Plans of Unification of the logistics of the IJAAS/IJNAS on ammo

[SgtRL-3]

1. IJAAS and IJNAS both use Vickers MMG and .303 British Rimmed ammo. (Also can replace Army's 3 Year Type Machine Guns).

2.Navy use Oerlikon FFL that Army copied at 1934 (they bought Oerlikon FF/FFL twice for theirselves).

3.Army and Navy both use Browning M2, but with 13.2x99 ammo that Naval Type 3 used at OTL.

4.Army uses Navy developed Type 5 30 mm cannon.

5.Navy don't use Type 1 (7.92mm) and Type 2 (13mm, copy of MG 131), use M2 Browning's copy above, as well as Army.

Miscs: Do you think there still necessary for them to import Mauser MG 151/20 ITTL?

 

[Saint_007]

Internal bickering over supplies and shipping ensues, reducing any benefit from standardized ammo. The Imperial Japanese may have been overly paranoid, but that's because they were the more quarrelsome, argumentative bunch to ever exist. They did the whole mess of byzantine ammo standards because they knew both sides would try to steal each other's ammo stores.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

For both the IJN and IJA, a copy of the MG-FFS (20x110mm) would have made the most sense IMO, or at least standardizing on the ammo. The 20x72mm lacked range and hitting power and the Army 20x125mm required a heavy installation and required comprimise to ROF

 

[SgtRL-3]

For both the IJN and IJA, a copy of the MG-FFS (20x110mm) would have made the most sense IMO, or at least standardizing on the ammo. The 20x72mm lacked range and hitting power and the Army 20x125mm required a heavy installation and required comprimise to ROF

From a technical point of view, the most suitable for Japan at the time was the improved Oerlikon FFL cannon——Oerlikon FFS and its descent Hispano 404 were too big and heavy for Japanese fighters even around 1940.

The IJA bought FFL as a defense weapon for their Ki-20 bomber——They thought two Type 89 7.7mm is enough for their fighters. Then Navy bought Oerlikon FF at 1937, FFL at a later date...