Improved Japanese small arms

  • Thread starter Deleted member 96212
  • Start date
Brownings



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.



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



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.



See my remarks regarding Japanese ammunition.

Thank you that makes perfect sense and explains their choices in that matter

I note that the 30 round strips were supplied in paper or cloth (I assume in both cases oiled or waxed to prevent corrosion) and as they are based on the Hotchkiss design I assume that they can be linked by the loader during pauses in firing to prevent having to reload

So for all intents and purposes the Type 92 is probably good enough for them - and while heavy the carry poles worked well for their doctrinal approach for rapid infantry advances without having to break the gun down and another weapon system might not 'fit'.
 

Deleted member 96212

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.

Well like I said before, it may not make a big difference against US, and CANZUK forces (and much later, the USSR), but China is where the difference will be made. Add extra rate of fire against a foe that OTL could barely match what Japan was using and I think you'd see at least some difference.
 
SMGs: Yes good idea. Actually make some Japan. They only made about 10,000 (and I think it might have been less than that). Make an MP28 clone during the 30's and build it in far larger numbers - obviously! In fact given Japans lower industrial base - start building their own version of the STEN ASAP. Obviously any design needs to be able to fix a long bayonet. ;)

How about this?
1596484287013.png


The Lanchester was a pretty effective weapon and there's that lovely P.07 bayonet! What's not to like?
 

Attachments

  • 1596484157778.png
    1596484157778.png
    30.4 KB · Views: 82
1596489067608.png


Fedorov avtomat rifle, from WW!,chambered for 6.5mm Arisca ammo. If the Japanese had got hold of some of these and developed there own Version!
 

McPherson

Banned
View attachment 572068

Fedorov avtomat rifle, from WW!,chambered for 6.5mm Arisca ammo. If the Japanese had got hold of some of these and developed there own Version!
Very expensive and not worth much more than a simple blowback machine carbine in the terrain, weather and against the expected foes. I like the idea of the Japanese acquiring Barettas and the "hot" pistol ammunition that went with them, better. Especially in China.
 
(It's late so quick post)

Besides some logistical issues with the caliber and ramping up production there really isn't much to fix. I think the greatest issue is the doctrine. Wasn't it there belief that spiritual superiority was a equal subsititute to fire superiority? Like almost all of their weapons had bayonet lugs just to be able to be used in a charge. Even the arisaka was fairly long with a long bayonet.
 
FTMEP, I was not suggesting that the Japanese should slavishly clone the Fedorov avtomat rifle, rather that they should take on it's concept of an automatic carbine firing what is in essence an intermediate round (or at least a full power rifle round that could be fire in controlled fully auto bursts) and use this as a replacement for all their rifles. Designing a simpler and mass production optimised design would be the intention. Pair this with a value engineered Smg in 9mm parabelum and that will do. Having a good LMG/GPMG in 6.5 Ariska would be a valuable addition. Just using the type 96 and making sure that the new automatic rifle magazines fitted it would be an adequate starter IMVHO.
 
FTMEP, I was not suggesting that the Japanese should slavishly clone the Fedorov avtomat rifle, rather that they should take on it's concept of an automatic carbine firing what is in essence an intermediate round (or at least a full power rifle round that could be fire in controlled fully auto bursts) and use this as a replacement for all their rifles. Designing a simpler and mass production optimised design would be the intention. Pair this with a value engineered Smg in 9mm parabelum and that will do. Having a good LMG/GPMG in 6.5 Ariska would be a valuable addition. Just using the type 96 and making sure that the new automatic rifle magazines fitted it would be an adequate starter IMVHO.

Viking made a good point about the IJA 'under the perception' that they were being out ranged by the NRA's (National Republic Army) better armed Divisions that had been supplied with weapons like the ZB 26 in 7.92 Mauser which explains the decision to move to 7.7mm rimless (and naturally 7.7 Rimmed for the IJAs greatest enemy the IJN).

I think simply having the LMG in sufficient numbers was better than an SLR that was not a Garand.

There was no such thing as a Automatic carbine capable of 'controlled' fully automatic bursts in the 30s.

Not unless you are giving the Japanese Infantry man a weapon that is twice the weight of his rifle (or half as heavy again if you can get a Colt Monitor - 6kgs)
 
The biggest roadblock on small arms evolution is cultural. The critical inovation for progress is changing the role of the infantry sargents from transmiters/enforcers of orders to decision makers capable of commanding their squads with a certain degree of autonomy. The biggest evolution happened during WW1, when the squad, rather than the Company or platoon, became the basic block of infantry combat. (I'm exluding light infantry units from this concept, since units like the British light Infantry "Rifles" units or the European Jagger units were not "mainstream" infantry but mostly a sideshow)
As far as I'm aware, the IJA was pretty much an early WW1 army in terms of its command mentality, Fire power would be thought of in colective, not individual or squad terms. The basic reason it took so long for individual automatic rifles to be general issue was that it was thought that automatic fire was "too important to be left to soldiers"
 
Last edited:
Owen was.

Its an SMG in 9mm as we understand it today - unless all SMGs are now also carbines - its not a carbine.

What was suggested was a Rifle carbine in a rifle or Short rifle calibre round - not a pistol round - capable of controllable short fully automatic bursts.

Granted it would have been great but 'not a carbine' despite what the conservative military of the day might have called it at the time.
 

McPherson

Banned
Owen was.
Owen is 1942.

Further...

Nothing extant SLR, not even the Garand, is "cheap" in the 1930s. When one looks at the candidate rifles (Mondragon, Federov, the Czech
vz. 52 rifle, or other candidates the Japanese encounter or might know, they are also difficult to make. Granted that China is a huge terrain problem that cries out for a good long distance shooter, it still makes sense to put the long range capability into the machine guns and think about infantry brawling at <300 meters or <200 meters. There are some Czech and Italian blowback SMGs that almost meet the "carbine" requirement for China. These may still be expensive, but compared to a Garand and for the expected performance gains at the squad level, it would make sense to add such carbines to the squad at the rate of 1 to 3 existent battle rifles and maybe even 1 to 2 at the fire team level.

It still is not as good as a stamped and spot welded SMG at the cost end, but if you are fighting in China and SE Asia without a SMG, what is the matter with you?

McP.
 
Last edited:
Owen is 1942.

Further...

Nothing extant SLR, not even the Garand, is "cheap" in the 1930s. When one looks at the candidate rifles (Mondragon, Federov, the Czech
vz. 52 rifle, or other candidates the Japanese encounter or might know, they are also difficult to make. Granted that China is a huge terrain problem that cries out for a good long distance shooter, it still makes sense to put the long range capability into the machine guns and think about infantry brawling at <300 meters or <200 meters. There are some Czech and Italian blowback SMGs that almost meet the "carbine" requirement for China. These may still be expensive, but compared to a Garand and for the expected performance gains at the squad level, it would make sense to add such carbines to the squad at the rate of 1 to 3 existent battle rifles and maybe even 1 to 2 at the fire team level.

It still is not as good as a stamped and spot welded SMG at the cost end, but if you are fighting in China and SE Asia without a SMG, what is the matter with you?

McP.

Surely the ZH-29 is a better candidate than the vz.52? Available in the late 20s, with small numbers purchased by Chinese and Ethiopian militias. If the Chinese plans to set up local production goes ahead and the Japanese capture the facilities, it could perhaps become an NCO weapon, chambered in 6,5mm Arisaka.
 
Japan trying to chase a SLR in the 1920s/1930s a massive waste of resources, in terms of money, technical expertise and official attention. Equipping your Infantry with a rifle caliber SLR as opposed to a Bolt Action rifle doesn't actually get you very much in terms of Combat Performance, especially in ratio to how much it would cost, not only to develop but to produce.

(There's a reason why US Troops tried to get their hands on as many BARs for their Squad/Platoon etc. As they could swing, and it sure wasn't that they enjoyed lumping the extra weight. There's also a reason why UK Webbing was redesigned to allow each Infantryman to carry more Bren Mags, even to the detriment of carrying ammunition for their own rifles, and it was because it was the Machine gun that mattered.)

Instead, make sure the IJA and IJN are using exactly the same round, and maybe produce a short rather than full length rifle. Other commentators have talked about issues with Japanese Ammunition that could cause problems with that, so might I suggest, if we're improving small arms, we give them a better (not larger) round to fire from them.

Pistols are irrelevant in terms of combat performance; forget about them.

An SMG would definitely be a good addition, so develop a good one of those, preferably (as someone said before me) in 9mm Parabellum. Hopefully, you have it somewhat mature before 1937, so that as Japan's enemies expand, they might actually consider making a "STEN Type" (Eg: Ugly, but budget version) for it. Maybe they'll even drop the Bayonet lug on that version (but I doubt it.)

Also, given that pistols are worthless, issuing SMGs Instead of Pistols or Carbines for Drivers/Artillery Crews etc. Would be beneficial.

The answer to our rifles being outranged by their rifles isn't to try increasing your Caliber whilst actively trying to fight people. The answer lies in the proliferation of LMGs, air support (if you can swing it) but more than anything else, the answer is medium caliber (88mm-3" range) Mortars with smoke rounds and, crucially, the proliferation of radios so the Mortars can be called in quick-like. Maybe even light artillery, but mortars are cheap and easy to make, so they suit Japan's needs better.

Being able to shoot 1000m doesn't matter when A) You're not hitting anyone at that range anyway and B) You're staring into a cloud of smoke.

(I know those aren't Small Arms, but I'm going to acknowledge when a problem isn't a nail even if I'm holding a hammer.)

Their LMGs were good. Don't do the stupid Caliber change.

MMGs/HMGs, I don't feel qualified to comment on, but other commentators have stated how the Japanese felt their MMGs/HMGs met their needs. We also have to consider that the Environments the Japanese expected to fight in, which may well have influenced their decision making in ways we're effectively blind to. Comments about the Maxim's cloth belts swelling up come to mind.

I think I've run out of small arms.
 

McPherson

Banned
Surely the ZH-29 is a better candidate than the vz.52? Available in the late 20s, with small numbers purchased by Chinese and Ethiopian militias. If the Chinese plans to set up local production goes ahead and the Japanese capture the facilities, it could perhaps become an NCO weapon, chambered in 6,5mm Arisaka.

The aluminum radiator indicates a severe barrel heat problem under European conditions and it was even more expensive and difficult to make than a vz. 52. Also apparently not war rated to Czech standards like the Czech ZB vz.26 and the Czech ZB 53.

The Chinese bought it in small numbers and were not able to make a real go at its manufacture. The Japanese might be able to set up production, but they would want a rifle that did not have that radiator.
 
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

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!!!!)
To further complicate Japanese logistics a couple of their mg's used a 7.7mm semi rimmed round. What opium den had the high command crawled out of?
 

McPherson

Banned
The answer to our rifles being outranged by their rifles isn't to try increasing your Caliber whilst actively trying to fight people. The answer lies in the proliferation of LMGs, air support (if you can swing it) but more than anything else, the answer is medium caliber (88mm-3" range) Mortars with smoke rounds and, crucially, the proliferation of radios so the Mortars can be called in quick-like. Maybe even light artillery, but mortars are cheap and easy to make, so they suit Japan's needs better.

Lessons learned from the Great Patriotic War (Russians).

__Medium machine gun needs replacement. It jammed and failed in field conditions New one developed to meet a needed fire support requirement.
__SMG for infantry brawling. Most infantry combat is close ranged (<200 meters) no time to train millions of raw recruits how to aim anyway. Most emphasis needs to be on how to hide, dig proper holes, how to patrol and ambush enemies. SMGs make up for lack of marksmanship training under those conditions.
__MORTARS. Cheap to make, can use low grade steels and explosives. Best enemy infantry killer for a low tech army fighting a high tech army. __Radios are a bonus but pre-registered fires and ordinary field signal expedients (smoke, mirrors, signal rocket) to pre-set pre-ranged drop lines can do in a pinch.

Russians had less than 30,000 mortars when Barbarossa kicked off. When Bagration happened, they had more than 180,000 +. This type Russian artillery killed more German infantry in combat 1943 onward per class barrel than just about any other infantry weapon class among the Allies PERIOD.

PAC War lesson learned. Americans could live with the spider holed Japanese infantryman and tree sniper. Annoying but the means to hand to clean the enemy soldier out was sufficient, since one spotted he could not move and the Americans could to deal with him.. Even cave bunkered machine gunners were "manageable" provided the Americans were patient and could wrinkle them out with close assault tactics (satchel charge, grenades and flame throwers if Howie and Arty could not get them.), but the American infantry hated Japanese mortar teams. Those bastards would set up, lob a few by eye, and then scoot to a new position and were almost impossible to nail down unless one stumbled on them .
 
Top