Don't bother with the switch to 7.7mm.As the title says. Any possible improvements Japan can make for it's firearms before and during WWII? Additionally, in the event of a (admittedly very unlikely) Japanese victory, how would their standard infantry weapons theoretically evolve?
For ground guns, the Type 92 was pretty much a Lewis gun without the cooling sleeve, and would have been much better than the existing typesJapan needed better machine guns.
A license built version of the MG-34 would have been ideal.
Don't bother with the switch to 7.7mm.
If they needed a Machine Gun with more power, they had the 13.2mm and even the Italian 12.7mm. That round in a ground version of their Ho-104 12.7mm aircraft gun
Lighter and fills the roll better than the existing magazine fed Type 93 13.2mm,
In terms of the LMG having a lighter and similar to make weapon would be highly desirable. There really isn't a reason a 6.5mm cartridge the power of the Arisaka should have had a LMG that weighed even 9kg. Having a lighter bullet, but more streamlined would have been much better too. In fact having an automatic rifle based on the Arisaka cartridge with a smaller, lighter, more streamlined bullet would have been highly desirable and probably better than a LMG within the infantry squad (though with say 2 per squad instead of a single LMG).As the title says. Any possible improvements Japan can make for it's firearms before and during WWII? Additionally, in the event of a (admittedly very unlikely) Japanese victory, how would their standard infantry weapons theoretically evolve?
LMG: the Type 97/99 were both good LMGs (heavily influenced by Czech LMGs in Chinese service) but again pick a sodding calibre and stick to it. And build enough to replace the Type 11 (which was Italian levels of LMG crapness) in front line service.
Type 93 13.2mm on AAA tripodWhat would an MG chambered in those calibers look like, out of curiosity?
But the 20mm AT rifleA 50" rifle shooting a full-power 30 cal cartridge was just too much for them
The Japanese switched due to being outranged by the 7.92 Mauser weapons in China, so they adopted the air force 7.7mm to stay competitive. Of course they could have just done that for their MMGs...On the subject of picking calibre - I think they could have gotten away with sticking with the 6.5 for their Rifles and LMGs - no reason to go 7.7 IMO
Part of the problem there was the slower burning powder and long barrel meant the weak Arisaka cartridge only reached it's full velocity potential with a long barrel.A shortened Type 38 in 6.5mm would have been great as well. The Arisakas were finely made rifles, but just way too much for the average Japanese rifleman - IIRC their average soldier was 5'3" and probably not far over a hundred pounds in weight. A 50" rifle shooting a full-power 30 cal cartridge was just too much for them, and it's justification as a bayonet holder was pretty laughable by the 1930s. A 20" barreled Type 38 would have worked a lot better. Hell, an M1 Carbine would have been PERFECT for what they were doing, but that might be a little too much of a stretch.
But the 20mm AT rifle
And Fire Team Leaders, thru mid 1945Regarding the point about the M1 carbine, it wasn't the primary weapon used by the Marines in the Pacific despite having plenty of them, more than the Garands in fact, though not on the front lines. Only the squad leader carried the carbine because he wasn't expected the fight as a rifleman.
The Nambu Type-II sub machine gun had potential but was never adopted, major weakness though was the 8mm caliber it was chambered in but make it in 9mm with a folding stock and it could've been a handy sub-gun.
Its a 50 round magazine, 20 rounds more than on most SMG's of the era.Holy God, what is that magazine. 👀