marathag
Banned
and with the low recoil of the 8mm cartridge, could keep them all on targetIts a 50 round magazine, 20 rounds more than on most SMG's of the era.
and with the low recoil of the 8mm cartridge, could keep them all on targetIts a 50 round magazine, 20 rounds more than on most SMG's of the era.
Its a 50 round magazine, 20 rounds more than on most SMG's of the era.
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.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...
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.
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.
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!!!!)
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.
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.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 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 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...
Fifty semi-rimmed rounds.Holy God, what is that magazine. 👀
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 machine guns were not so good.' Sixty pounds, Japanese used BAR when they could because it saved thirty pounds.
Isn't that what they did IOTL?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.
Their Type 99 LMG was excellent. The heavy MG were old fashioned designs.Japan needed better machine guns.
A license built version of the MG-34 would have been ideal.
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.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 built a Garand copy, but much too late.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.
Which reminds me of this
Isn't that what they did IOTL?
Type 96 light machine gun - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Given the Japanese logistical situation in the Pacific a high ROF MG like the MG34 or 42 wouldn't be in their interest.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 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.iven the Japanese logistical situation in the Pacific a high ROF MG like the MG34 or 42 wouldn't be in their interest.
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.