Talk:Type 63 anti-aircraft gun

Nohomers48's doubts
Here are the two versions of the same paragraph sentence by sentence that I edited to improve it language-wise and size-wise:

The first sentence is redundant because it wouldn't make sense to design a self propelled anti-aircraft gun to not meet the requirements of one. Later on there's a mention of Soviet T-34s and Chinese Type 85s. Seeing how the Chinese imported only a small number of T-34s before starting the production of Type 58 it only make sense to think that Type 63 SPAAGs were based on Type 58 tanks. Also seeing how Type 58 is simply a designation for Chinese T-34-85s it makes the mention of T-34 also redundant.

"an added open top turret with twin 37mm anti-aircraft guns to them" and "the turret was replaced by an open top one armed with with twin 37 mm anti-aircraft gun" mean exactly the same thing although the first version is written badly. The second sentence is exactly the same.

"The resulting vehicle, the Type 63, was a severely limited weapon." and "However the Type 63, was a severely limited weapon." mean exactly the same thing although the second version is better written.

"The Type 63 has no provision for radar control and had to be sighted and elevated manually." and "It wasn't radar-guided and thus the guns had to be aimed manually." again mean the same thing but the second version is better written.

The final sentence is exactly the same.

Therefore I did NOT delete any information. I simply improved the way it was written. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize about that little mess up, at the time I wasn't thinking straight due to the day I was having, and in my mind I thought your edit was vandalism. Sorry about that. Nohomers48 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bike Moose doubts
One source I have read states that the type is in fact nothing more than an improvised expedient, one-off design. If I may quote from The Complete encyclopedia of modern military weapons (Chris Bishop, General editor, Prospero Books, Etobicoke, Ontario, c1999, ISBN 1-55267-853-9) p. 131: "It was not until over twenty years later, when information on weapon development began to emerge from China, that it became apparent that there never had been a Type 63 gun equipment. The specimen capture in Vietnam had been just that - a specimen, the only one of its kind, cobbled together by some unknown and unrecorded North Vietnamese workshop from a redundant tank chassis and a twin 37-mm gun mount, probably from a naval origin, encased in a home-made shielded turret. Whaterver its effectiveness as an air defence weapon might have been, it was certainly effective in diverting the energies of several intelligence experts for quite a long time." How should this doubt to the true existence of class be incorporated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.89.147 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop using military factory’s info, it is absolutely garbage info and false
They claim it was produced by ‘Norinco’, a well known Chinese armored manufacturer. But there is no concrete evidence of this, this vehicle was a T34-85 made in Soviet Russia, sent to Vietnam and converted into a Improvised Vehicle. The name Type 56 comes from its dual-mounted type 56 guns. There are soviet markings all over the hull so it is a Soviet made vehicle, the PRC has nothing to do with this vehicle other than the dual-guns. OP554 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While Military Factory's sources themselves are unclear, other published sources however still indicate it was Chinese-made, although not Norinco-manufactured. Are there reliable sources however that state that it was an improvised Vietnamese vehicle that could be used in place of the other cited sources in the article?— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From T-34/76 Medium Tank 1941-45, by S. Zaloga, Osprey Publishing, 1994: "This unusual vehicle was a local conversion consisting of a Chinese Type 63 twin 37 mm anti-aircraft gun mounted in an improvised turret to create an air defence vehicle." (p. 46) and "The South Vietnamese captured at least one T-34-85 modified into an improvised anti-aircraft, vehicle by mounting Chinese Type 63 twin 37 mm guns in a crude open turret in place of the usual armament." (p. 40).--Le Petit Chat (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even jane's states that the vehicle had been named type 63 by the US due to an absence of a real name. Interestingly they claim that the hull is soviet made but that the turret is made by the Chinese state arsenal and that the vehicle is in use with the Chinese and Vietnamese. This is bogus as no such vehicle is known outside the captured example.
 * Sauce, page 498-499: https://archive.org/details/janesarmourartil0006unse/page/498/mode/2up?view=theater&q=%2237+mm%22 --Blockhaj (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)