Down the Memory Lane: Type 59/Patton Hybrid’s story

47

Hello,

Hope everyone is having a nice weekend.

After the past Q&A gathering and by the way, your questions have been submitted, thank you for sending them in, I do –in a sadistic way– enjoy reading what are the topics the community is mostly focused on, that not only allows us to orient ourselves at RSR but it also bring article ideas. As far Q&As go, I rather be a channel and letting you have a voice than asking my own questions, after all, I most likely would “definitely not biasedly” spam WG that the buffed T95 is unfair and I demand a Tortoise speed buff too.

Anyway, especially after the last Q&A I noticed that the 59 Patton has become somewhat a hot topic again but I also notice that most people are not aware of its entire background. I have, in fact, 2 years ago posted an article about the vehicle when it came out but I do not expect people to remember everything, heck, I have trouble remembering it all so instead of going “Support team” mode and paste the article’s link a gazillion times as an answer I am dusting it off and bringing it back up again.

So without more delay, here’s the story behind the 59 Patton which also lights how things work in the Chinese server:

stupidlittlepricknamedrick

“Hello warriors,

recently, it was leaked that the Chinese tree would get a new tier 8 premium tank, a Type 59 hull with Patton turret. Naturally, given how ridiculous this thing is, most people simply assumed it’s a fake from “SerB’s design bureau” (and a bad one at that). But is it really?

To find out, we contacted the best person for such question – Wargaming’s very own historian, Yuri Pasholok. He confirmed that the vehicle is “real” – in a way.

As you probably know, China has some very specific laws and it is for this reason that the Chinese server is completely independent. In return, the Chinese server operator, a company called Konzhong pays Wargaming license fees and also provides some information on Chinese vehicles.

And here’s the issue. Pretty much nothing coming out of Konzhong is verifiable in western sources, so stuff like T-34-1, T-34-2, 112, 113… all these could theoretically be fake. They were given to Wargaming simply as a DVD with a bunch of drawings (no historical documents or anything, just drawings) with descriptions and designations.

The Type 59/Patton hybrid is exactly this case as well. It comes from Kongzhong without any photo or proof. According to the Chinese, this project didn’t exist other than as a proposal – it was a product of the “thawing” of relations between USA and China and never went anywhere, as it was significantly flawed from early on (the turret rings don’t match and there is no real reason to put a Patton turret on Type 59, it’s not like it is better or anything). Chinese “favorite” method of explaining absence of any documents is that the “prototype was destroyed during nuclear trials”, so if something like this appears in the description… well, we’ll just have to see.”

Hope this has enlighted you or refreshed your memory.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!

47 comments on “Down the Memory Lane: Type 59/Patton Hybrid’s story

  1. skivster says:

    Soooo half of the chinese tree is fake.




    7



    1
    • Rita Sobral says:

      Pretty much, 59 Patton is the best example, turret and hull do not fit into one another IRL.




      9



      1
      • real_toothdecay says:

        ” I most likely would “definitely not biasedly” spam WG that the buffed T95 is unfair and I demand a Tortoise speed buff too.”

        Well said, and I agree !




        6



        1
    • alangallery says:

      Because they are an ancient civilisation it just means that they have been smoking the good stuff much longer than anyone else.




      8



      0
      • Akina90 says:

        No need to be racist. KZ themselves is a shitty company after all. The Chinese experts working with WT CN server/Gaijin did a much better job on the ground vehicles.




        0



        1
      • heldermartins1 says:

        He was beeing sarcastic, not racist.




        1



        0
  2. OOPSAA says:

    Give it a new better patton turret please….




    8



    1
  3. OOPSAA says:

    Ohhh and better camo rating




    1



    2
  4. Anonymous says:

    cammo is fine, its biggest problem is that it looks stupid




    0



    0
  5. E50m, Wtf e100, there is a lot of “non realistic tanks” without plans or prototypes… just wg inventions.




    3



    1
    • Shade01982 says:

      Still, there are various levels of fantasy. The E50M was not all that far from a ‘what-if’ scenario as some of the others for example…




      1



      1
    • party1c says:

      but at least they are based on existing parts and plans. if you look at the E50 for example, is a realistic further development looking on the VK series that lead to the panter and feels consequent to me. the 59 patton on the other hand… parts from both sides of the iron cutain with no chance to be massproduced ever. non the less i think its still possible that chinese engineers mounted a captured patton turret on a random hull for testing purposes. but that doesnt mean it makes any sense to send it out in a battle since it was never meant to fight.




      0



      0
  6. Avanxiaz says:

    This made laughed. Lmao.




    0



    1
  7. malkavian_str says:

    Wg should just give the type 79 with the 105mm L7




    4



    0
  8. Feorhhyrde says:

    I bitched about it in the Q&A comments and I’ll bitch about it here, for the love of all things Armored the 59-Patton needs the new turret.




    6



    1
  9. Ion7 says:

    Swap my 59 Patton out for this thing:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koksan_(artillery)
    Call it a medium or a TD and job done, id be a happy.
    Totally balanced.




    2



    2
  10. OOPSAA says:

    Just give it the same cupola as the M48 (M48A5), and with a smaller cupola, a better camo rating




    3



    1
  11. OOPSAA says:

    The New cupola of te M48 I man….. 😉




    1



    0
  12. Charcharo says:

    The truth is – as per the original Wargaming requirements for premium tanks, the 59 Patton actually fits. Quirky niche and/or prototype (drawing) vehicle, whilst letting service or war or at least real and tested prototypes populate the tech tree. So I have nothing against it.

    As for the turret ring – that can be solved, it isnt THAT big a deal… the question is why even bother though? That is the big problem with the 59 Patton on a conceptual level, not that its impossible engineering, just nonsensical engineering.




    8



    0
  13. Yankee137 says:

    When do we get the Patton 59?




    2



    1
  14. nrnstraswa says:

    Oh, so that explains why its taking so long to buff the Chinese mediums. (still hoping for T-34-2 buff) WG doesn’t have the relevant information without making guesses.




    1



    1
  15. Kongzhong are the same people with a 121 (supposedly a 60’s MBT design) with a Chinese copy of a 105mm Royal Ordnance L7 (121B).

    Everything that comes out of Kongzhong should be taken with a huge grainn of salt




    3



    1
  16. CW Shum says:

    So it is a fake. End of story.




    6



    1
    • party1c says:

      well, if you are an engineer in the chinese army and you capture a patton turret in the korean war… how would you prepare for testing this piece of enemy armor? exacly. you mount it on something you have. a 59 hull for example. sure, its not combat ready, its just a improvised piece of rubble. but i dont doubt that this monstrosity could have existed for tests on a fireing range.




      1



      0
  17. Anonymous says:

    So basically KhongZong comes to WG with a document says ‘DEFINITELY REAL PROPOSAL FOR HYBRID VEHICLE’ which suspiciously very well-preserved, even the inks was still wet, and WG just shrug and say ‘yeah whatever’ and put it in game anyway?




    1



    0
  18. Akina90 says:

    This story has another version. Few guys on Baidu Tieba said it was WG’s fantasy, KZ didn’t provide any information on this fake tank. They said WG knows it’s a fake tank but KZ will get the blame instead(+KZ don’t care as it will make money anyway) so WG did it.




    0



    0
  19. MOTHER'S LOLL says:

    I’m afraid the chinese kids learn this in school, like “my homework was destroyed during nuclear trials”…




    1



    0
  20. Anonymous says:

    I wonder how much of the tanks on this game were “destroyed during nuclear trials”




    0



    0
  21. OpaKnobbi says:

    A sad thing but the truth, almost every one of the Chinese tanks in the game – or at least most of them – are nothing more than fake, not even paper projects….

    Tanks-Encyclopedia has a very nice article about the 59-Patton, that also looks at some other Chinese tanks/tank projects…

    http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/59_Patton_Fake_Tanks




    1



    0
  22. Dorneles says:

    Tortoise does not need buff. No buff can save that big turd.




    0



    0
  23. Momo says:

    It’s a video game.. nothing real to begin with… only the money you get scammed.




    1



    1
  24. wolvenworks says:

    well i guess fakes are better than leaving half the chinese tree empty…..but still, i’m in the opinion that WG should resolve the Chinese Issue, and take full control of the Chinese server instead of consigning it to a more-or-less shady gold-digger. those guys made the “good” (aka chinese ppl who’re sick of being shot gold but may/may not still want to spam gold on other peeps) chinese players migrate to SEA server…i mean, if they can’t stick it in the mainland, they can always stick it in Hong Kong…(as with BF servers)




    0



    1

Leave a Reply