Alternative tank Type 91

In 1931 tests of the tank Type 91 were carried out. Despite that tests were successful, the tank didn't satisfy military. And Japanese designers received a task to make cardinal re-planning of the machine. That was done.
First of all, designers decided to get rid of two machine-gun towers because military didn’t need them. The place of a forward tower was replaced by the special cabin in which there was a machine which gun was directed forward. The machine gun which was on the back part of a tower had to be replaced with a back machine-gun tower.
All of these changes have seriously allowed reducing the size of the tank so the result of this action is that the machine became lighter. The received reserve of weight was decided to use for armor increase of forehead hull and tower to 45 mm.
Moreover the tank case was considerably redesigned. The front armor was established under rational corners. It improved a tank armored protection even more.
As a result the machine became much more successful than its first prototype. Despite of increasing in thickness of armor in a front projection, the general decrease in the sizes of the machine didn't compensate the decrease of weight. And as a result the tank became to weigh only 16 tons. This results positively affected on its permeability and maximum speed. The speed grown up to 45 km/h. But it wasn't the main indicator. For the infantry tank, due to the classifications of the beginning of the 30th, this indicator wasn't so important. As infantry tanks were never used at the maximum speeds.
type_911.jpeg



Technical characteristics:
Weight, t. - 16
Armoring:
The forehead of the body (top), mm - 45
The forehead of the body (bottom), mm - 30
Hull sides (top), mm - 15-20
Forehead tower, mm - 45
The roof of the tower, mm - 15
Armament:
Cannon, mm - 70
Machine gun, pcs / mm - 2 / 6.5
Engine - BMW, 6 cylinder carburetor
Engine power hp - 224
Transmission - mechanical type: 5-speed gearbox (4 + 1) airborne transmission and differential
Maximum travel speed km / h - 45
Cruising km - 200
The crew – 4(people)

Link - http://alternathistory.info/article/alternative-tank-type-91
 

Andre27

Banned
I see the amour is still riveted with all the drawbacks that come with that.
Also the track/gear system looks completely unsuited for jungle warfare.
 
Interesting design, but did the Japanese have the engine to power a tank that size and would they have fitted SEVENTY MM canon on such a tank? The big of a gun seems out of place in 1931. Even 1939 it is larger than most guns.
 

marathag

Banned
The BMW IV engine dates from 1919, and powered various aircraft including the Junkers F.13.

And the later V-12 derivative BMW VI was developed into the Soviet M-17 that powered the BT series, and later AM-34 that did a few Soviet heavy tank prototypes.

It would be a good choice for poweplant
 

marathag

Banned
Interesting design, but did the Japanese have the engine to power a tank that size and would they have fitted SEVENTY MM canon on such a tank? The big of a gun seems out of place in 1931. Even 1939 it is larger than most guns.

The US T1 Medium of 1925 was tested with both 57mm and 75mm main guns

and that cannon wasn't high velocity, more like the US 75mm pack howitzer
 
Last edited:
The US T1 Medium of 1925 was tested with both 57mm and 75mm main guns

and that cannon wasn't high velocity, more like the US 75mm pack howitzer

Ok I stand corrected. Having a low velocity gun would limit its ability to combat fortified positions.

How much ammo could this tank carry?
 

Andre27

Banned
Look at the Matilda II.

suspensions_MatildaII.jpg


That still worked for Oz in that same jungle.

The 2nd forward running wheel, i believe they called it the Jockey wheel, was significantly larger with the Matilda than with the Japanese design.

This in turn makes the tracks on the Japanese tank more vulnerable for jungle environment with branches and tree stumps. Also more vulnerable to relative ancient weapons such as anti tank rifles.
 
Top