Type 64 “Prototype” Chinese tank

Author: Lahn (US server)

Hello everyone,
this post, submitted to me by Lahn (the same guy, who came up with the Taiwanese branch), deals in a bit more detail with the tank, that is the “other” Type 64. Yea – there are two Type 64′s: the “hybrid” and the “prototype” – the “hybrid” is the one that’s going to be most likely implemented as tier 5 Chinese light tank (M42 Duster hull, Hellcat turret), while this one there are no plans for – at least for now. Let’s have a look at it.

Length: 8.2m
Width: 3.2m
Height: 2.7m
Weight: 25t
Max speed: 70kph(down slope)/62kph(on road)
Performance: 160km
Trench Crossing: 1.83m
Water Crossing: 1.2m
Crew: 4
Main Gun: 76mm M32K1
Turret: M41 W. Bulldog + spaced armor
Chassis: M41 W. Bulldog + armor upgrade
Engine: Napco 8V-71T
Radio: ANVRC-7

Gun proposed WoT characteristics:

76mm M32K1:
Pen: 218/243/38 (AP/APCR/HE)
Damage: 150/150/190
RPM: 16.16~17.77
DPM: 2424~2666(AP)
Accuracy: 0.3~0.32m

History of the Type 64 Prototype

There are two kinds of Type 64s, Type 64 Hybrid and Type 64 Prototype. Type 64 Hybrid is a hybrid tank with M18 hellcat turret and a M42 Duster/M41 Walker bulldog chassis, and the Type 64 Prototype is the local upgrade version of the M41 Walker Bulldog.
The light tank M41 is a good scout tank, but not good enough to combat the Communist Chinese T-55A. As the only tank available in Nationalist Chinese Army, the tank is based on the American M41, and designed for fighting against T-55A and Type-59s. The prototype tank is made by Weapons Factory 201 in year 65, but the project started in year 64, thus being named as Type 64. The appearance of the tank is similar as the American M41A3, but the design is different. The turret is made with traditional cast turret, extra armor armor on turret, and 2 pieces of high-hardness Tungsten alloy steel “side plate” is added on each side of the turret and hull for extra protection from HEAT and APDS projectiles. The engine is a local upgrade version of the Napco 8V-71 which is imported under the name of “civilian bus use”, and boosted the tank with 530HP than the original 500HP on the M41.

Two prototypes went to test, and the performance is good but still not enough to challenge the Communist T-55 frontally and act as a proper medium tank, only available as an interim solution. Chung-shan academy (National Military Technology Academy) received one of the Type 64 prototype and used for combat system testing, such as installing new aiming devices, 12.7mm AA MG, night vision and firing control system. The other went to testing grounds of the Armored school and acted as a target for testing the effect of the APCR and HEAT shells on the spaced armor.

The order given to the 201 factory for Type-64 prototype on January 9th. The order is for 14 pre-production tanks, and 25 tanks for the 1st series. The last tank should finish by year 1968:

24 thoughts on “Type 64 “Prototype” Chinese tank”

I like it!

I really like the gun.

“but the project started in year 64″ – by “Year 64″, I’m assuming that you’re referring to Minguo 64 (which is 1975 A.D), right?

(For those who don’t know, Taiwan officially uses the Minguo calendar in official government documents, and the western Gregorian calendar in non-formal situations.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minguo_calendar

Anonymous on July 28, 2013 at 2:56 pm said:

It’s similar to how Japan uses its imperial calendar (e.g. 2013 is “Heisei 25″), and how North Korea uses the juche calendar (2013 is “Juche 102″). East Asian countries use era names to represent years, with the exception of Mainland China, which has been westernized thanks to Soviet influence and now only uses the Gregorian calendar. Taiwan uses its own calendar system, just like those other Asian countries.
Kellomies on July 28, 2013 at 3:50 pm said:

As if having just about the single most pointlessly convoluted writing system wasn’t bad enough.
- Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 4:40 am said:
  
  Uhh… how is starting “Year 1″ from when the day the emperor ascended the throne (Japan), the year the Republic was established (Taiwan) or the year Kim Il-Sung was born (North Korea) any less retarded than making “Year 1″ the year that Jesus Christ, an imaginary story book character, died?
  
  Furthermore, historians have calculated that if Jesus did actually exist, he didn’t die on 1.A.D, but more likely approximately 30A.D. The Gregorian Calendar is just as arbitrary and retarded.
  - Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 4:56 am said:
    
    The problem is with having an unique calender for your own country. The actual year it starts on doesn’t matter, just that it’s diffrent to what the rest of the world uses.
    
    It’s equally stupid that the US still resists the idea of a unified measurement system, despite the obvious advantages.
    - Captian Nemo on July 29, 2013 at 5:34 am said:
      
      We use both systems. It just depends on what your doing.
    - Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 8:15 am said:
      
      Taiwan uses both the Minguo and the Gregorian calendar. The Minguo calendar is used by the government; if you’re doing a tax return, the letter will say that your payment was made “July 23, Minguo 102″ (民國102年7月23日). In everyday life, they use the Gregorian calendar, for example, when you book a dentist appointment, they tell you to come in on “February 16, 2013″ (2013年2月16日).
      
      Japan uses both the traditional Japanese era years, and the Gregorian calendar. Government documents will say things like “This law was passed on December 2, Heisei 25″ (平成25年12月2日), but plane tickets will say “Tokyo to Osaka, Gate 21, at 08:45 (JST) November 17, 2013″ (2013年11月17日).
      
      In other words, it’s not even a major deal, and people only have to deal with it when looking at official government documents. You will only need to use the Gregorian calendar 95% of the time in either country. It’s a “traditional legacy” thing, just like how US dollar notes have “IN GOD WE TRUST” on them. Why are you getting your panties in a twist over something so trivial?
- Xel on July 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm said:
  
  “than making “Year 1″ the year that Jesus Christ, an imaginary story book character, died?”
  
  But that is wrong.
  - Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 10:22 pm said:
    
    Please elaborate further, pray tell.
  - brett on July 31, 2013 at 11:02 pm said:
    
    he is real you retard

Superpen scout tank? YES PLZ!

Sorry, that’s much better than 7tier AwfulPanther, so i’m against (unless you buff the latter, like 430m viewrange please!).

*throws gold at the screen

Wouldn’t the gun be like L80 or something? ( fast measuerments from screen from tank lenght ) so how would it even be close to those values on penetration when 75L100 gives less than 200 ;)

nyan cat on July 28, 2013 at 9:24 pm said:

Because this tank came much later – the technology was better – better ammunition. IIRC SerB said that the reason why the D-25T has shit pen is because it has shit ammo, this is the exact opposite. Oh, and 7,5 cm KwK xx L100 never existed. If it was constructed, maybe it would’ve had more penetration than 198mm.

A nice tier VII, I would nerf the pen a bit – cca 200 for standard ammo.
Anonymous on July 28, 2013 at 10:39 pm said:

The ammunition makes a whole world of difference. Early cold war 120mm guns had 250~ mm pen while 120mm guns today have 1000mm+ pen. The guns themselves are not that changed, its the ammo and guidance systems that went through a massive change.
- ThaElf on July 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm said:
  
  Well the fact goes that these new rounds are by coincidence of smaller caliber which still go at high speeds… It is funny how 120mm is reduced to 2-3cm arrow. The hole is small, but still penetrates deep. Funny stuff how velocity effects penetration. Just need a weight with speed. So the thing is less of ammunition changed, but more of from what it is made of and how it propelled to faster speeds.
  
  Still it would be quite a cryout … ;)
  - yo on July 29, 2013 at 5:59 am said:
    
    That’s called the ammunition undergoing massive change.

Now this is a good looking tank.

that is just a American M41 Walker Bulldog!

I will be mad if they add this before Walker bulldog

weren’t they trying to make a medium tank? so it should be a medium instead of light tank.

Lidin on July 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm said:

I like it!
Bin on July 28, 2013 at 2:44 pm said:

I really like the gun.
Anonymous on July 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm said:

“but the project started in year 64″ – by “Year 64″, I’m assuming that you’re referring to Minguo 64 (which is 1975 A.D), right?

(For those who don’t know, Taiwan officially uses the Minguo calendar in official government documents, and the western Gregorian calendar in non-formal situations.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minguo_calendar
- Anonymous on July 28, 2013 at 2:56 pm said:
  
  It’s similar to how Japan uses its imperial calendar (e.g. 2013 is “Heisei 25″), and how North Korea uses the juche calendar (2013 is “Juche 102″). East Asian countries use era names to represent years, with the exception of Mainland China, which has been westernized thanks to Soviet influence and now only uses the Gregorian calendar. Taiwan uses its own calendar system, just like those other Asian countries.
- Kellomies on July 28, 2013 at 3:50 pm said:
  
  As if having just about the single most pointlessly convoluted writing system wasn’t bad enough.
  - Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 4:40 am said:
    
    Uhh… how is starting “Year 1″ from when the day the emperor ascended the throne (Japan), the year the Republic was established (Taiwan) or the year Kim Il-Sung was born (North Korea) any less retarded than making “Year 1″ the year that Jesus Christ, an imaginary story book character, died?
    
    Furthermore, historians have calculated that if Jesus did actually exist, he didn’t die on 1.A.D, but more likely approximately 30A.D. The Gregorian Calendar is just as arbitrary and retarded.
    - Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 4:56 am said:
      
      The problem is with having an unique calender for your own country. The actual year it starts on doesn’t matter, just that it’s diffrent to what the rest of the world uses.
      
      It’s equally stupid that the US still resists the idea of a unified measurement system, despite the obvious advantages.
      - Captian Nemo on July 29, 2013 at 5:34 am said:
        
        We use both systems. It just depends on what your doing.
      - Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 8:15 am said:
        
        Taiwan uses both the Minguo and the Gregorian calendar. The Minguo calendar is used by the government; if you’re doing a tax return, the letter will say that your payment was made “July 23, Minguo 102″ (民國102年7月23日). In everyday life, they use the Gregorian calendar, for example, when you book a dentist appointment, they tell you to come in on “February 16, 2013″ (2013年2月16日).
        
        Japan uses both the traditional Japanese era years, and the Gregorian calendar. Government documents will say things like “This law was passed on December 2, Heisei 25″ (平成25年12月2日), but plane tickets will say “Tokyo to Osaka, Gate 21, at 08:45 (JST) November 17, 2013″ (2013年11月17日).
        
        In other words, it’s not even a major deal, and people only have to deal with it when looking at official government documents. You will only need to use the Gregorian calendar 95% of the time in either country. It’s a “traditional legacy” thing, just like how US dollar notes have “IN GOD WE TRUST” on them. Why are you getting your panties in a twist over something so trivial?
  - Xel on July 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm said:
    
    “than making “Year 1″ the year that Jesus Christ, an imaginary story book character, died?”
    
    But that is wrong.
    - Anonymous on July 29, 2013 at 10:22 pm said:
      
      Please elaborate further, pray tell.
    - brett on July 31, 2013 at 11:02 pm said:
      
      he is real you retard
Y SO SERIOUS on July 28, 2013 at 5:27 pm said:

Superpen scout tank? YES PLZ!
Anonymous on July 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm said:

Sorry, that’s much better than 7tier AwfulPanther, so i’m against (unless you buff the latter, like 430m viewrange please!).
hii panda on July 28, 2013 at 7:42 pm said:

*throws gold at the screen
ThaElf on July 28, 2013 at 7:58 pm said:

Wouldn’t the gun be like L80 or something? ( fast measuerments from screen from tank lenght ) so how would it even be close to those values on penetration when 75L100 gives less than 200 ;)
- nyan cat on July 28, 2013 at 9:24 pm said:
  
  Because this tank came much later – the technology was better – better ammunition. IIRC SerB said that the reason why the D-25T has shit pen is because it has shit ammo, this is the exact opposite. Oh, and 7,5 cm KwK xx L100 never existed. If it was constructed, maybe it would’ve had more penetration than 198mm.
  
  A nice tier VII, I would nerf the pen a bit – cca 200 for standard ammo.
- Anonymous on July 28, 2013 at 10:39 pm said:
  
  The ammunition makes a whole world of difference. Early cold war 120mm guns had 250~ mm pen while 120mm guns today have 1000mm+ pen. The guns themselves are not that changed, its the ammo and guidance systems that went through a massive change.
  - ThaElf on July 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm said:
    
    Well the fact goes that these new rounds are by coincidence of smaller caliber which still go at high speeds… It is funny how 120mm is reduced to 2-3cm arrow. The hole is small, but still penetrates deep. Funny stuff how velocity effects penetration. Just need a weight with speed. So the thing is less of ammunition changed, but more of from what it is made of and how it propelled to faster speeds.
    
    Still it would be quite a cryout … ;)
    - yo on July 29, 2013 at 5:59 am said:
      
      That’s called the ammunition undergoing massive change.
Gino Tusconi on July 29, 2013 at 9:00 am said:

Now this is a good looking tank.
brett on July 31, 2013 at 6:00 pm said:

that is just a American M41 Walker Bulldog!
brett on July 31, 2013 at 10:59 pm said:

I will be mad if they add this before Walker bulldog
anon on October 4, 2013 at 5:17 am said:

weren’t they trying to make a medium tank? so it should be a medium instead of light tank.