Improved Japanese small arms

  • Thread starter Deleted member 96212
  • Start date

Deleted member 96212

Its a 50 round magazine, 20 rounds more than on most SMG's of the era.

Yes, but wouldn't it be kind of unwieldy to use practically? I mean it certainly looks strange to me, though if it works I suppose that's all that matters.

Come to think of it, the Type 99 MG has a weird magazine placement too. I haven't seen many mags entered in through the top of the gun...
 
Yes, but wouldn't it be kind of unwieldy to use practically? I mean it certainly looks strange to me, though if it works I suppose that's all that matters.

Come to think of it, the Type 99 MG has a weird magazine placement too. I haven't seen many mags entered in through the top of the gun...
As I said it had promise, add a wire folding stock, a straight magazine and maybe a forward pistol-grip and it could've been a cross between a Sten and an Uzi.
Be even better in 9mm.
 

McPherson

Banned
MMG: The Type 92 was good enough and they used it well - but quite frankly they would have been better off with a belt fed water cooled Maxim clone pretty much from before WW1 and be done with it.

The Japanese experimented with the Maxim as early as the first Sino-Japanese War. The IJA had a terrible experience and swore off recoil operated belt fed machine guns, preferring clip fed gas operated Hotchkiss system guns. Oddly enough the IJN agreed with them. Hotchkiss features in a lot of IJN auto-cannon systems.
GPMG? - Its been suggested that they use the MG34 - but this was a weapon design that was a state secret in Germany - they simply were not sharing with anyone! Would have been a good choice for any nation at the time but I don't see it happening.

The Japanese captured Browning short recoil .30 and .50 machine guns and worked on those operating systems and had examples of "Italian" Browning machine guns sold to them. These guns worked. There is no reason the Japanese could not build or duplicate the guns in any caliber they desired.
And seriously - have the Army and Navy use the same ammo (they both used 7.7 during the war - 1 with rimmed one with Rimless!!!!)

Rimless.
I agree with @Crowbar Six that they could really have used a cheap submachine gun. Something along the lines of the Sten would have been perfect - easily produced and good for jungle fighting.

Why not follow logic?

The IJA was very familiar with the C96 Mauser pistol and the 7.63 x25mm pistol cartridge it used.

That same army had also run afoul of the Russian PPD at Khalkin Gol and could have figured the situation out of mating bullet to blowback machine pistol; if the braindead ordnance people wedded to the Nambu 8mm pistol cartridge had been encouraged to join a land mine clearing unit..
 
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?
Roy Dunlap 'Ordnance Goes to War' said their rifles were great, best design he saw of an infantry rifle, good quality until 1941 when they ran out of good steel. The best pistols good, but most troops had bad pistol and of course these were even worse quality late in the war. 'The machine guns were not so good.' Sixty pounds, Japanese used BAR when they could because it saved thirty pounds. So if they'd licensed German machine guns that would be a real improvement. Dunlap also thought the Japanese skimped on waterproofing their ammunition. Better ammunition boxes might have been a big step up.
 

Deleted member 96212

Roy Dunlap 'Ordnance Goes to War' said their rifles were great, best design he saw of an infantry rifle, good quality until 1941 when they ran out of good steel.

The thing is though, the Arisaka rifle can only hold five rounds and is a bolt action rifle. This is going up against the US military, which equipped its troops with, at worst, a rifle that could hold eight rounds and fire semi-automatically. The difference in rate of fire is staggering. Against that the Arisaka needs to be replaced, or else Japanese soldiers are going to be consistently outmatched by their American counterparts.

At the very least, the increased rate of fire would help dramatically in China, where the best Chinese soldiers could hope for was stolen Arisakas and whatever the other Allies could spare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was wondering since the Japanese did capture countless American and British small arms from China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaya, didn't they experiment on Thompsons as well?
 
The thing is though, the Arisaka rifle can only hold five rounds and is a bolt action rifle. This is going up against the US military, which equipped its troops with, at worst, a rifle that could hold eight rounds and fire semi-automatically. The difference in rate of fire is staggering. Against that the Arisaka needs to be replaced, or else Japanese soldiers are going to be consistently outmatched by their American counterparts.

At the very least, the increased rate of fire would help dramatically in China, where the best Chinese soldiers could hope for was stolen Arisakas and whatever the other Allies could spare.

Another alternative was to go the German route and emphasize the machine gun as the main firepower of the squad. The Americans still had a pretty hard time against the Germans after all.

Tactically I'm not so sure that the effect of having a semi-auto rifle would be decisive. The British didn't seem to do consistently worse than the Americans in much fighting despite having bolt actions as well, though in the long run it would be good to move in the direction of more individual infantry firepower.

Unrelated, but I wonder if the Type 10 or Type 89 mortars could have been converted into grenade launchers, or at least be the genesis for some idea of having a squad level grenade launcher. Cold War/modern infantry have moved in the direction of having dedicated grenadiers with either underbarrel or dedicated launchers, which may offset the semi auto rifle advantage.

(Yes, rifle grenades are a thing but seem to have been abandoned due to lack of range)
 
They needed better pistols. The Nambu was not a bad design, but became terrible once production quality cheapened as the war progressed. Had a chance to pick one up at a pawn shop a long time ago, sort of wish now that I had, just for the novelty/collectability of it...

Generally a better pistol is a bit like a better mess tin, all you need is for them to work. Neither will win a war. A lot of the roles a pistol is used for in combat such as artillerymen, drivers, tank crew would better served by a cheap and effective SMG. If I was the Japanese I might have been tempted to copy the Owen.
 

Deleted member 1487

'The machine guns were not so good.' Sixty pounds, Japanese used BAR when they could because it saved thirty pounds.
They must mean the MMG/HMGs because the LMGs were 9-10kg, which is barely more than the BAR; the BAR is not a MMG though and US ones were either about the same as Japanese ones in terms of weight or heavier.

The M1919 was much lighter than the Japanese Type 92 or Type 3, but those again were HMG designs and that were to be replaced by the Type 1 and not comparable with the 1919 in terms of role or sustained fire abilities.

Another alternative was to go the German route and emphasize the machine gun as the main firepower of the squad. The Americans still had a pretty hard time against the Germans after all.
Isn't that what they did IOTL?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Japan needed better machine guns.
A license built version of the MG-34 would have been ideal.
Their Type 99 LMG was excellent. The heavy MG were old fashioned designs.
Overall, if we consider the 7.7mm weapons, the Arisaka Rifle and Type 99 LMG combination was perfectly adequate.
 
Generally a better pistol is a bit like a better mess tin, all you need is for them to work. Neither will win a war. A lot of the roles a pistol is used for in combat such as artillerymen, drivers, tank crew would better served by a cheap and effective SMG. If I was the Japanese I might have been tempted to copy the Owen.
They used carbines for that role. In conventional warfare the main issue for those troops was not seen as self defense (they were within units that fought as a whole), but rather to allow them to fight as infantry once their trucks, tanks, field kitchens, etc, had been destroyed and until they could get new ones.
 
Last edited:
The thing is though, the Arisaka rifle can only hold five rounds and is a bolt action rifle. This is going up against the US military, which equipped its troops with, at worst, a rifle that could hold eight rounds and fire semi-automatically. The difference in rate of fire is staggering. Against that the Arisaka needs to be replaced, or else Japanese soldiers are going to be consistently outmatched by their American counterparts.

At the very least, the increased rate of fire would help dramatically in China, where the best Chinese soldiers could hope for was stolen Arisakas and whatever the other Allies could spare.
They built a Garand copy, but much too late.
1596457370503.png


 
Isn't that what they did IOTL?

Was thinking more about a belt fed gun along the lines of the German guns. That is assuming, of course, that belt fed guns were markedly superior to magazine fed ones.

Though apparently the ability for a quick barrel change makes more of a difference than the magazine vs belt issue, and Japanese MGs did have that ability. Unsure what to make of it without more reading.
 

Deleted member 1487

Was thinking more about a belt fed gun along the lines of the German guns. That is assuming, of course, that belt fed guns were markedly superior to magazine fed ones.

Though apparently the ability for a quick barrel change makes more of a difference than the magazine vs belt issue, and Japanese MGs did have that ability. Unsure what to make of it without more reading.
Given the Japanese logistical situation in the Pacific a high ROF MG like the MG34 or 42 wouldn't be in their interest.

Japanese LMGs were basically like the Bren, but prior to the Type 99 less reliable. AKA more than enough to match what the US had against them.
 

marathag

Banned
iven the Japanese logistical situation in the Pacific a high ROF MG like the MG34 or 42 wouldn't be in their interest.
Given their situation, they wouldn't been able to supply their forces,had they been equipped with Brown Bess muskets, let alone any repeater that used centerfire cartridges.
 
The Japanese captured Browning short recoil .30 and .50 machine guns and worked on those operating systems and had examples of "Italian" Browning machine guns sold to them. These guns worked. There is no reason the Japanese could not build or duplicate the guns in any caliber they desired.

Well yes but neither weapon is a GPMG?

And they did have the Browning design used in their aircraft AIUI which they did develop up to 20mm (30mm?)

Interesting comment on their experience of the Maxim in the Russo-Japan kick up - given nearly everyone one else seems to have gone for a Maxim clone!

I understand that field conditions were bloody awful - but the Maxim and maxim derived weapons (Vickers and Colt-Vickers) seem to have served in equally bad or worse conditions.
 

McPherson

Banned
Brownings

Well yes but neither weapon is a GPMG?

For all practical purposes the M1919 Browning .30 caliber became the American GPMG of the Pacific war. Heavy as it was, it was more portable and could compete with the Type 92.

And they did have the Browning design used in their aircraft AIUI which they did develop up to 20mm (30mm?)

Yes. IJAAS was not stuck on stupid. Their IJA infantry weapons directorate was.

Interesting comment on their experience of the Maxim in the Russo-Japan kick up - given nearly everyone one else seems to have gone for a Maxim clone!

It was the First Sino-Japanese War. Short version is that when they tried the British supplied machine guns out in Taiwan, cloth belts rotted, the heat and wet caused uneven parts expansion and mechanical jams and slippages and their ammunition HATED the guns. The ammunition problem (corrosion of cases) they never solved, but Hotchkiss guns, with their oversized and overpressured adjustable gas powered systems could function even with crappy Japanese ammunition and ran and ran and the metal stripper clips were just what the doctor ordered. Slower rates of fire and awkward feeds but the guns ran and ran. The Japanese Type 92, their version of the Hotchkiss HMG (the woodpecker) was RELIABLE in Pacific conditions.

I understand that field conditions were bloody awful - but the Maxim and maxim derived weapons (Vickers and Colt-Vickers) seem to have served in equally bad or worse conditions.

See my remarks regarding Japanese ammunition.
 
Top