The Japanese Empire adopt a standard Semi-Automatic rifle prior to WW2?

From the late 1800s, through WW1, and culminating around the 1920s Japan underwent a period of remarkable and rapid modernisation, in an effort to imitate and exceed the Great Powers of the world. This included an overhaul of Japan's ancient military, and the adoption of Western battle tactics and equipment. Eventually, Japan won a victory against the neighbouring Russian Empire, and also played a small part in defeating the Germans in WW1. Attacking China, in the 20s and 30s, Japan initially swept the under-equipped and technologically inferior Chinese forces from the field.
However, the Second World War saw military technology advance in leaps and bounds, around the world, and by the time Japan came to blows with the United States, its army was woefully lacking in reliable, modern equipment. Human-sea bayonet charges and rapid advance techniques, which had shattered the Chinese on the continent were turned-back by disciplined fire from easily portable machine guns, and - more notably - Semi Automatic infantry weapons - the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine, in particular.

Despite calls from Japanese Officers for a similar weapon for the Japanese infantrymen, and a few poor attempts at copies of the Pederson and Garand - there never seemed to be any major effort to replace the bolt-action Arisaka with a faster-firing option. Of course, much of this is due to the Empire's lack of resources by the turning point of the war, and its focus on individual marksmanship, and close quarters combat.

But my question is this: what if, in the early days of the Second Sino-Japanese war, and prior to the US Embargo - the Japanese army adopted a standard-issue semi-automatic rifle? Would this have any effect on the course of its wars - both against China, and later the US and Allies? Would this have any ripple-effect upon the war in Europe?
 
A semi-auto rifle wouldn't be enough of a game changer to really help Japan in WWII but it might have been enough to change the outcome of some battles though.
Having said that though, I've always wondered what if the Japanese had copied the Federov rifle which was chambered in the Japanese 6mm. round.

federov.jpg
 
What do they not make? They would have to develop a new rifle, the capacity to manufacture ammunition for it, and then actually put said rifle into production. That takes time, and it takes money. Then they have to produce enough ammunition and weapons to actually replace the millions of rifles they already have, or use two different types of ammunition while fighting a war.

None of this is going to do wonders or Japan's war effort, and will likely just make things worse.
 
But my question is this: what if, in the early days of the Second Sino-Japanese war, and prior to the US Embargo - the Japanese army adopted a standard-issue semi-automatic rifle? Would this have any effect on the course of its wars - both against China, and later the US and Allies? Would this have any ripple-effect upon the war in Europe?
I think it would be a larger impact of the Japanese had a better light machine gun to support their infantry. If they had bought the designs to one of the German LMGs, they would have had a more reliable weapon. The Germans seemed to do pretty decent with masses of well-handled bolt-actions stiffened by good LMGs.
Tim
 
I think it would be a larger impact of the Japanese had a better light machine gun to support their infantry. If they had bought the designs to one of the German LMGs, they would have had a more reliable weapon. The Germans seemed to do pretty decent with masses of well-handled bolt-actions stiffened by good LMGs.
Tim
Good point. I think a decent sub-machine gun could've been useful too and wouldn't have been a strain on logistics since it used a pistol caliber.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
What do they not make? They would have to develop a new rifle, the capacity to manufacture ammunition for it, and then actually put said rifle into production. That takes time, and it takes money. Then they have to produce enough ammunition and weapons to actually replace the millions of rifles they already have, or use two different types of ammunition while fighting a war.

None of this is going to do wonders or Japan's war effort, and will likely just make things worse.

Actually the 6'5mm Arisaka was well suited to be an intermediate cartridge (better still if given a modern "spitzer" round)
 
However, the Second World War saw military technology advance in leaps and bounds, around the world, and by the time Japan came to blows with the United States, its army was woefully lacking in reliable, modern equipment. Human-sea bayonet charges and rapid advance techniques, which had shattered the Chinese on the continent were turned-back by disciplined fire from easily portable machine guns, and - more notably - Semi Automatic infantry weapons - the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine, in particular.

That wasn't really what happened, but on the topic of the OP it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference: aimed fire was one shot at a time, only in close-quarters and suppression roles did ROF matter, and for both of those all sides had a variety of automatic weapons that did the job much better than rifles.

All in all, little to no change.
 
I think one of the main things I had in mind was whether it would have any effect on Infantry doctrine for the Japanese.

The Imperial Japanese Army's doctrine was almost entirely structured around offensives - both large and small scale. Obviously, defensive tactics played a part, but many officers poured scorn on the idea of holding a line for long periods of time as being un-Japanese. Indeed - the entire future of the Empire was built-around rapid expansion and seizure of important assets (well, resources).

Remember: this idea has the Japanese adopting a semi-auto rifle before or during Sino-Japanese War 2: Electric Boogaloo. The whole reason for Banzai was to dislodge dense knots of infantry at close range - when judicious marksmanship or rapid bolt-action fire drill was not practical. The Americans had great success clearing bolt-holes and fortifications on both fronts using SMGs and semi-automatic carbines. In addition - a semi-automatic firearm can be used relatively effectively in fire-and-advance or even "fire-on-the-move" movements.

The points about how expensive and lengthy it'd be to roll-out something like this to the whole IJA are true, and after reading-up on exactly how many men the Japanese had in the field at the time, I concede that equipping every unit in China with a weapon of that kind would be very impractical, at first. But what if it were a slower roll-out - with landing forces and paratroopers getting first dibs, along with veteran frontline units. As somebody else pointed out (and from personal experience, having had the pleasure of taking a few shots with a Type 38 war trophy) - the 6.5mm cartridge, though heavy and stout, could quite easily be a battle-rifle round.

You guys are almost certainly right that it wouldn't impact the outcome of the war (though, I can't think of any realistic scenario which has the Japanese Empire 'winning' in any sense of the word). That said, I feel that the mass-usage of semi-automatic rifles could have impacted the course of fighting in China. Anti-partisan activities and city-fighting would've been a little easier, and possibly even required a slightly smaller number of troops to hold-down occupied territory. Could we possibly see a slightly expanded GEACPS, before the war ends as it did IOTL?
 
Actually the 6'5mm Arisaka was well suited to be an intermediate cartridge (better still if given a modern "spitzer" round)

I had forgotten about that. Still, the main point I was making is, Japan can't manufacture two rifles, especially considering the cost of actually developing another weapon, retooling for production, etc. it's just not practical to do in wartime. That's part of the reason Japan never changed their planes OTL, it would have meant stopping production for too long.
 
Remember: this idea has the Japanese adopting a semi-auto rifle before or during Sino-Japanese War 2: Electric Boogaloo. The whole reason for Banzai was to dislodge dense knots of infantry at close range - when judicious marksmanship or rapid bolt-action fire drill was not practical. The Americans had great success clearing bolt-holes and fortifications on both fronts using SMGs and semi-automatic carbines. In addition - a semi-automatic firearm can be used relatively effectively in fire-and-advance or even "fire-on-the-move" movements.

The Japanese did not advocate "banzai" attacks as a matter of doctrine; those took place only at the end of a battle when a position was hopeless and annihilation was near. A standard IJA infantry assault involved an aggressive "fixing" attack from the front supported by mortar and machine gun fire while a mobile detachment would flank the enemy and cut off his avenue of retreat. The encircled opponent would then be destroyed in detail. Only on rare occasions in which this was not possible did the Japanese go "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle."
 

Rubicon

Banned
The Japanese did not advocate "banzai" attacks as a matter of doctrine; those took place only at the end of a battle when a position was hopeless and annihilation was near. A standard IJA infantry assault involved an aggressive "fixing" attack from the front supported by mortar and machine gun fire while a mobile detachment would flank the enemy and cut off his avenue of retreat. The encircled opponent would then be destroyed in detail. Only on rare occasions in which this was not possible did the Japanese go "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle."
Just to expand on this, in the Japanese doctrine was flanking so heavily emphasised that sometimes the commanders forgot or didn't bother to pin the enemy frontally and just flanked. Happend several times during the Burma invasion for instance.
 
The Japanese did not advocate "banzai" attacks as a matter of doctrine; those took place only at the end of a battle when a position was hopeless and annihilation was near. A standard IJA infantry assault involved an aggressive "fixing" attack from the front supported by mortar and machine gun fire while a mobile detachment would flank the enemy and cut off his avenue of retreat. The encircled opponent would then be destroyed in detail. Only on rare occasions in which this was not possible did the Japanese go "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle."

Oh right! That's good to know, actually. I was sure I'd read somewhere that the charge was emphasised as a general tactic in one of the Japanese Strategies of Attack ("meeting", "deliberate/planned", "hasty", and "pursuing"), and that it was adapted by Japanese officers when fighting the Americans as a suicidal/last ditch assault. I'm no expert, obviously - it's been years since I read-up on the topic.

I guess I've been blurring the line that divides "banzai" charge and a general infantry rapid advance with swords drawn and bayonets fixed.
 
Oh right! That's good to know, actually. I was sure I'd read somewhere that the charge was emphasised as a general tactic in one of the Japanese Strategies of Attack ("meeting", "deliberate/planned", "hasty", and "pursuing"), and that it was adapted by Japanese officers when fighting the Americans as a suicidal/last ditch assault. I'm no expert, obviously - it's been years since I read-up on the topic.

I guess I've been blurring the line that divides "banzai" charge and a general infantry rapid advance with swords drawn and bayonets fixed.

During the fighting in the Pacific (especially during the Allied counteroffensive phase) the Japanese liked to draw the Allied infantry as close to them as possible so as to both take away the latter's advantage in artillery support and capitalize on their own advantages in close combat, namely their light mortars and skills in bayonet fighting. The Soviets and North Vietnamese called this "grabbing the enemy by the belt." The confined geography of the heavily forested Pacific islands helped naturally make this the case. This did not, however, entail blindly rushing into the face of allied gunfire, thought the IJA as a rule was not as casualty-sensitive as the Allies.
 
One might postulate that sub machine guns could have been a better answer for the Japanese in the Pacific where the Japanese wanted encounters to be at close hand as above. However, the situation in China differed greatly and a semi automatic rifle would be the better choice there where encounters could be at far greater ranges.

One should distinguish aimed fire from suppressive fire. For suppressive fire the rate of fire causes the effect of denying the enemy movement or occupation of ground. Automatic or semi automatic weapons have an advantage. In the case of aimed fire, where the objective is to actually hit the enemy, there is little to choose between a bolt action magazine rifle and semi automatic weapons.

For the Japanese Army as a whole in OTL war churning out perfectly good Arisakas from existing patterns is the viable option. Especially if you take the trouble to teach recruits musketry. If you learn the lessons in China fast enough then the Japanese Army could have gone over to semi automatic rifle early enough for it to be the standard in 1942. But the risk is being caught halfway. As they found with the change from 6.5mm to 7.7mm (should have stayed with the 6.5mm and researched bullets properly).

A Japanese army with a standard 6.5mm lightweight semi automatic rifle would have been a benefit to them. In no way a war winning, or even battle winning, advantage but still an improvement.

A practical service semi automatic rifle is no great technical challenge mechanically but does need a careful understanding of the choice of steels, propellant and bullet to get a balance that will permit reliable and long lasting use in field conditions and be affordable to make with the engineering you have.
 
A practical service semi automatic rifle is no great technical challenge mechanically but does need a careful understanding of the choice of steels, propellant and bullet to get a balance that will permit reliable and long lasting use in field conditions and be affordable to make with the engineering you have.

Very true. Perhaps, if they DID adopt such a rifle, the war in the Pacific Islands might have resulted in even greater losses for the Japanese, due to poorer fighting conditions, and greater difficulty maintaining or replacing rifles. Hadn't thought of that! :p
 

NoMommsen

Donor
All the critics here about changing from the bolt-action Arikasa to a Fedorov-Avtomat like weapon, training recruits etc. ...

I would say it depends on how early before the 2nd Sino-Japanese war they adopt such a weapon. In 1917/1918 it was already well developed and war proven. Becomming even better, when Fedorov actually started to use the japanese 6,5 x 50 mm HR Arikasa ammo.

So they "just" needed to adopt an existing, developed weapon with the ammo they were already mass producing. If they did this from 1923 onwards - after testing the last 2 years - it could have easily been their standard weapon in 1937.

And it would fit perfectly well the tactical doctrine as described by SuddenlyMinotaurs in post #9 ... as well as the tactics described by BobTheBarbarian in post #11. :D
 
Top