Historical overview
The Type 69 / Type 79 family occupied a transitional position in Chinese armored-vehicle development. It was neither a clean-sheet second-generation tank nor merely an unchanged Type 59. It began as a Chinese attempt to modernize the Type 59/T-54A lineage after the Sino-Soviet split, then absorbed lessons and equipment associated with the captured Soviet T-62 from the 1969 border conflict. The result was a series of first-generation main battle tanks that emphasized affordable export production, improved night-fighting equipment, laser rangefinding, stabilized fire control, and, in the Type 79, a 105 mm gun derived from the L7/Type 83 path. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69; Hoover 1969] Sources
Its historical importance lies less in battlefield dominance than in industrial and geopolitical meaning. Type 69 showed that China could move beyond direct Soviet copying into iterative national improvement, even when the baseline architecture remained conservative. Type 69-II became a major export tank in the 1980s, especially for states that wanted inexpensive, maintainable armored vehicles and were willing to accept technology below leading NATO and Soviet standards. RAND describes Chinese arms buyers of the period as valuing availability, price, and ease of maintenance, a pattern that matches the Type 69 export story. [RAND MR1119; SIPRI Arms Transfers; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
The most important variants are the early Type 69 and Type 69-I, the export Type 69-II and its command versions, the Type 79/Type 69-III/WZ-121D with the 105 mm Type 83 gun and improved fire-control suite, and support derivatives such as the WZ-653/Type 653 armored recovery vehicle and Type 84 armored vehicle-launched bridge. Sources
The major controversies are familiar in Chinese armor references: whether the earliest Type 69 is described as a production tank or a limited/unsuccessful domestic model; whether the main gun is described as 100 mm smoothbore, 100 mm rifled, or 105 mm depending on subtype and source; how to count Type 69 and Type 79 production; whether Type 79 is a separate family or simply Type 69-III; and how to identify Iraqi, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Thai, and other export variants from open photographs. Type 69/79 was a successful export and learning platform, but not a high-end peer of contemporary Western third-generation tanks or late Soviet T-72/T-80 designs. [Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79; GlobalSecurity Type 69; CIA NPIC 1983] Sources
China's Type 69 story begins with the Type 59, the Chinese-produced version of the Soviet T-54A. The Type 59 gave the People's Liberation Army a large, modern-by-1950s standard tank force, but it also tied Chinese armored technology to a design whose growth margin was constrained by the Sino-Soviet split and the withdrawal of Soviet assistance. By the early 1960s, China had a pressing military problem: it needed to modernize a Soviet-derived armored force without reliable Soviet technical support. [GlobalSecurity Type 69; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
The strategic background changed sharply with the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict around Zhenbao/Damansky Island. Multiple secondary sources describe China recovering a Soviet T-62 after the clash and studying it for technology that could be applied to domestic tank development. The captured vehicle was important not because the Type 69 became a T-62 copy, but because selected features, especially night-fighting and fire-control related equipment, showed how far the Type 59/T-54 line lagged behind later Soviet designs. [Hoover 1969; Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69] Sources
Doctrine also mattered. The PLA required large armored forces for continental defense and potential operations under nuclear, chemical, and conventional conditions. The country needed tanks that could be produced and sustained by domestic industry, not exquisite high-cost machines. The export market added a second requirement: many non-aligned or Soviet-supplied states wanted inexpensive tanks, and Chinese vehicles could be offered when Soviet, Western, or domestic alternatives were politically or financially difficult. [RAND MR1119; SIPRI Arms Transfers] Sources
Industrial constraints shaped the family. China could manufacture T-54/Type 59-style cast turrets, torsion-bar hulls, V-12 diesel powerpacks, and 100 mm-class guns. It was harder to field high-performance composite armor, digital fire-control systems, thermal sights, and advanced engines at the level of NATO or late Soviet tanks. The Type 69 and Type 79 therefore represented incremental modernization: better sights, improved stabilization, a laser rangefinder, improved radios and night devices, and, later, an L7-derived 105 mm gun path rather than a complete design revolution. [Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79; GlobalSecurity Type 69] Sources
Development and variants
Published accounts describe Type 69 / Type 79 as a tank family rather than a single variant. It also includes the WZ-122 prototype as a related development influence, not as a production member of the family. Sources
Type 69 / WZ-121 baseline development and production history. Sources
Type 69-I as an early, uncertain domestic or limited-production subtype. Sources
Type 69-II as the principal export production subtype, including Type 69-IIA-style features where sources use that terminology. Sources
Type 69-IIB and Type 69-IIC command variants, treated as source-sensitive because quantities and equipment vary in open references. Sources
Type 79 / Type 69-III / WZ-121D, including the 105 mm Type 83 gun path and fire-control improvements. Sources
Type 653 / WZ-653 / WZ653A armored recovery vehicle and Type 84 bridge-layer, only as chassis derivatives. Sources
Export and combat service, especially Iraq, Iran-Iraq War, the 1991 Gulf War, and selected post-Cold War operators. Sources
Type 59 and its many national rebuilds, except as direct lineage and comparison. Sources
Type 80 / Type 88, which Published accounts describe as a separate follow-on family, although both belong to the broader Chinese transition to second-generation MBTs. Sources
WZ-1224, WZ-1226, and later 120 mm or 125 mm Chinese testbeds, except as follow-on context. Sources
Modern VT-series export tanks, Type 96, Type 99, and Al-Khalid/MBT-2000, except in legacy and replacement discussions. Sources
Unverified field upgrades or battlefield improvisations unless a source provides enough evidence to discuss them as uncertain claims. Sources
Open-source photo identification is difficult because Type 59, Type 69, Type 69-II, Type 79, T-54, T-55, and some Iraqi-modified vehicles share a general silhouette. The most common confusion is to treat any Chinese-built T-54/T-55-lineage tank as Type 69, or to assume all Type 69-family vehicles carry a 105 mm gun. In practice, early Type 69 vehicles are associated with a 100 mm smoothbore, Type 69-II with a 100 mm rifled gun in several sources, and Type 79/Type 69-III with the 105 mm Type 83/L7-derived gun path. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79] Sources
The family identity is clear; the main uncertainties concern subtype boundaries, production totals, export inventories, and how far the Type 79 is separate from Type 69-III. [Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79] Sources
Published accounts describe development/start as 1963-1974 and describes the lineage as Type 59 plus captured T-62 technology. Army Guide gives a similar development arc: a design proposal in 1963, initial design activity in 1964, prototypes in the mid-1960s, and formal acceptance in 1974. The dates describe a development period rather than one unambiguous beginning. Contemporary Chinese terminology combined product numbers, approval dates, and public designations. [Army Guide Type 69] Sources
The vehicle was based on the Type 59 architecture. The hull remained a low, five-roadwheel, torsion-bar vehicle with rear engine and transmission. The turret remained a cast, rounded Soviet-style form. The modernization effort concentrated on the armament, night-fighting suite, fire-control system, engine improvements, and command and protection equipment. The early 100 mm smoothbore path is described by several sources as unsatisfactory or limited in acceptance, which helps explain why Type 69-II export production used a 100 mm rifled gun and why Type 79 moved toward a 105 mm gun. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69] Sources
The 1969 captured T-62 is central to the narrative but easy to overstate. It did not make Type 69 a direct T-62 copy. Instead, it provided technology and evidence: better Soviet night fighting, a more modern fire-control and gunnery approach, and proof that the Type 59 baseline needed systematic modernization. Open sources commonly mention copied or adapted Luna infrared equipment, NBC improvements, and related components in the Type 69-I path. [Hoover 1969; Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69] Sources
The Type 69-I is best treated as an early or limited subtype. Published accounts describe it uncertain and notes limited domestic acceptance. Army Guide and Tank-AFV describe early Type 69 arrangements with a 100 mm smoothbore gun, laser rangefinder, infrared searchlight, and features influenced by the T-62. However, the extent of production and operational distribution is unclear. Sources
Type 69-II became the best-known export version. Sources describe production from roughly 1982 and identify a 100 mm rifled gun, improved sights, laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and two-axis stabilization. The tank also acquired external recognition features such as side skirts, turret stowage racks, smoke grenade launchers, and revised lighting arrangements on some subtypes. This was the version most associated with Iraqi orders and with Chinese 1980s armored exports. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69; GlobalSecurity Type 69] Sources
Type 79 represented the upper end of the family. Army Guide describes it as a further development of Type 69-II by No. 617 Factory, with improvements to firepower, fire control, night vision, and communications. Tank-AFV identifies it with Type 69-III/WZ-121D, first prototypes in 1981, enhanced prototypes in 1983, and production from 1984. The main distinguishing feature was the Type 83 105 mm rifled gun derived from the L7/Type 81 path, supported by a better FCS and other Western-influenced components. [Army Guide Type 79; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
The WZ-122 prototype path ran in parallel with the broader Chinese search for a post-Type 59/Type 69 tank. The cited accounts links WZ-122 to the Type 69/79 family as an influence but not as a production vehicle. Published accounts describe WZ-122 as context for China's second-generation aspirations, while Type 80/88 remains outside the family boundary. Support vehicles - especially WZ-653/Type 653 recovery vehicles and Type 84 AVLBs - show the chassis becoming useful beyond the gun tank role. [Army Guide Type 653; Army Guide Type 84] Sources
Design and performance
Type 69/79 retained the conventional Soviet-derived layout: driver in the front hull, fighting compartment and turret in the center, engine and transmission in the rear. The crew remained four in most references: commander, gunner, loader, and driver. The retention of a human loader and a compact turret distinguished the family from later autoloaded designs and helped keep it within the established Type 59 industrial ecosystem. [Army Guide Type 69; GlobalSecurity Type 69] Sources
The hull was a Type 59/T-54-derived welded steel form with a sharply sloped glacis, low silhouette, five large road wheels per side, and rear drive arrangement. External differences varied by subtype and export customer; Type 69-II commonly received side skirts, stowage racks, smoke launchers, and revised light clusters. Sources
The turret was a rounded cast form descended from the T-54/Type 59 pattern. Type 69 and Type 69-II retained a compact turret with limited internal volume, while Type 79 showed small changes associated with the 105 mm gun and improved equipment. Army Guide notes a slightly different Type 79 turret appearance, including a rectangular window or feature ahead of the commander's cupola and distinctive stowage and smoke launcher arrangements. [Army Guide Type 79] Sources
The armor was conventional homogeneous steel in the Type 59/T-54 family style rather than a modern composite system. Open sources often describe the turret front as thick enough by first-generation standards but inadequate against advanced 105 mm, 120 mm, and modern anti-armor weapons. Gulf War outcomes reinforced the point: Iraqi Type 69-family tanks were not survivable against Coalition tanks, aircraft, and precision fire systems. Exact armor thickness figures vary by source and are not treated as well-documented here. [Army Guide Type 69; FAS Type 69] Sources
Armament is the biggest source of confusion. Early Type 69 is commonly associated with a 100 mm smoothbore gun; Type 69-II is usually described as using a 100 mm rifled gun; Type 79/Type 69-III used a Type 83/Type 83-I 105 mm rifled gun derived from the L7/Type 81 line and compatible with NATO-pattern 105 mm ammunition categories. Sources
Secondary weapons generally included a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun, a hull or bow 7.62 mm machine gun in the older Soviet-style arrangement, and a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun on the commander's cupola. Ammunition stowage figures vary, but Army Guide gives 500 rounds for the 12.7 mm gun and 3,000 rounds for 7.62 mm machine guns for Type 69-family specifications. [Army Guide Type 69] Sources
For Type 69 and Type 69-II, open sources describe 100 mm ammunition including armor-piercing, HEAT, and high-explosive types. Type 69-II export refinements included ammunition and gun improvements tied to the 100 mm rifled weapon. Type 79's 105 mm gun could fire APFSDS, HEAT, and HEAT-FRAG classes in sources that discuss the Type 83-I gun. Sources
The family's key improvement over Type 59 was fire control. Type 69 introduced laser rangefinding and stabilization in open-source descriptions. Type 69-II is described with a more complete export FCS including a two-axis stabilizer, laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and improved gunner sight. Type 79 incorporated a simplified but more advanced system with Western-influenced components; some sources connect it to British Marconi fire-control technology. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79] Sources
Night fighting equipment included infrared searchlights and associated sights, influenced in part by lessons drawn from the captured T-62. Type 69-II and Type 79 improved the sighting arrangement but still did not reach the thermal-imaging standard of later third-generation tanks. Sources
Most Type 69/69-II data use a 12150L-series V-12 diesel rated around 580 hp. With combat weight around 36.5-36.7 tonnes, this gives roughly 15.8 hp/tonne. Type 79 is often credited with a higher-output diesel around 730 hp and a combat weight around 37.5 tonnes, improving the power-to-weight ratio if the figure is correct. The CIA NPIC report also commented on improved engine and transmission features when identifying deployed Type 69s, but some technical details in that report conflict with later open references. [Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79; CIA NPIC 1983] Sources
The suspension followed the T-54/Type 59 torsion-bar pattern with five large road wheels per side, no return rollers, and rear drive sprockets. It was robust, familiar to Chinese industry and operators, and adequate for the tank's weight class. The design did not offer the ride quality, stabilization margin, or growth potential of newer Western suspensions but was suitable for export customers with limited maintenance infrastructure. [Army Guide Type 69; GlobalSecurity Type 69] Sources
Type 69-family speed is generally given around 50 km/h on road, with range around 420-440 km for gun tanks. Type 69-II added double-pin tracks in some descriptions, while Type 79 used rubber track shoes in several references. Mobility was acceptable for a first-generation MBT, but terrain performance depended on maintenance, track type, and user-specific condition. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79] Sources
The compact Soviet-style layout was efficient but cramped. Ammunition, radios, and upgraded FCS components competed for space inside a turret and hull originally shaped by the Type 59. Crew effectiveness improved with better sights and rangefinding, but the human factors remained behind larger Western tanks such as the M60 or later M1. [GlobalSecurity Type 69; Army Guide Type 69] Sources
Standard radio arrangements improved across the family, especially in Type 79 and in command variants. Type 69-IIB and Type 69-IIC are described as command tanks with additional radios and higher-echelon communications equipment. Because quantities and exact radio fits are not consistently reported, command variants remain uncertain Published accounts describe. [Army Guide Type 69] Sources
Protection systems included smoke generation by exhaust injection, smoke grenade launchers on later export variants, fire-extinguishing equipment, NBC lining or protection on some subtypes, and night-fighting devices. These systems made the tank more survivable than the baseline Type 59 in some situations but did not compensate for conventional armor against modern anti-tank weapons. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 69; GlobalSecurity Type 69] Sources
The Type 69 family's strongest practical virtue was maintainability. It used a familiar architecture, a proven diesel line, simple steel construction, and weapons compatible with users accustomed to Soviet-style tanks. This was a major export advantage. The same conservatism limited growth potential, especially as customers faced tanks with better armor, thermal sights, fire-control computers, and long-rod penetrators. [RAND MR1119; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
Known weaknesses included limited armor growth margin, cramped ergonomics, inconsistent early armament performance, uneven quality among export batches, limited night-fighting compared with thermal-equipped opponents, and vulnerability to modern anti-tank fire. Combat in 1991 demonstrated that Iraqi Type 69-family vehicles were badly outclassed by Coalition combined-arms systems, although poor Iraqi training, doctrine, air-defense collapse, and command conditions also shaped those outcomes. [FAS Type 69; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
Production, operators, and combat record
The industrial center most often associated with the family is the Inner Mongolia/Baotou tank-production complex, including No. 617 Factory / First Inner Mongolia Machinery Factory in open references. The CIA NPIC report on Xintaiyue deployment identified Baotou AV Plant 617 as the probable production source. Army Guide identifies No. 617 Factory in relation to Type 79 development. These sources support the conclusion that Type 69/79 was a state-armaments-industry product rather than a private or isolated experimental effort. [CIA NPIC 1983; Army Guide Type 79] Sources
The production timeline is best understood in phases. The development and approval period ran from roughly 1963 through 1974. Early Type 69 acceptance was limited or problematic, especially around the 100 mm smoothbore gun. Type 69-II export production became important in the early 1980s, and Type 79 entered production around 1984 according to several secondary sources. Support variants such as WZ-653/Type 653 and Type 84 AVLB also belong to the 1980s export and support-vehicle ecosystem. [Army Guide Type 69; Tank-AFV Type 69/79; Army Guide Type 653; Army Guide Type 84] Sources
Production totals are disputed. Published accounts describe "3,000+ often cited." Tank-AFV estimates about 2,200-2,500 vehicles and about 2,000 exported. Army Guide states that over four thousand Type 69-family tanks were delivered to the PLA and foreign customers, while other secondary sources produce totals of at least 4,500 across Type 69/79 marks. These totals may be counting different combinations of Type 69, Type 69-II, Type 79, licensed assembly, conversions, rebuilds, and support chassis. Sources
The export industry mattered as much as domestic service. Type 69-II was attractive because it could be bought in volume, supplied with familiar Soviet-pattern logistics, and operated by forces already trained on T-54/T-55/Type 59-style tanks. For China, the family provided hard-currency earnings, political relationships, and practical feedback from foreign users. The RAND arms-sales analysis supports the broader interpretation that availability, low cost, and ease of use were key selling points for Chinese weapons in many recipient states. [RAND MR1119; SIPRI Arms Transfers] Sources
China was the original developer and domestic operator, but the family's public reputation was formed by export service. The cited accounts explicitly records Iraq and Thailand accounts; additional operators appear across secondary references and arms-transfer databases. Sources
Iraq was the most important export case. The Type 69-II gave Iraq an inexpensive way to expand armored strength during the Iran-Iraq War. By 1991, however, Iraqi Type 69 and Type 59-family vehicles were severely outmatched by Coalition tanks, aircraft, night-fighting systems, artillery, and command networks. Several surviving or captured Iraqi examples became widely photographed, which is why Type 69 public imagery is disproportionately Iraqi. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; FAS Type 69; Commons Type 69-II Iraq] Sources
Thailand and Bangladesh illustrate the post-export uncertainty problem. Published accounts describe Thailand uncertain and "current/retired verify." Bangladesh sources conflict between replacement by newer Chinese VT-5 tanks and ongoing upgrade claims for older Type 69 vehicles. Those cases remain open until corroborated with current official or high-quality inventory sources. [GlobalSecurity Type 69] Sources
The Iran-Iraq War was the family's most important high-volume combat environment. Iraq imported Chinese tanks, including Type 69-II vehicles, to replace losses and sustain a large armored force. The Type 69-II was attractive because it was available in quantity and familiar to crews and mechanics accustomed to Soviet-pattern armor. It was not a technological equal of the best late Cold War tanks, but in the Iran-Iraq War its value lay in mass, maintainability, and availability. [RAND MR1119; SIPRI Arms Transfers; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
Detailed battle-by-battle Type 69 loss data for the Iran-Iraq War is not reliably available in the sources used here. The safest narrative claim is that Type 69-II vehicles formed part of Iraq's large armored inventory and appeared in a war defined by attritional operations, uneven crew quality, extensive artillery, mines, anti-tank guided weapons, and repeated offensives. Tactical outcomes cannot be attributed securely to Type 69 without a clear vehicle identification. [FAS Type 69; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
The 1991 Gulf War exposed the Type 69 family's limitations against a modern combined-arms coalition. Iraqi Type 69-II/Type 59-family tanks were vulnerable to M1 Abrams, Challenger, attack helicopters, aircraft, artillery, and night-fighting systems. This does not mean every individual Type 69 was mechanically poor; rather, the overall Iraqi force was technologically, doctrinally, and operationally overmatched. Public-domain photographs of captured and destroyed Iraqi Type 69-family tanks from Operation Desert Storm became some of the most visible records of the type. [Commons Type 69-II Iraq; FAS Type 69; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
By 2003, surviving Iraqi Type 69-family vehicles were obsolete. Some appear in post-2003 imagery as abandoned, captured, or residual Iraqi armored vehicles. Identification remains difficult because Type 55, T-55, Type 59, Type 69, and Iraqi-modified vehicles are often miscaptioned. Sources
Secondary references also associate Type 69-family tanks with Sri Lanka and other post-Cold War users. The evidence is sufficient to include operator context, but not enough in the cited record to build a precise tactical combat history. Sources
Legacy and historical evidence
The best comparison for Type 69-II is not the M1 Abrams or T-80U, but the late-life T-55/Type 59 modernization market. Against older tanks and in armies with limited budgets, Type 69-II offered real improvements. Against thermal-equipped, composite-armored, high-velocity 105 mm/120 mm/125 mm systems supported by modern command networks, it was obsolete. Type 79 narrowed part of the firepower gap but did not solve the armor and sensor gap. [Army Guide Type 69; Army Guide Type 79; FAS Type 69] Sources
Type 69/79's legacy is threefold. First, it marked China's move from licensed Soviet-pattern production toward indigenous iteration. Second, it established a durable export pattern: offer familiar, affordable equipment to countries that wanted Soviet-style armored capability without relying exclusively on Moscow or paying Western prices. Third, it became a stepping stone toward Type 80/88 and later Chinese tank families, even though those later vehicles cannot be combined into Type 69/79. [Tank-AFV Type 69/79; RAND MR1119] Sources
The family also influenced perceptions of Chinese arms exports. Iraqi use made Type 69 visible to Western audiences, but often in unfavorable circumstances: abandoned or destroyed vehicles after 1991 and 2003. That imagery can obscure the more significant story, which is Chinese industrial learning under strategic isolation and the emergence of China as a supplier to states outside the Western and Soviet/Russian procurement mainstream. [SIPRI Arms Transfers; Commons Type 69-II Iraq; Commons Baghdad] Sources
Surviving vehicles exist in museums, military training areas, and former operator holdings. The Fort Lewis Military Museum example, photographed by Joe Mabel, provides a clear public reference for a Chinese Type 69-II. Sources
A common misconception is to treat the Type 79 as a fully separate technological leap. It was important, but it remained a Type 69-derived, first-generation architecture with improved firepower and systems. Its true significance is as a bridge - a practical integration of better gun and fire-control technology before the more substantial changes represented by Type 80/88, Type 96, and later PRC tanks. [Army Guide Type 79; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
The family relationship, basic technical trajectory, and export importance are well supported by multiple sources. Exact quantities, subvariant boundaries, and current inventories are weaker. The most valuable single primary-style source is the 1983 CIA/NPIC deployment report, because it confirms Western intelligence identification of Type 69 tanks in Chinese operational deployment, although some technical labels in that report conflict with later open references. [CIA NPIC 1983; Army Guide Type 69; Tank-AFV Type 69/79] Sources
Photographs and image credits
Background reading and references. Each photograph has its own source and credit.
Sources and further reading
Background reading and references. Each photograph has its own source and credit.
- Tank-AFV, "Type 69 and Type 79 Chinese PLA Main Battle Tanks (1974)".
- Army Guide, "Type 69 (Main battle tank)".
- Army Guide, "Type 79 (Main battle tank)".
- GlobalSecurity.org, "Type 69 / WZ-121 Main Battle Tank".
- CIA Reading Room / National Photographic Interpretation Center, "TYPE-69 TANK DEPLOYMENT XINTAIYUE ARMY BARRACKS AL 1, CHINA," 23 September 1983.
- Hoover Institution, "The 1969 Sino-Soviet Border Conflicts As A Key Turning Point In The Cold War".
- RAND Corporation, "China's Arms Sales: Motivations and Implications".
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Arms Transfers Database.
- Army Guide, "Type 653 (Repair and recovery vehicle)".
- GlobalSecurity.org, "Type 69-II Recovery Vehicles".
- Army Guide, "Type 84 (Armoured vehicle-launched bridge)".
- Federation of American Scientists, "Type 69".
- MilitaryFactory.com, "NORINCO Type 69".
- Wikimedia Commons, "File:Type 69-II Iraq.jpg".
- Wikimedia Commons, "File:Type 69-II tank.jpg".
- Wikimedia Commons, "File:Chinese Type 69-II Tank.jpg".
- Wikimedia Commons, "File:Type 79-II Chinese Tank.jpg".
- Wikimedia Commons, "File:Iraqi Type 69 tank in baghdad.jpg".
