

If they could make the gun and its mounting looj less retarded, I could see myself liking it.  It's a mix of what the gun/mount actually look like, their proportions, and where they're placed that makes it so ugly for me.

[Unavailebow 107]

4 hours ago, leggasiini said:

Am i only one who likes its design? 

Then again i also like design of Jap heavies, so my opinion is probably retarded...

I actually quite like the looks of the 113's hull, some streamline stuffs,

Nah to the casemate though, is a SU-152 casemate with an ISU-152 gun mount on it 

Don't worry I like looking at lorry and bus designs...

[Madner Kami 405]

16 hours ago, t___a said:

It existed:

 

in multiple iterations:

 

Sorry, but nope. The second picture in particular is very clearly an early WZ-131. Easily recognizable because it mounts the 76mm gun we get on the 59-16 and, surprise, surprise, the stock WZ-131. Another dead give-away and something that convinces me very much of this being an early WZ-131, is the simple fact, that the commander`s and gunner's cupolas haven't switched sides yet (see the range-finder on the left-side cupola, that is on the right side of the later WZ-131-variants and the Type 62 from the photographer's POV, as well as the machine-gun wandering in the opposite direction). The turret you see on that tank, is the top-turret of the 59-16. A potential WZ-132 would NEVER have mounted that turret, as a WZ-132 would have incorporated all the changes that the WZ-131 would already have went through. Another clear hint as this being a really early WZ-131, is the suspension. It does have the fifth road-wheel, but the first road-wheel doesn't extend forward (there's no noticibly larger gap between road-wheel 1 and 2, as compared to the following road-wheels), as it does on Type 62s and later WZ-131s, which, again, would be the case for a WZ-132.

As for picture 1, there are four things that do not fit the picture of an evolution of the WZ-131/Type62. 1) Where's the machine-gun? The turret could be at first glance, as can be proven by the cupolas, a late WZ-131 or Type 62 turret. But again, where's the machine-gun? Every later 131 had one and as such, every Type 62 had one. Why should 132 not have one, given WarGaming's description of the 132 being an evolution of the 131/Type 62? 2) Next thing is the, what I suppose it to be, infrared search-light next to the gun. 131 never had one. Type 62s never mounted one and WZ-131s and Type 62s were in service till at least 2005, in various variants and refits. You could argue that an (infrared?) search-light would be a feature of an evolution, but have a look ingame. Does the 132 feature a search-light? Surely WG would've added such a feature when HDing the 132 (though I have to admit, I'm not certain it's HD yet, can't remember and can't log in atm). Plus, this search-light, imo, disproves something I'll come to later in this post. 3) The turret. There's something off about it. it's hard to make out due to the dark picture, but the roof appears to slope downwards from the cupolas to the front/gun-mantlet. 131/Type 62 didn't have that feature and the ingame 132 just has an almost identical turret to the 131. Granted though, this could be a result of bad picture quality. 4) The suspension. Do you see how low the hull is? One could aruge that, with the 132s allegedly being destroyed during nuclear testing, this is nuke-damage and the machine-gun was removed before the testing (as is practise afaik, everything that can be re-used in regular tanks would be dismounted) but here's the point I raised earlier. If this were a nuked vehicle, they would have also removed the infrared search-light. They clearly didn`t. Which makes me believe, that this is no nuked or otherwise fired upon vehicle. Bottom-line, If this picture shows a 132, then WG did a really bad job at translating it into the game, as the 132 looks almost identical to the 131, unlike the tank shown in the picutre, which does feature clear similarities, but also features some rather peculiar details.

My guess is, that yes, the first picture shows indeed a prototype-vehicle possibly based off Type 62/WZ-131, but I am very convinced, that this is not a 132.

Actually, on second thought, this could be a Type 59 modifcation. The Type 59's suspension made the tank appear to be lower than Type 62s, which fits the point I raised earlier. But I'm not going to argue about that possibility, as the picture is just too much lackign in details.

[Unavailebow 107]

17 minutes ago, Madner Kami said:

(snip)

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/03/wz-132-photos/

Whether you like FTR or not, that's Daigensui after all.

[Madner Kami 405]

16 minutes ago, Unavailebow said:

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/03/wz-132-photos/

Whether you like FTR or not, that's Daigensui after all.

Sorry, just no. Think about it for a minute: WZ-131 and Type 62 are virtually identical tanks (to be precise WZ-131 is the designation used by Norinco and Type 62 and WZ-131 are one and the same) . WZ-131 was adopted into service as Type 62, meaning the tank was put into service in 1962, in whatever configuration-evolution the WZ-131 was in at the time. According to WG, WZ-132 is a project started in 1964 and based off WZ-131. Given the time, the 132 would have never ever fitted a 59-16-turret or that 76mm gun. And again, compare the WZ-132 model we have ingame with the pictures. It just does not fit, at all. Turret, suspension. Look at it. Also, the pictures used in the linked post, very clearly do not fit the very first picture you posted above. Like, at all.

What I am willing to argue though is, that WG`s claim of an evolution is flat out wrong. Assuming for a minute, that 131 and 132 are actually contemporary, competing designs for what the chinese army would adopt as the Type 62. Now that would fit with what we see on the pictures. But that also means, that everything about the WZ-132 we have in game, is wrong. Description and model and, to some degree, fittings.

[Unavailebow 107]

Just now, Madner Kami said:

Sorry, just no. Think about it for a minute: WZ-131 and Type 62 are virtually identical tanks (to be precise WZ-131 is the designation used by Norinco and Type 62 and WZ-131 are one and the same) . WZ-131 was adopted into service as Type 62, meaning the tank was put into service in 1962, in whatever configuration-evolution the WZ-131 was in at the time. According to WG, WZ-132 is a project started in 1964 and based off WZ-131. GIven the time, the 132 would have never ever fitted a 59-16-turret or a that 76mm gun. And again, compare the WZ-132 model we have ingame with the pictures. It just does not fit, at all. Turret, suspension. Look at it.

What I am willing to argue though is, that WG`s claim of an evolution is flat out wrong. Assuming for a minute, that 131 and 132 are actually contemporary, competing designs for what the chinese army would adopt as the Type 62. Now that would fit with what we see on the pictures. But that also means, that everything about the WZ-132 we have in game, is wrong. Description and model.

Clear things up.

You see the relation between WG and KongZhong is some kind of business partner.

KongZhong bought the license as well as providing Chinese tank info.

The info provided by KongZhong however are really questionable.

 

But it is not surprising that WG uses whatever given by KongZhong and directly make it to the table.

If anything about historical accuracy gone wrong, WG can smoothly pass the ball to KongZhong.

In fact it was not WG who claimed it because unlikely they have the first-hand materials.

[Madner Kami 405]

7 minutes ago, Unavailebow said:

Clear things up.

You see the relation between WG and KongZhong is some kind of business partner.

KongZhong bought the license as well as providing Chinese tank info.

The info provided by KongZhong however are really questionable.

 

But it is not surprising that WG uses whatever given by KongZhong and directly make it to the table.

If anything about historical accuracy gone wrong, WG can smoothly pass the ball to KongZhong.

In fact it was not WG who claimed it because unlikely they have the first-hand materials.

Come to think about it. The post you linked, the third picture. Let`s set aside for a moment whatever tank that actually is. Look at the turret. I think we both can agree, that this is very clearly a 59-16 turret. The "wrong"-sidedness of the turret with commander`s and gunner`s cupola being on the other sides, compared to 131 and 132, the back-boobs. It`s without a doubt a 59-16 turret. It fits an 85mm gun. Let me iterate that: The 59-16-turret mounts an 85mm gun.

It could be the 56-85JT we have ingame (first mounted on WZ-131 ingame). Do want. I mean, I love the autoloader to death and I earned three marks with that gun, but I definitly would refit the tank...

[GehakteMolen 2,063]

This russian website says:

http://warfiles.ru/show-53816-kitayskiy-legkiy-tank-tip-62-wz-132.html

Wz-132 = Type 62

And its old info, so not influence by later wot / wg inventions

[Unavailebow 107]

1 minute ago, Madner Kami said:

Come to think about it. The post you linked, the third picture. Let`s set aside for a moment whatever tank that actually is. Look at the turret. I think we both can agree, that this is very clearly a 59-16 turret. The "wrong"-sidedness of the turret with commander`s and gunner`s cupola being on the other sides, compared to 131 and 132, the back-boobs. It`s without a doubt a 59-16 turret. It fits an 85mm gun. Let me iterate that: The 59-16-turret mounts an 85mm gun.

It could be the 56-85JT we have ingame (first mounted on WZ-131 ingame). Do want. I mean, I love the autoloader to death and I earned three marks with that gun, but I definitly would refit the tank...

WG is already having problem with its vehicle destination,

12.8 Jagdpanther model gone as Jagdpanther II

FV221 Caernarvon is in-game as a Conqueror with stock turret, 20pdr

Some visual representations (not even getting into unmountable guns) are already out of historical accuracy.

 

I am not saying we must bang our heads into the nuts and bolts, they can live with that as long as it is a dead-end of information flow,

nobody is going to copy the lines onto wikipedia or as references (which sadly enough ppl do).

So... I just cannot use in-game model to relate their destination

[Madner Kami 405]

21 minutes ago, GehakteMolen said:

This russian website says:

http://warfiles.ru/show-53816-kitayskiy-legkiy-tank-tip-62-wz-132.html

Wz-132 = Type 62

And its old info, so not influence by later wot / wg inventions

Assuming for a minute, that something got lost in translation and what we know as Type 62, is actually a WZ-132 and a design-evolution of the 131 and that one step in terms of numbers got "lost" somewhere. If that were the case, then the pictures wouldn't show 132s. Again, suspension and turret just don't add up, as Type 62s have a very distinctly different suspension, as mentioned above (we could argue the turret away with "they had nothing else laying about and just used what they had"). This leads to either the 131 or the 132 model ingame being completely wrong.

[TheMostComfortableTanker 958]

I've not got the time right now for trying to remember Chinese tank history, but I may as well post a mockup model of the 59-16.  Whether or not the picture is a WZ-131 or WZ132, it's always fun to use it to point out WG has a smoothbore cannon in game.

[Madner Kami 405]

Come to think of it, I went to and checked via Tanks.gg. Wargaming actually named the turrets on the WZ-131 "132A" and 132B" and the 132A model has the boobs and the reversed cupolas. This made me go on... I went further down the tree and 'lo and behold, the turrets on the 59-16 are labelled as "131" and "131-1". Could this be the actual solution to the mystery? The "real" WZ-131 is actually what we know as 59-16, the pictures then could show an early prototype of the 132 and a later evolution of the 132, with a modified suspension, is what we know as Type 62? So all in all, the WZ-131 we have ingame, is complete bogus.

Can we agree on that version?