list of inaccuracy of Chinese ground vehicles

[CaID 8,996]

like most important was looking forward to see the Chinese ground forces to be added. but at the same time I was very disappointed to see how innacurate the Chinese ground forces (and air force) was.

 

but let's be constructive. it's still a good start. let's try to help Gaijin to make it better by listing everything that is wrong.

 

I invite the whole community to participate to make the tree accurate to the history.

 

T-26 model 1939 (totally wrong variant)

  Reveal hidden contents

this particular model never used by China. the ones used was the model 1935 (with and without rear mg) and model 1937 who had the p-40 AA month over the turret.

 

M3a3 Stuart (no smoke luncher)

  Reveal hidden contents

the M3a3 used in china didn't had the smoke launcher (left side of the turret)

 

 

 

M24 Chaffe (not having smoke luncher)

  Reveal hidden contents

the Taiwanese m24 Chaffee had no Smoke luncher. the one the M24 had was been obsolet and removed before they was given to ROC.

 

 

M8 HMC (wrong variant of tank)

  Reveal hidden contents

China had early version of the M8 scott (howitzer motor carriage) who can easily be identified by the absence of large mudguard who provide a bit of side-skirt protection. in overall, it should be about the same as the American version in term of performance.

 

SU-76M (wrong shells)

  Reveal hidden contents

Wrong shells load. the one actual in-game is a copy of the russian shells.

 

the Chinese SU-76M used locally produced shells since 1954, Type 54 76mm Trailing Blunt Armor for anti tank usage (copy of BR350B / MD8) and the type 54 76 mm kill blasting grenade for anti-personal usage (HE)

 

t-34-76 (never into chinese service)

  Reveal hidden contents

while China do have some in museum, they was probably never used by the Chinese Army. they are likely to be ex-korean tanks sent in China for repairing during the Korean War (North Korea probably still have some in reserve)

 

 

Type 69 (incorect engine deck model)

  Reveal hidden contents

here is a photo of the Type 69 as it is in game seem to be closely accurate in most part. only it was on the Engine deck the mistake are present.

the chinese Type 69, while been based on the Russian T-54/55 but they have a few difference coming from the local production part. the Tye 69 have a locally built version of the engine and so, the air filter cap was distinctively different.

 

amounst of all the mistake with the 3 model here, this one is rather minor details. execially since it do not make the tank any worse in the gameplay and the rest is pretty much accurate and very representative to the real tank. but hey, let's not forget a thing.

 

 

M18 hellcat (taiwan had modified them)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

the gun had a modification to fit a M1919 7.62mm over the gun to act as Coaxial.

 

M36 jackson (missing roof)

  Reveal hidden contents

Missing armored roof. the one used in China was later model from post Korean-war. they had a armored roof to cover the open top. (making it less vulnerable to the machine-gun of the planes)

 

 

Type 63-I (incorect track system model)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

to show this mistake, i need to show the ingame model and the picture. if you look well, the Type 63-I in game have a fairly large gap between the track and the hull. while the real one have about half that gap distance. in addition, the first road whell (the one that do not touch the ground in the front) is having the wrong possition. the one of the real Type 63-I is much higher placed. so high, it almost touch the hull. while the one in the game is having the game have the top almost at the same level of any other road wheel.

 

and where is that mistake from? from a the PT-76 of cource. the PT-76A was tested in china and was supposed to enter into service and locally produced under the name of Type 60. but it was finally counsidered too bad. so they went through a few upgrade before puting it into production. review the hull, review the turret. and not so much reviewing the track but since the hull was modififed, they had to adapt the track to make it fit with the new disposition of the hull. that is why the track is different from the PT-76.

but the one modelled on the Type 63-I ingame is exactly the one used on the PT-76. wich is a obvious result of loosy work.

 

here is a picture of a PT-76 wich clearly have the same arrangement of the track system from Type 63-I ingame

 

 

ZBD-86 (wrong name, wrong ammo load, no BMP-1P modification)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

the Chinese version of the BMP-1 was not having the BMP-1P up-grade.

the chinese used the HJ-73 missile (copy of the  Soviet 9M14 "Malyutka" )

It is powered by the Type 6V150 diesel engine which is a copy of the Soviet UTD-20

the 7.62mm have a provision of 2000 bullets.

 

Type 65 SPAAG (not actual name and never used in china)

  Reveal hidden contents

while i admit i didn't went throught the ingame model to see if i can spot any mistake to correct, the Type 65 SPAAG have serial other mistake.

first, less important, the name is likely incorrect.

the first time the name was given to this tank was by a american writer who identified it as Type 63 SPAAG. later other writer identified it as the Type 65 SPAAG but none of those name was the official name for this tank given by who used it.

 

This tank as show bellow is a war throphy captured in vietnam and broung to USA during the vietnam war. it seem this tank was the only one like this. no clear evidence show there was any other like this. the tank was likely to be a sort of field modification done by the north vietnamese army to fit a static AA gun mounth on the T-34 chassis. the turret was simple enough and not really rafined wich indicate a costom job done by any welder crew and could be done on the sport with a few hours of work, or might be a few days.

 

so the MAJOR inaccuracy about the Type 65 is the tank wasn't chinese at all. it was Vienamese. Yes it was chinese gun but those gun was russian copy of the 61-K. i feel since the tank was Vietnamese and used in vietnam only. the same tank is already a rare premium in the russian tree wich i believe it have as much right to be in the russian tree than Chinese. outside of the Type 65 twin 37mm gun, there is no real reason that this tank shall be in the chinese tree and in the reserve.

 

other vietnamese similar tank was built at the same time including the same turret desing with a 57mm gun and other based on the SU-76 chassis with lighter armament (37mm gun and 23mm twin cannon)

 

in remplacement to the Type 65 in the chinese tree is two possible tank that could fit in rank 3 who was actually chinese. so there is no need to keep the Type 65 SPAAG

  Reveal hidden contents

Type 63 APC SPAAG

this tank was presented in the list of the initial release tree with the mention "SOON" on it. but the matter of fact,  this tank may be too good for the rank 2 and btter for rank 3. twin 23mm on a light armored chassis, nothing particularly good only the auto-cannon are much more competent to shut down plane than the Type 65 SPAAG, thanks to the faster rate of fire.

 

301 SPAAG

 

this tank was supposed to be a light SPAAG to cover the airspace around the region where the terrain didn't allowed the Type 83 SPAAG to be used. like the Type 83 was based on the Type 59, the 301 SPAAG was based on the Type 62 light tank. like the Light tank was built to be used in the wet land of souther china and the montagnous area of the western china, the 301 SPAAG was supposed to be used there as well since the Type 83 was having dificulty to be deployed there. it was having the Twin Type 65 37mm gun and a lightly armoured turret who was not better than the Type 65 SPAAG but a little better profile. in fact this one shall be more mobile but also less protected a bit. so the BR should be about the same as the Type 65 SPAAG. a few different turret was built but they are about the same specification.

 

those two could easily replace the Type 65 SPAAG

 

 

more to come.

 

WIP

Edited February 12, 2020 by CaID

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

Are you sure the M8 Greyhound wasn't supplied to the ROC in the late 40's or early 50's? The US MAP was in full swing giving out M8 Greyhounds at the time, and I can't find anything saying that the Chinese were provided with them during WW2. The two displays in Taiwan also have the .50 cal pintle mount. The picture is a plaque on the M8 Greyhound, and states they received it in the 39th year. Now I know that what is known as the Type 64 light tank is named after the 64th year in the Republic of China. There is no way that ROC could have received the M8 before its own production, so that means its referring to the ROC calendar which is based on the founding of the ROC in 1912. If 1912 is the 1st year, 39th year would be 1950.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Miki_Hoshii

[CaID 8,996]

  On 14/09/2019 at 17:07, Miki_Hoshii said:

Are you sure the M8 Greyhound wasn't supplied to the ROC in the late 40's or early 50's? The US MAP was in full swing giving out M8 Greyhounds at the time, and I can't find anything saying that the Chinese were provided with them during WW2. The two displays in Taiwan also have the .50 cal pintle mount. The picture is a plaque on the M8 Greyhound, and states they received it in the 39th year. Now I know that what is known as the Type 64 light tank is named after the 64th year in the Republic of China. There is no way that ROC could have received the M8 before its own production, so that means its referring to the ROC calendar which is based on the founding of the ROC in 1912. If 1912 is the 1st year, 39th year would be 1950.

 

 

 

 

 

Expand  

fair enough. they could also have the M1919 7.62mm but still, i give it to you.

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

The M3A3 Stuart has British smoke grenade launchers on the side of the turret, it shouldn't have them.

 

 

The M24 Chaffee incorrectly has smoke grenade launchers. These were removed in the late 40's by the US due to obsolescence, thus when the ROC received the M24's in 1954, and 1966 respectively they wouldnt have smoke launchers. The launchers were likely just capped over, theres no indication of replacing the area with additional antennas like the JGSDF.

 

 The M10 Wolverine most likely never had the 76mm gun in ROC service. In 1948, 34 M10's in various states of disrepair with non-functioning guns were purchased. These were modified to have a hull mounted M1919 .30 cal machine gun, and a enclosed turret with the Type 91 10cm 105mm howitzer. I've heard rumors of a 2nd batch of M10's with original guns being received in the 1950's, but haven't found solid proof of it. The M10 Wolverine in Taiwan currently has a fake cannon, it is unknown if this was intended to represent what US M10's were like, or if it was to represent a 76mm armed M10 in the post-50's.

 

 

The M18 Hellcats of the ROC had modified the M18 so that a M1919 .30 cal was mounted to fire co-axially, the guns were placed on a tray and elevated with the main cannon. (Its possible, that this was done later in their service lives)

 

 

The M36 Jackson is a post-Korean War modification when the US mounted roofs to the M36, it is missing its armoured roof.

 

 

ZBD86 shouldn't have a BMP-1P upgrade.

 

Even if 76mm gunned T-34's never served with the PRC (No evidence has yet been found), it makes it even worse that its stated as a 1943 model in War Thunder.... It visually is incorrect to most 1943 T-34's. Below is a T-34 Mod.1943 with a copula displayed in China. The vehicle is a museum restoration, and isnt proof that the PRC ever had a 76mm gun armed T-34, but atleast make the visual model correct lol

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Miki_Hoshii

[DSE76 129]

  On 14/09/2019 at 18:11, Miki_Hoshii said:

The M3A3 Stuart has British smoke grenade launchers on the side of the turret, it shouldn't have them.

Expand  

This, along the M4A4, must be in the British Tree.

 

  On 14/09/2019 at 18:11, Miki_Hoshii said:

Even if 76mm gunned T-34's never served with the PRC, it makes it even worse that its stated as a 1943 model in War Thunder.... It visually is incorrect to most 1943 T-34's. Below is a T-34 Mod.1943 with a copula displayed in China. The vehicle is a museum restoration, and isnt proof that the PRC ever had a 76mm gun armed T-34, but atleast make the visual model correct lol

 

Expand  

I always wondered "Wait, didn't the soviets put a cupola on the mod 43 ?".

Also, T34-85 on the sign ?

 

 

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

  On 14/09/2019 at 18:51, DSE76 said:

This, along the M4A4, must be in the British Tree.

 

I always wondered "Wait, didn't the soviets put a cupola on the mod 43 ?".

Also, T34-85 on the sign ?

 

 

Expand  

Just museum misidentification 

[CaID 8,996]

  On 14/09/2019 at 18:11, Miki_Hoshii said:

 

 The M10 Wolverine most likely never had the 76mm gun in ROC service. In 1948, 34 M10's in various states of disrepair with non-functioning guns were purchased. These were modified to have a hull mounted M1919 .30 cal machine gun, and a enclosed turret with the Type 91 10cm 105mm howitzer. I've heard rumors of a 2nd batch of M10's with original guns being received in the 1950's, but haven't found solid proof of it. The M10 Wolverine in Taiwan currently has a fake cannon, it is unknown if this was intended to represent what US M10's were like, or if it was to represent a 76mm armed M10 in the post-50's.

 

 

 

Expand  

 

i believe they had at least some from ww2 along with the M4 Sherman. Taiwan have at least one that look still in good shape, now a monument (might be restored). the gun have a different nozzle and there is a odd plate on the top of the gun mantlet. which could be some clue that this specific tank was a M10 with a type 91 gun retrofitted into a M10 wolverine.

 

outside this one, i added those you had mention to the list.

Edited September 14, 2019 by CaID

[Teslashark 73]

  On 14/09/2019 at 18:51, DSE76 said:

I always wondered "Wait, didn't the soviets put a cupola on the mod 43 ?".

Also, T34-85 on the sign ?

 

Expand  

So in the Baidu forum people said that USSR 2nd Far East Army Group's Chinese-Korean joint divisions (Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army) in late WW2 used some T-34s, but the history of these divisions are kind of muddy.

 

Chinese museums are a tragicomedy. You'll get used to it...

[CaID 8,996]

  On 17/09/2019 at 16:20, Teslashark said:

So in the Baidu forum people said that USSR 2nd Far East Army Group's Chinese-Korean joint divisions (Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army) in late WW2 used some T-34s, but the history of these divisions are kind of muddy.

 

Chinese museums are a tragicomedy. You'll get used to it...

Expand  

sound like one of the inaccuracy from world of tank

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

Hello

 

This is not the place to report historical inaccuracies on Chinese vehicles. If you wish to discuss with others to collect more sources, thats entirely fine. 

 

However if you wish to actually report these matters, please use a report in this section: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1373-ground-vehicle-3d-visual-performance-handling-and-damage-models/

[TinyPolska26 130]

  On 14/09/2019 at 15:48, CaID said:

T-26 model 1939:

  Reveal hidden contents

this particular model never used by China. the ones used was the model 1935 (with and without rear mg) and model 1937 who had the p-40 AA month over the turret.

 

Expand  

This has already been sent to the devs. CMD_Nomad sent it and confirmed it with me and a few others. Also as for the T-34 1943, that was also submitted to the devs so exxpect some of these changes to come into affect in 1.93. Or so I hope.

[Taskforce404 210]

they r too lazy to change the name of ZBD86's atgm,even HJ73 is a reverse of 9m14.

[CaID 8,996]

  On 22/09/2019 at 01:09, Taskforce404 said:

they r too lazy to change the name of ZBD86's atgm,even HJ73 is a reverse of 9m14.

Expand  

that is something they could up-date right away on the next patch (not up-date but those patch we receive like once a week)

[CaID 8,996]

  On 18/09/2019 at 19:46, Smin1080p said:

Hello

 

This is not the place to report historical inaccuracies on Chinese vehicles. If you wish to discuss with others to collect more sources, thats entirely fine. 

 

However if you wish to actually report these matters, please use a report in this section: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1373-ground-vehicle-3d-visual-performance-handling-and-damage-models/

Expand  

last time it took about a year, with documentation, research, period data and even a guy to go the the museum himself to measure the actual thickness of the S.35 before something was done.

on the other hand, the MB.157 was been confirm by Dassault Aviation who is the renamed Bloch Aviation who built the MB.157 that the plane was suppose to have 4x to 6x 7.5mm mg along with the pair of 20mm. this was also reported and still no change. i am sure you team is busy, but it seem they do not react so quickly to the mistake related to the mechanic.

 

so i assume since we have a place to discuss and gather the documents and if it help, for each to release the bit of frustration or just to feel important to have maybe eventually contributed to the improvement of the game, i would say, this is a good place to come.

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

  On 23/09/2019 at 19:27, CaID said:

last time it took about a year, with documentation, research, period data and even a guy to go the the museum himself to measure the actual thickness of the S.35 before something was done.

on the other hand, the MB.157 was been confirm by Dassault Aviation who is the renamed Bloch Aviation who built the MB.157 that the plane was suppose to have 4x to 6x 7.5mm mg along with the pair of 20mm. this was also reported and still no change. i am sure you team is busy, but it seem they do not react so quickly to the mistake related to the mechanic.

 

so i assume since we have a place to discuss and gather the documents and if it help, for each to release the bit of frustration or just to feel important to have maybe eventually contributed to the improvement of the game, i would say, this is a good place to come.

Expand  

 

Posting issues in a discussion topic and not reporting it is not contributing to the game unfortunately as it does not get to the devs. 

[TinyPolska26 130]

  On 23/09/2019 at 19:34, Smin1080p said:

 

Posting issues in a discussion topic and not reporting it is not contributing to the game unfortunately as it does not get to the devs. 

Expand  

The Mb.157 ad the guns was sent to the devs. Or at least that's what I heard. And as for the Chinese T-26. CMD_Nomad saw to that. And could the Chinese T-26 have its model changed before the year is out?

[CaID 8,996]

  On 23/09/2019 at 19:34, Smin1080p said:

 

Posting issues in a discussion topic and not reporting it is not contributing to the game unfortunately as it does not get to the devs. 

Expand  

most of those who have enough documentation are already reported. in the meanwhile, those who just feel frustrated can also come up here to simply release the frustration and feeling cleaver and important to have point out the inaccuracy. so it is rather good for the community. and if there is enough documentation to fill a real report, we can process it, partially or entirely from documentation found here. if not, this topic can also led the research by sharing information.

 

for the Mb.157, i show the documentation from the Dassault aviation published with the documentation from their project of rebuilding a working Mb.150. it clearly specify the armament of each variants from the 150 family. it was over a year ago. a few day after the release of the french aviation. for the S.25 it took 2 bug report before they even acknowledged they had maybe made a mistake. after they release the Chinese tree including some vehicles that was not even used by any of the two Chinese nation (the modern Taiwan and China) like the T-26 model 1939 and the T34-76 model 1943, forget that the ZDB-86 wasn't a BMP-1 and couldn't include the BMP-1P up-grade. after that i can only wonder what kind of researcher Gaijin use? are they just amateur like 9 years old ex-world-of-tank player are they are really caring of the accuracy of the game? because i do feel some laziness in the last few months. mistake as obvious as the T-26 or the T-34-76 cannot be explained by just simple mistake, they are really amateur level mistake. i would rather had postpone the release to have accurate model and actual SPAA line like all the other tree than just throw a bunch of vehicles that wasn't even used by china.

[Teslashark 73]

  On 23/09/2019 at 19:34, Smin1080p said:

 

Posting issues in a discussion topic and not reporting it is not contributing to the game unfortunately as it does not get to the devs. 

Expand  

It gets to other players who might have more to add to the topic so that more details can be passed to the devs.

[Охраняет-Камни 6,650]

Is it correct that Chinese M4A4 have R975 engine?

[MSGKI_HARA_UOOH 2,828]

Chinese didnt have 76mm M10

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

  On 01/10/2019 at 13:09, _Condottiero_ said:

Is it correct that Chinese M4A4 have R975 engine?

Expand  

M4A4's had the Chrysler A57 multibank engine

[Охраняет-Камни 6,650]

  On 06/10/2019 at 19:44, Miki_Hoshii said:

M4A4's had the Chrysler A57 multibank engine

Expand  

I know that Italians used R975 in their postwar M4A4 instead of A57. Did Chinese change engines too or it is a bug that they have R975?

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

  On 06/10/2019 at 22:55, _Condottiero_ said:

I know that Italians used R975 in their postwar M4A4 instead of A57. Did Chinese change engines too or it is a bug that they have R975?

Expand  

China received 35 M4A4's between 1943-44. While possible, I find it unlikely that they had the industrial capacity at the time to switch out the engines, especially given they would have been relatively new vehicles at the time if not brand new.

 

Something may have been done post war, but IDK what happened to the M4A4's after WW2.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Miki_Hoshii

[CaID 8,996]

  On 06/10/2019 at 22:55, _Condottiero_ said:

I know that Italians used R975 in their postwar M4A4 instead of A57. Did Chinese change engines too or it is a bug that they have R975?

Expand  

in both case. in case of doubt we shall use the a57 multitask. this 30 cylinder star shaped engine was in fact 5 trucks engine placed one next to the other on the same shaft. in theory it had a power of 445hp but in fact, synchronizing the 5 valve and 5 fuel distribution of this Eggbetter engine (Nick name from the English service) was very difficult and the real power was usually from 370hp to 445hp. but in most cases with a good mechanic to do real good mentenance of the engine, The power seldom get higher than 425hp at 2,850 RPM.

 

those multibank engine was also bigger and heavier. 20 533cm2 for the a57 vs 18 026cm2 for the v8 GAA usually use on other Sherman. the engine require to increase the length of the tank of 28cm to the rear to fit it in the tank.

the weight of the A57 is 2,379 kg which is also much heavier than the usual engine use. the a57 was only a solution to the shortage of engine. so the M4A4 Sherman was the heaviest, largest and slowest of the Sherman platform. with a top speed of 40km/h and effective power weight of 13hp tons

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

  On 14/09/2019 at 15:48, CaID said:

like most important was looking forward to see the Chinese ground forces to be added. but at the same time I was very disappointed to see how innacurate the Chinese ground forces (and air force) was.

 

but let's be constructive. it's still a good start. let's try to help Gaijin to make it better by listing everything that is wrong.

 

I invite the whole community to participate to make the tree accurate to the history.

 

M18 hellcat

  Reveal hidden contents

 

the gun had a modification to fit a M1919 7.62mm over the gun to act as Coaxial.

 

Expand  

 

Just a update on this; the additional .30 cal coaxial mount seems to be a modification done in later service. Meaning that our current model is technically not incorrect, that said it'd be nice to have the .30 cal to make it a little different from the US M18's.

 

Below is a National Day parade from 1953:

You can see the M18's in this video, as well as the M4A1 75mm gun's with the 76mm gun turrets. 

 

Something interesting that could replace the T-34 (1943) can also be seen; a pair of standard M4A1's can been seen as well.