Cold War Chinese Fake Tanks Fake Tanks

Type T-34 (Fake Tank)

People’s Republic of China
Medium Tank – Fake

Fake Until Proven Real

“Type T-34” is a made-up designation for the T-34/76 in Chinese PLA (People’s Liberation Army) service. The only suggestion of the PLA operating the T-34/76 comes from the video game, World of Tanks, and their Chinese client company, Kongzhong. It is claimed that these tanks were supplied to the PRC (People’s Republic of China) in the early 1950s by the USSR, along with thousands of other tanks. Whilst it is true that the PRC was sold as many as 3000 AFVs in the years 1950-1955, neither company can provide any proof for the T-34/76 being included in these arms sales. As such, the use of the T-34/76 by the PLA can only be concluded to be a hoax, intended as a credible means of filling up the World of Tanks “Chinese tech tree”, which is riddled with both historical inaccuracies and pure fantasies but remains presented as historical fact, rather like the rest of the game.

Supposed History

World of Tanks gives the following information for historical background to the “Type T-34”:
Among the 1,800 T-34 tanks supplied by the U.S.S.R. to China in the early 1950s, there was a number of T-34-76s. After the tanks saw service in the PLA, almost all of them were sent to North Korea. The usefulness of these tanks was extended by Chinese-designed upgrades, including a new engine and modernized suspension.


Known T-34 Exports

The T-34/76 was a fairly rare export compared to the T-34-85 but still made its way to various countries including (but not limited to) North Vietnam, East Germany, (who used theirs mainly for training), Poland, Czechoslovakia, and North Korea. As such, it is plausible that other countries, such as the PRC, received the T-34/76.
However, arms sales from the USSR that took place between 1950 and 1955 are not recorded as including the T-34/76. Dr. Martin Andrew (a historian of the PLA) reports that the PRC received 1837 T-34-85s, 82 IS-2s, 40 ISU-122s, 67 ISU-152s, 99 SU-100s, and 704 SU-76s between 1950-1954, as well as 89 ARVs at least some of which (possibly even most) were based on the T-34 chassis (some others were based on the ISU chassis – at least two; almost certainly more). These numbers are estimates, and other sources have slightly different figures. For example, Zhang Zhiwei (author of The Tank Division of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army 1945-1949) claims that the PRC received as many as 1964 T-34-85s by 1955. Regardless of exact figures, Dr. Andrew advises that there is no evidence of the PLA receiving the T-34/76, or any suggestion predating World of Tanks that he is aware of.
Furthermore, if “almost all” of the alleged PLA’s T-34/76s were sent to North Korea, then this raises two questions: ‘Where are the implicit rest of these tanks?’ and ‘Why has no evidence of these tanks (which were “later given new engine[s] and modernized suspension[s]“) come to light?’
In reality, North Korea received all of its tanks directly from the USSR in February 1950, when a military advisory group was sent along with small arms, aircraft, artillery, and other military equipment types. This was enough to equip eight field divisions and other combat units consisting of 100,000 men. A such, the idea that all North Korean T-34/76s are actually ex-Chinese T-34/76s falls flat.

Chinese Upgrades?

The suggestion of the T-34/76 receiving Chinese-designed upgrades sounds highly dubious, too. The only known Chinese upgrade to the T-34 is the Type 58 upgrade standard of the T-34-85, and this did not include a suspension upgrade. The context of the World of Tanks description does not make clear if the Chinese designed upgrades were done to the remaining Chinese T-34/76s, or North Korea’s T-34/76s. Some images of North Korean T-34/76s in the post-Korean War era indicate that some modernization features were added such as sidesaddle fuel tanks, starfish roadwheels (first introduced by the Soviets in 1969), and perhaps some other smaller details. It is plausible that these upgrades were designed with Chinese assistance, which might be the source of this suggestion, but very little is known about the post-1953 service of North Korean T-34/76s, and there is nothing to suggest that their suspensions have been upgraded based on the highly limited evidence that there is.
Furthermore, in World of Tanks, the “Type T-34” can be fitted with a 57mm gun designated “55-57FG”, which appears to be a copy of the Soviet 57mm ZiS-4. Without a doubt, this is not real because the Soviets abandoned the 57mm gun for tank use in 1943, as it was considered obsolete. Having said this, the PLA is known to have fitted an unknown number of LVT(A)-4s and LVT-4s with 57mm ZiS-2 and 76mm ZiS-3 field guns in the 1950s, but details around these conversions are lacking. Regardless, these LVT conversions were done using Soviet-supplied field guns and should not be used as even circumstantial evidence of the Chinese developing their own 57mm tank guns, which, again, would have been totally obsolete by the 1950s for anti-tank duties. As such, the LVT conversions were most likely a means of having mechanized artillery as opposed to tank destroyers.


The name “Type T-34” seems rather dubious as no sources pre-dating World of Tanks make reference to this name. It is likely that name was made up by World of Tanks and/or Kongzhong to distinguish the vehicle from the Soviet T-34/76 in their video game.
For reference, the designation “T-34/76” is also a fairly modern designation. The USSR used “T-34” to refer to the /76 variant, and “T-34-85” to refer to the 85mm gun variant in Divisional records. However, sometimes these are not differentiated in historical documents. In such documents, unless a reference is made to ammunition type, it is difficult to be sure which variant is being referred to. Therefore, documents with “T-34” written are not sufficient proof enough of a Chinese T-34/76 unless guns and/or munitions are also explicitly referenced, or other contextual details suggest the /76 variant.

Korean War museum T-34/76, Liaoning Province

There is a widely circulated photograph of what appears to be a Factory 183 built T-34/76 in the Korean War Memorial Hall in Dandong city, (Liaoning province, PRC) which is sometimes cited as evidence of PLA T-34/76s. In short, the vehicle’s provenance is somewhat unclear, but its construction suggests it to be a modern rebuild for museum purposes as opposed to a former PLA-operated vehicle.

A T-34/76 (most likely Factory 183 built) in the Korean War Museum in Dandong, Liaoning Province, PRC. The tank is made from a mixture of odd parts and is clearly not original. The SU-100 may actually be Chinese, as 99 were sold to China by the USSR in 1954. This SU-100, like the T-34, does not have any apparent PLA markings. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.
The vehicle is made from a mixture of odd parts such as T-34-85 modernization wheels (almost certainly modern acquired, as they were made in 1969 at the height of the Sino-Soviet Split), the tracks are T-55 style, the sprocket is also from a T-55, the engine deck handrails are non-standard (probably handmade), and there is also a T-55 searchlight cage on the glacis plate (next to the driver’s hatch)Most tellingly, the tank has a pressed turret’s gun mantlet, but the tank is a soft-edge turret – this indicates that the tank is an inaccurate museum restoration, and may be simply a Type 58 made to look like a T-34/76 using parts which (may) have been acquired recently. That said, the handrails on the hull are typical of T-34/76s (although they may be handmade), and the hull machine gun position may also be that of a T-34/76 tank (this is not entirely clear, as the only indicator of this would be the casting nubs, not visible in these photos). It is therefore also possible that the hull is a T-34/76 hull that was acquired recently but has nevertheless been restored inaccurately. It is even possible that this tank was acquired from North Korea, as some modern footage shows a North Korean T-34 to have very similar production features to this T-34.
Most tellingly of all, the vehicle also does not have any PLA markings on it, thus suggesting that the tank is not intended to portray a PLA T-34/76, but may instead be intended to portray a North Korean T-34/76.
It can therefore be concluded that this tank is a post-Korean War acquisition that underwent an inaccurate restoration for museum purposes and should not be seen as evidence of the PLA operating T-34/76s.

The Historiographical Problem

As indicated, the crux of the issue is that there is no credible evidence (be it photographic or literary) to suggest any T-34/76s being used by the PLA that is available for scrutiny by non-Chinese historians. As mentioned, Soviet evidence for arms sales to China which indicates T-34/76s being sold is also lacking.
Kongzhong are reportedly able to access Chinese military archives and report what they find to Wargaming in order to make Chinese tanks for the video game. It is said that Kongzhong’s researchers are only allowed to take personal handwritten notes whilst researching, and materials found in the archive cannot be reproduced (which is the case with many archives). As such, the existence of the “Type T-34” hinges on the word of Kongzhong, which is highly problematic.
Kongzhong is known to frequently take substantial creative liberties, or even to totally make up Chinese tanks (for examples of this, see the Type 59-Patton, 121B, WZ-132A, WZ-132-1, and the ‘tank destroyer tree’ which is filled with imaginary riffs on existing or semi-existing chassis), meaning that their credibility as a historical source is completely lacking. World of Tanks, too, is infamous for being jam-packed with fake tanks (a jarring example being the G.W. E-100, amongst many others), and having tanks operated by the wrong country (for example, the 10.5cm leFH 18/3 (Sf) auf Geschützwagen B2(f) being in French service). Given that World of Tanks also has this reputation, they cannot be trusted as a credible source either. Such imaginations are not in of themselves an issue, but their presentation as real tanks is.
In sum, no credible evidence to suggest the existence of the “Type T-34”, or any of these supposed Chinese upgrades, is available to non-Chinese historians, and with the claim being made by two companies of dubious reputations as historical sources, it can only be concluded that the “Type T-34” does not exist until further evidence is put forward and evaluated.

Artist’s interpretation of a T-34/76 (produced by Factory 174, Omsk) painted in regular PLA colors based on T-34-85s as seen on National Day parades in the 1950s.

Artist’s interpretation of a T-34/76 (produced by Factory 174, Omsk) painted in typical PLA camouflage as seen on Chi-Ha Shinhotos and a T-26 M1937 on the 1st October 1949 foundation of the PRC parade. The same scheme has been seen on Type 59s in the early 1960s on National Day parades.
Both tanks were illustrated by Tank Encyclopedia’s own Jaycee ‘Amazing Ace’ Davis based on technical drawings by Mark Rethoret.
Image result for Type t-34
The ‘Type T-34’ as it appears in World of Tanks.

T-34/76 (an inaccurate rebuild of a Factory 183 tank) in the Korean War Museum in Dandong, Liaoning Province, PRC, albeit at a different point in time to the other photo in this article. The tank is wrongly labelled as a T-34-85. Unfortunately, the plaque gives no hints as to the tank’s origin, but merely generic (if somewhat inaccurate) information about the T-34. Put simply, this tank is not proof of the Chinese PLA operating a T-34/76 because it is a modern restoration and rebuild for the museum. Source: ‘Surviving T-34/76 Tanks.pdf

‘Type 58’ ‘404’ in the Beijing Tank Museum. To its right is a Type 59, followed by two M3A3 Stuarts. Source: ‘T-34 Interest Group’ on Facebook.

A still from a North Korean propaganda film, reportedly from the 1960s, showing two T-34/76s. The tank in the foreground has a turret manufactured at Factory 112 (Krasnoye Sormovo), but also shows signs of T-34-85 modernisation such as sidesaddle fuel tanks (112 did issue some tanks of this type with this fuel tank arrangement, but most were post-WWII upgrades) and starfish roadwheels which were first introduced in 1969. The tank in the background has a ‘hexagonal’ style turret and also sidesaddle fuel tanks. The North Koreans are believed to have been supplied their T-34/76s by the USSR via China as an intermediary. Source: wwiiafterwwii.wordpress
Image result for T-34 arv china museum
A Soviet-made T-34T Armored Recovery Vehicle (ARV) in the Beijing Tank Museum. Up to 79 ARVs were supplied to the USSR between 1950 and 1954, most of which were T-34-based. Source: 
The museum’s information panel reports the following:
“T-34 Tank Recovery Vehicle is a technical support vehicle produced in 1940s by the former Soviet Union. This vehicle began to enter service with Soviet Army in 1940, and was withdrawn from service in the late 1960s. T-34 Tank Recovery Vehicle, as a support vehicle for T-34 tank, is used for towing and recovering the trapped, toppled, or damaged tanks in the war. In 1950s, China began to buy this vehicle and put them into service with PLA, now all the vehicles are phased out of service. The vehicles bought by China went into the front line of Korean War together with Chinese volunteer troops, and played a significant role in the technical support in the war.
Specifications: Combat weight: 22-25 tonnes. Max speed: 55km/h. Max range: 300km. Max traction: 1584N(14t). Armament: 1 x 7,62mm machine gun.”
Source: Beijingman.blogspot

One of Kongzhong’s blatant imaginations – the so-called ‘T-26G FT’ as it appears in the video game ‘World of Tanks’. World of Tanks reports that “during the 1946–50 civil war, a number of vehicles were captured by the People’s Liberation Army in eastern China in 1949. In 1950, they were used as a basis for the creation of at least two modifications of tank destroyers.” In reality, three T-26s were captured from the Kuomintang (Nationalists) during the Huai Hai Campaign (6th November 1948 – 10th January 1949) one of which was pressed back into service and was photographed on the October 1st 1949 Victory Parade in Beijing. It is likely that this tank was phased out shortly after, seeing as though Soviet arms sales of more modern tanks began in 1950. Some other T-26s were captured during the Civil War, but appear to have been lost before October 1949. The other two vehicles may have been wrecked beyond repair. There are other vehicles that World of Tanks suggests the PLA used but there is no proof for, such as the Renault NC-31.
Discussion with Francis Pulham regarding T-34 production variants.
Discussion with Dr. Martin Andrew regarding Chinese T-34s and Soviet arms sales to the PLA.
Special thanks to Leo Guo for providing translations.
Special thanks also to the members of the “T-34 Interest Group” on Facebook for their comments.
Tuo Mao: the Operational History of the People’s Liberation Army“, PhD dissertation by Martin Andrew, submitted to Bond University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2008.
The Tank Division of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army 1945-1949” by Zhang Zhiwei, Humanism Print.
Chinese Tanks Q&A with Will Kerrs” –
“KongZhong: WG’s Certified Fake Tanks Provider” –

Cold War Chinese Fake Tanks Fake Tanks

59-Patton (Fake Tank)

People’s Republic of China (1960s)
Main Battle Tank – Fake

From the Wargaming design bureau

Video games and historical accuracy are rarely used together in the same sentence. World of Tanks is perhaps one of the worst offenders, giving rise to some interesting, yet laughable fake tanks. This article will focus on one of the latest fake tanks to flood World of Tanks servers, the 59-Patton – An obviously fake mash-up between a Type 59 hull, and an M48A3 Patton turret. Many were quick to point out on WoT forums that it simply is unfeasible as a design. Nevertheless, considering how the creation of such a vehicle would be possible is a very interesting endeavor.

“Historical Information” and overall credibility

World of Tanks gives the following information about the 59-Patton –
After 1960, Chinese government launched the development of a new tank. The engineering experiments included a wide use of previously produced Type 59 tanks. One vehicle was equipped with the turret, gun, and fire control system of an American M48A3 tank.
This is rather vague information, and also almost certainly untrue. It is true that the Chinese were experimenting with tank development from the 1960s onward, particularly with heavy tanks and upgrading the Type 59 (although most of the prototypes were allegedly destroyed during Chinese nuclear testing, according to WoT).
The concept of fitting an M48 Patton turret to a Type 59 as some kind of basis for an improvement does not fit the reality of Chinese MBT tank development at the time. Having said this, little detail is available on Chinese tank development.
Development on medium tanks / MBTs was slowly giving solid results, but did not include any ideas of giving the Type 59 a new turret. In fact, it was more about improving the Type 59, as opposed to the development of totally new vehicles, turrets, or chassis. 617 factory, who produced the Type 59, were given orders to make improvements based on the same chassis, shortly after production started. The result was the creation of the well-known Type 69, which later developed into the Type 79 MBTs. The hulls and turrets of these new vehicles were practically identical to the Type 59. The only real differences were the new technology and the inclusion of a ‘new’ and improved 100 and 105mm gun, respectively. None of the new technologies used can be attributed to an American source, let alone a new Patton turret. For example, the Chinese captured a Soviet T-62 tank (during the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict) and copied many components, such as the Luna Infrared searchlight and integrated this into their MBT designs.
Whilst the M48A3 Patton was a good design, it was, by 1960, somewhat outdated and was therefore replaced with the M60 Patton, which featured a 105mm gun (although the M48 stayed in service until the 1990s). The M48A3’s 90mm gun would not be the best weapon to use against modern armor (particularly against Soviet armor, which became a priority for the PRC, due to the major breakdown in Sino-Soviet relations). Even if the M48A3 turret were modified to take a more potent Chinese gun, it would be far easier to upgrade existing Chinese turrets. This would allow a much quicker design process and faster production, seeing as though the same basic design would be used. In reality, the Type 69 followed exactly this – it was an upgrade of the Type 59.
However, the overall notion of an M48 Patton turret on a Type 59 chassis is absurd. The turret rings are a serious mismatch – the Patton turret is far too big for the Type 59 hull. A whole new hull (possibly but not necessarily based on the Type 59) would have to be developed in order to make this vehicle work, or the turret section would need substantial modifications.

A more credible story?

The other non-WoT suggestion behind the existence of the 59-Patton is to use the vehicle as a means to test the M48 Patton’s capabilities. There is a suggestion that perhaps the Chinese captured a damaged M48 Patton, or at least the turret (which will be discussed later in the article). In order to test the M48 Patton’s capabilities, the Chinese could mount the turret onto a chassis. The M48 Patton was in service until the 1990s, and it would perhaps be worth the Chinese knowing the M48’s capabilities. Whilst a more likely theory, given the path of Chinese tank development during the period, it does not address the fact that the vehicle would not work due to the turret ring mismatch. Perhaps the Type 59 chassis could be, in some manner, modified to take the turret, perhaps by means of a small superstructure on top of the chassis, which would make the hull wide enough to fit the turret, as seen with the supposed “T-34/62” tanks, essentially a T-34 with a T-62 turret, which were used as bunkers, circa 1980. (See Sidenote: II) The turret would not even necessarily need to rotate for tests, but could be welded on and the hull of the vehicle would have to be turned precisely for accurate aiming.
Entertaining the theory of how the Chinese would even get a Patton turret to experiment on is also very difficult, but, nevertheless, there are two major theories, neither of which are suggested by World of Tanks. However, it must be noted that there is no real proof that the PRC ever had a Patton to experiment with, nor did they ever experiment with making the 59-Patton a reality. If the concept of the 59-Patton is true, then it probably was little more than a passing thought.

Theory 1 – Vietnam gave the PRC a Patton

It is highly unlikely that the Chinese would get hold of a Patton until the Vietnam War. This would require the NVA to hand over a captured Patton – something not easily done. The most likely time that Pattons would be captured is whilst they were in service with the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. In 1972, many of the 600 M48 Pattons to see service in Vietnam were given to the ARVN. These and M41 Walker Bulldogs would see sporadic fighting against NVA T-54s and PT-76s, but some were lost to Sagger missiles, such as in one incident in 23 April, 1973. In May, 1975, Patton tanks that belonged to the ARVN were abandoned due to running out of munitions and fuel (as a result of a US congressional ban on sending fuel and munitions to Vietnam). They were then in rather short service with the People’s Army of Vietnam. At least one Patton still stands at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh city. 
From this, it is clear that the most likely time that Pattons would be captured is during the later stages of the Vietnam War, and by this time, the Vietnamese had sided with the USSR, not the PRC, as part of the Sino-Soviet split.

The Sino-Soviet split occurred when the USSR and PRC were feuding for ideological control of Communism. By the mid-1950s, Nikita Khrushchev cemented his leadership of the Soviet Union, and he denounced Stalin’s cult of personality. He also pursued a policy of Peaceful Coexistence with the US and the West. However, Mao believed that it was every Communist’s duty to destroy the West. The idea of seeking peace with them was wrong and against Marxism. He called Khrushchev a traitor or ‘revisionist’ for this. Apart from which, after the death of Stalin in 1953, Mao considered himself the leader of the Communist world, as he is the ‘next most senior leader’.
Khrushchev was also at odds with Mao for a number of reasons. Khrushchev was also very critical of Mao’s leadership of the PRC, especially the failure of the Great Leap Forward, the brutality of the invasion of Tibet, and the assertion of independence from the USSR. He thought that Mao was dangerous. Mao had intentions to invade Taiwan, which was considered a sure-fire way to start a nuclear war. On top of this, Mao declared himself the leader of the “third world” in 1974, stating that the USSR was just another form of imperialism, and that Chinese Communism was the way for newly revolting countries to go. He wanted to form a third belligerent in the Cold War.
Vietnam was only a new chapter in this split. When Vietnam started its Communist revolution, both the USSR and PRC thought that they could gain a new ally. The Vietnamese were happy to keep sitting on the fence between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism so that they would get more weapons from both sides.
Originally, the Soviets sent their supplies through the PRC, but it was discovered that the Chinese were stealing some of these for themselves, so they used alternative routes. The Soviets also sent advisers to the NVA. The PRC was a little more direct. They sent in engineer soldiers to aid the NVA, as well as tanks and other weapons. After the Vietnam War ended, the USSR became Vietnam’s strongest ally, and Vietnam sided with Soviet communism. This is mainly because the Chinese backed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, at a time when Vietnam’s Communist party was strongly against the ideals of Pol Pot. In 1979, the Chinese even invaded Vietnam because of Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia in 1978, which effectively ended the Khmer Rouge rule over Cambodia. This was another result of the Sino-Soviet split, with the Chinese Vice-Premier stating that the invasion was in response to ‘Soviet expansionism’ in the region.
History lesson aside, this shows that the Vietnamese and Chinese were hardly likely to collaborate on anything in the late war, which is when the Pattons were most likely to have been captured, and therefore there is little or no chance that the Chinese would receive a Patton tank this way.
It is reported by one Tanks Encyclopedia commenter that Vietnam gave China a Patton to test, and is currently on display at China North Vehicle Research Institute, but this is not proven to the satisfaction of the author.

Theory 2 – Pakistan gave the PRC a Patton

Pakistan and the PRC had a good relationship stretching back the 1950s. When most countries severed diplomatic ties with the PRC in protest over their claims of being the ‘real China’, Pakistan did not. Since 1962, Pakistan has received substantial military, economic, and technical assistance from China, with collaborations on military hardware such as the Al-Khalid continuing to this day. However, back in the 1950s, the USA was very interested in relations with Pakistan for strategic reasons. The USA did not want the domino effect to take place in Pakistan (whereby neighboring or nearby Communist states aid local Communist parties into revolution and take over the country), so various forms of economic and military aid was sent in order to ensure Pakistan stays loyal to the West.
After a mutual defense treaty in 1954, Pakistani tank officers were trained in the US at Fort Knox. During the mid-50s, Pakistan’s cavalry regiments received 230 M47 and 202 M48 Patton tanks (although none seem to have been M48A3s). However, by 1966, in the context of the aftermath of the Indo-Pak war of 1965, China and Pakistan began military relations. The aim was to counter Indian (and US) dominance in the region. China was wary of India because of its ties to Tibet. India had trade links with Tibet that it did not want disrupting, following the Chinese annexation of Tibet and incorporation into the PRC. Despite an agreement of coexistence in 1954, border disputes between India and China ensued in the early 1960s, thus leading to the Sino-Indian War in 1962, and other events such as taking in the Dalai Lama as a political refugee after the 1959 Tibetan uprising only made things worse. Due to Pakistan’s shared interest to avoid Indian influence, Pakistan and China saw each other as viable allies – an alignment of mutual interest.
This being the case, it is possible that Pakistan could send a Patton to the PRC for testing. However, many Pattons were lost during the 1965 Indo-Pak War, particularly at the Battle of Asal Uttar, September 8-10, with a minimum of 99 tanks lost out of the 176 Patton tanks and 44 Chaffees committed to the battle. This even led to the creation of Patton Nagar at the site of the battle, where many captured Pakistani tanks, mainly Pattons, were displayed – seeming to be mostly M47s, but some M48s, too (in all, an estimated 72 Pattons, of which 28 were in running condition). These vehicles were later shipped across India and were displayed as trophies. Whether or not Pakistan would therefore donate a tank to China in the 60s is doubtful.

Credibility of other Chinese tanks in WoT

Some commentators across the WoT forums and the internet have suggested that other little known vehicles such as the T-34-1, T-34-2, 112, and 113 are also likely fake vehicles. Despite the odd photo of tanks such as the WZ-111 (although without a turret ever built), it is generally stated that the other prototype tanks were destroyed during Chinese nuclear testing. It is speculated that many of the prototypes were already placed inside the blast zone, whilst tanks such as the Type 59 were driven into the fallout zone afterwards to test conditions.
Other comments about World of Tanks and its Chinese server operator also exist, which suggest that all of these prototype vehicles are fakes, and make libelous comments about the integrity of the Chinese World of Tanks server operator, Kongzhong.
Sources, external links, and further reading:
The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks” by Steven J. Zaloga
War Despatches: Indo-Pak Conflict 1965” by Lt. Gen. Harbakhsh Singh
From Kutch to Tashkent: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965” by Farooq Bajwa
A World Divided: Superpower Relations 1944-90” by Steve Phillips
Marxism After Marx” by David McLellan
The Vietnam War 1956-1975” by Andrew Wiest
Vietnam 1955-1975, a compelling look at America’s longest war” History Channel, 2011/12 (A 4 DVD and 100-page magazine release by (Chinese) (Chinese)
World of Tanks Forum
M48 Patton on Tanks Encyclopedia
WZ-111 on Wikipedia
China-India Relations on Wikipedia
China-Pakistan Relations on Wikipedia
The Battle of Asal Uttar on Wikipedia

Rendition of a 59-Patton. The turret rings would be a serious mismatch.

Merkava M48
A prototype Merkava M48 – a real vehicle. One prototype Merkava chassis had an M48 Patton turret in order to test out the chassis, particularly the feasibility of a front-engine hull design. This may have perhaps inspired the 59-Patton.

59 patton
A 59-Patton as seen in World of Tanks.
WoT release 59 patton
The release article for the 59-Patton, as taken from It is obviously a pure work of complete fiction.
WOT chinese tech tree
The Chinese ‘tech tree’ from World of Tanks. It is filled with mysterious prototypes, most of which are probably fake or speculations at best.
WZ-111 prototype
A WZ-111 prototype in China Tank Museum, Beijing. It was constructed without a turret and the project was cancelled in 1966 due to a vast number of mechanical issues. Courtesy of Wikipedia user 颐园新居.
Type 69 tank
A Type 69 tank on display at the Tank Museum of the People’s Liberation Army, Beijing. The Type 69 was the next major Chinese tank development and began in 1963. It was hardly more than an upgraded Type 59. There was seemingly no intention to create a new turret, nor was there any need – the improved 100mm gun was incredibly similar. It was also an unsuccessful tank, and the Type 79 was produced, although it was little more than an improvement on the Type 69, featuring a copy of the L/7 105mm gun.
patton war remnants museum
An M48 Patton at the War Remnants Museum, Vietnam. It has been suggested that one could have been sent to China from Vietnam, but this seems unlikely, as after the war, the two nations had a dramatic diplomatic fallout.

Patton Nagar
“Patton Nagar”, 1965. Photograph taken by Brig. Hari Singh Deora A.V.S.M, 18th Cavalry, Indian Army. As taken from Wikipedia. The suggestion that Pakistan might have sent the PRC M48s to test is unlikely, as many were lost in the 1965 Indo-Pak war.

Merkava M48
One of possibly two Merkava prototypes featuring an M48 Patton turret. This may have inspired the 59-Patton, however, there is no proof of this.

Side-note I: Merkava M48

Prototype Merkava chassis were fitted with at least one or two M48 Patton turrets in the early 1970s in order to test the new front-engine layout.  A Centurion “Shot Kal” turret was also used for this testing. It is possible that the prototype Merkava tanks with the M48 Patton turrets inspired the 59-Patton.

Side-note II: T-34/62 tanks

There were some T-34 tanks that were modified to take a T-62 turret circa 1980 (believed to be in Bulgaria). They had the turret rings and hulls modified to fit the larger turret, and were used as bunkers near the Turkish/Greek borders. Despite reports that they could reportedly still drive, it seems to be the case that they were just immobile bunkers. They also reportedly remained in service at least 1996. Only a few photos of a rusted wreck can be found online and there is simply a lack of information on the vehicles. This shows that the 59-Patton could exist in much the same manner. Other strange Bulgarian mix-ups exist such as a Panzer IV with a SU-76’s gun modified to fit into the turret with a small superstructure built on the existing turret to make the gun fit.