Why was the japanese army issued (for the most part) rifles instead of submachine guns during WW2? Although a lot of the (land based) fighting was done on pretty much giant rocks in the ocean, there was a significant amount of jungle (for example the Philippine Islands) Wouldnt you think that a small, rapid fire weapon such as a submachine gun would work better in the thick jungle as opposed to a long, slow firing weapon such as a bolt action rifle?
From what I understand, the Japanese machine guns were also very heavy, and had to be reloaded often. What were the Japanese arms manufacturers thinking when they designed the weapons, and why didnt they produce a more pracitcal one for the terrain they were fighting in?
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
impractical ww2 Japanese weapons?
Mech-Maniac
Member Since: April 16, 2004
entire network: 2,240 Posts
KitMaker Network: 730 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 02:37 PM UTC
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 03:02 PM UTC
Every now and then on the History Channel they show the History of the Gun series. There is one episode that speaks specifically about Japanese weapons.
For the most part the Japanese were still under the belief of Samurai principles. The sword and fighting skill were what they believed were all that mattered. Material superiority and quality firepower were not a priority.
For the most part the Japanese were still under the belief of Samurai principles. The sword and fighting skill were what they believed were all that mattered. Material superiority and quality firepower were not a priority.
TsunamiBomb
Member Since: September 21, 2004
entire network: 1,447 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 03:13 PM UTC
Can I ask you one thing? Have you ever fired a bolt action rifle such as the kar98 or whatever the japanese used? The kar98 was one of the most effective weapons of WWII and to this day is still used for hunting. I have had great luck with bolt action rifles, whether its in a reenactment, or on the shooting range. It takes about half a second to cycle the gun and then your back in action and its extremely accurate. Sub-machine guns and machine guns were nothing but head aches, they were supposed to keep the enemy down while the riflemen advanced. Remember it only takes 1 bullet to kill someone, not a whole jungle full. With a squad of 5-10 riflemen, thats enough firepower to hold down a squad of 30 men or so for a long period of time. Hope this helps somewhat, even though i didnt answer your question directly.
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 29, 2005 - 05:24 AM UTC
The bolt action rifle actually WAS the best weapon for those battle conditions within the limits of their technology. Towards 1944 when the US Navy started blockading the Japanese homeland, armament manufactures had to make due with melting down civilian house hold objects for war materials. Of course these processes were not pure so there were a lot of the manufacturing was defects. Complicated weapons like a sub machine gun could not be made in quantities and therefore deferred to the easier to manufacture rifle.
They did experiment with some submachine guns but Japanese firearms technology was just substandard. Many of their weapons required pre-greased clips which attracted dust and dirt causing jams. Weapons that they copied, such as the Besa and the Bren, were highly effective but produced in limited numbers for the above reasons..
The fact that the US backed them into a predominant defensive situation where, as Tsunami pointed out, a single bolt action rifle could hold down a lot of enemy troops made it the unintentional perfect choice.
They did experiment with some submachine guns but Japanese firearms technology was just substandard. Many of their weapons required pre-greased clips which attracted dust and dirt causing jams. Weapons that they copied, such as the Besa and the Bren, were highly effective but produced in limited numbers for the above reasons..
The fact that the US backed them into a predominant defensive situation where, as Tsunami pointed out, a single bolt action rifle could hold down a lot of enemy troops made it the unintentional perfect choice.
Mech-Maniac
Member Since: April 16, 2004
entire network: 2,240 Posts
KitMaker Network: 730 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Can I ask you one thing? Have you ever fired a bolt action rifle such as the kar98 or whatever the japanese used? The kar98 was one of the most effective weapons of WWII and to this day is still used for hunting. I have had great luck with bolt action rifles, whether its in a reenactment, or on the shooting range. It takes about half a second to cycle the gun and then your back in action and its extremely accurate. Sub-machine guns and machine guns were nothing but head aches, they were supposed to keep the enemy down while the riflemen advanced. Remember it only takes 1 bullet to kill someone, not a whole jungle full. With a squad of 5-10 riflemen, thats enough firepower to hold down a squad of 30 men or so for a long period of time. Hope this helps somewhat, even though i didnt answer your question directly.
yes, i have fired a Kar98 and many other bolt action rifles actually, and realize the accuracy of them. But what I should have asked is why didnt they produce submachine guns, which Shermies Rule, has told me why before hand
Bren
Member Since: July 07, 2002
entire network: 381 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 12:36 AM UTC
they did make submachine guns, can't remember the names of them though. one variant had the side attached magazine if i recall correctly.
HastyP
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 1,117 Posts
KitMaker Network: 570 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 02:47 AM UTC
Submachineguns would have helped. Rapid fire and aiming with a bolt action is not the easiest thing to do. Try shooting at a deer on the run with a bolt action got one shot maybe two if your lucky. I have seen accounts on the history network where commonwealth soldiers said they would never forgive their gov't's for sending them into action with bolt action rifles when the M1 garand was available. Lot easier to aim if you can keep your rifle on the target between shots.
HastyP
HastyP
Mech-Maniac
Member Since: April 16, 2004
entire network: 2,240 Posts
KitMaker Network: 730 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 05:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
they did make submachine guns, can't remember the names of them though. one variant had the side attached magazine if i recall correctly.
from what I understand, they didnt not make them in the quantities of say the Sren or Thompson.
HastyP
Very interesting comment there, and I'd have to agree that I too would rather have an M1 Garand, then a bolt action
mlb63
Member Since: October 22, 2003
entire network: 355 Posts
KitMaker Network: 199 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2005 - 07:41 AM UTC
You want to talk about impractical Japanese weapons lets talk about their tanks.They were garbage. 
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2005 - 07:55 AM UTC
You have to remember that the Japanese faced relatively light resistence in 1935 or so vs. China and Indonesia, etc. The bolt action was something that they could mass produce easily and cheaply to arm their expanding military. They had little need for submachine guns vs. these enemy.
It wasn't until the US showed up that the need for such a weapon arose but by that time it was too late. Their knowledge of weapons development was poor. Their industries were being shattered and their raw materials cut off. They had to stick with what they knew was working.
Finally the defensive stealthy nature of their final campaigns like Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa made the bolt action a better weapon. It required less maintainence than a complicated automatic weapon and generally bolt actions are more accurate. From your hidden spiderhole you would much prefer a single accurate shot not revealing your position than to put down a lot of lead and risk discovery.
It wasn't until the US showed up that the need for such a weapon arose but by that time it was too late. Their knowledge of weapons development was poor. Their industries were being shattered and their raw materials cut off. They had to stick with what they knew was working.
Finally the defensive stealthy nature of their final campaigns like Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa made the bolt action a better weapon. It required less maintainence than a complicated automatic weapon and generally bolt actions are more accurate. From your hidden spiderhole you would much prefer a single accurate shot not revealing your position than to put down a lot of lead and risk discovery.
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 02, 2005 - 07:45 PM UTC
Up until December 1941, the Japanese army had never fought in the jungle. Fighting in China was frequently over open terrain against a Chinese army with very poor anti-tank capability. So bolt-action rifles and tankettes were fine.
By the time SMGs were needed their manufacuring base was overstretched. And there wasn't much wrong with their MGs either.
By the time SMGs were needed their manufacuring base was overstretched. And there wasn't much wrong with their MGs either.
Sumpfhund
Member Since: March 19, 2005
entire network: 39 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 01:18 PM UTC
Even on todays battlefield I would rather have a heavy, solid, quality built rifle (M1) that could sling a .308 round 1000 meters with accuracy and power rather than a light, mostly plastic popgun that fired a beefed up .22 caliber round that would ricochet off a passing fly.
Besides spraying a bunch of light submachine gun projectiles in thick undergrowth is ineffective to say the least. Give me that fat 30 cal cartridge anyday.
Yeah, why did the Brits send their boys off to war with a Lee-Enfield when the Garand was available?
Ryan
Besides spraying a bunch of light submachine gun projectiles in thick undergrowth is ineffective to say the least. Give me that fat 30 cal cartridge anyday.
Yeah, why did the Brits send their boys off to war with a Lee-Enfield when the Garand was available?
Ryan
Henk
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 04:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Yeah, why did the Brits send their boys off to war with a Lee-Enfield when the Garand was available?
Ryan
Because the Lee-Enfield worked rather well..
As for the Garand, I think it was a bit to expensive to buy wholesale..
StukeSowle
Member Since: November 08, 2002
entire network: 599 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:01 PM UTC
Getting back to the original topic - didn't the Japanese officers have swords??
Yeah, make a bolt action rifle or SMG sound just fine to me.
Yeah, make a bolt action rifle or SMG sound just fine to me.
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:27 PM UTC
Quoted Text
why did the Brits send their boys off to war with a Lee-Enfield when the Garand was available?
And also because it was in short supply for much of the war. M1903s were pretty common in North Africa and with French troops supplied by the US in Italy. The USMC also had to wait for theirs.
Hohenstaufen
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 08:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Because the Lee-Enfield worked rather well..
Except for the Jungle Carbine! Anyone ever tried one? I think it's called a No 5? An SMLE with the woodwork cut back & a flash eliminator on the shortened barrel. Uses standard cartridge, but with a lighter weapon has a "wandering zero", as I discovered on Bisley ranges! Jungle vets have told me they used to fire them from the hip, they were just as accurate!!! They've got them in the "Virgin Soldiers" films.
Hohenstaufen
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 08:59 AM UTC
How about the "knee mortar"? Don't know how it got its name but if you tried to fire it in the manner it suggests a destroyed knee & leg were the inevitable result.
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 09:10 AM UTC
Actually I thought the knee mortar was a fairly successful weapon when fired correctly. Lobs a charge farther anf bigger than a grenade can be thrown
Mech-Maniac
Member Since: April 16, 2004
entire network: 2,240 Posts
KitMaker Network: 730 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 10:09 AM UTC
All interesting replies, even though I havnt replied much myself :-)
1. The M1 Garand, like the Thompson SMG was expensive to produce, this is part of the resason why they produced the "Grease Gun" SMG
2. Very interesting that the Japanese and Chinese were fighting over open land most of the time, I always though of the Eastern parts of China as a Jungle, I knew the Manchuria area had its fair share of plains.
3. Tom, good list you've got there, totally agree with all the ones written down. It still confuses me why the Japanese would have used Kamikazee (Divine Wind) to attack naval targets and waste a well built plane and well trained pilot.
4.The knee mortar, theres an interesting topic, I cant say I've heard how effective they are. But I have heard of incidents where it was placed on a GIs thigh and tried to be fired, resulting in a broken femur or knee....ouch
One thing else I forgot to mention earlier.
How effective were the Imperial Japanese Army's machine guns, in comparison to our .30 cal machine guns?
good topic guys, love to hear more!
-Shain
1. The M1 Garand, like the Thompson SMG was expensive to produce, this is part of the resason why they produced the "Grease Gun" SMG
2. Very interesting that the Japanese and Chinese were fighting over open land most of the time, I always though of the Eastern parts of China as a Jungle, I knew the Manchuria area had its fair share of plains.
3. Tom, good list you've got there, totally agree with all the ones written down. It still confuses me why the Japanese would have used Kamikazee (Divine Wind) to attack naval targets and waste a well built plane and well trained pilot.
4.The knee mortar, theres an interesting topic, I cant say I've heard how effective they are. But I have heard of incidents where it was placed on a GIs thigh and tried to be fired, resulting in a broken femur or knee....ouch
One thing else I forgot to mention earlier.
How effective were the Imperial Japanese Army's machine guns, in comparison to our .30 cal machine guns?
good topic guys, love to hear more!
-Shain
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 10:25 AM UTC
Japanese machine guns were copies of the Besa and Bren. Because they were not of Japanese design they were actually quite effective although their quality control began to suffer towards the end of the war.
RottenFuhrer
Member Since: February 02, 2005
entire network: 284 Posts
KitMaker Network: 80 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 12:45 PM UTC
Actually Japanese small arms on the whole were not bad. The famed Gun Smith of the 50's, P. O. Ackley tested the Arisaka actions and found that they were even stronger than the Mauser. The Nambu pistol was dangerous because the weapon could AD simply by pressing on the right side of the frame where the sear was exposed!!!!! The type 100/44 SMG resembled the Beretta made M35 but the 8mm Nambu cartridge was anemic at best when it came to stopping power. The Type 96 and 99 were mostly copies of the Czech/Brno Vz26(as was the Bren which was a licensed copy) and were competent weapons. If not for the oiled cartridges that would quickly collect a film of dirt and disable the weapon rapidly if not cleaned. WWII was the death nell of the bolt action rifle for Infantry use. The average engagement range was 80 meters and there was simply no need for a full size and full power rifle cartridge. This is the very reason that the OKW ordered the STG-44 be developed. Its intermediate cartridge and controlability on full auto gave the user never before seen firepower. The Japanese were primarily using 1920's and early 30's technology and the Allies had superiority not only in design but in quantity as well . Someone said earlier that the Grease gun was produced to replace the Thompson this was not correct the M3 Grease Gun was developed to equip armor vehicle crews because of the Thompson's size and weight. There were over 1.5 million Thompsons made throughout the war.
18Bravo
Member Since: January 20, 2005
entire network: 7,219 Posts
KitMaker Network: 981 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 04:41 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Complicated weapons like a sub machine gun could not be made in quantities and therefore deferred to the easier to manufacture rifle.
Very interesting thread, however, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you here. Blowback SMG's are the cheapest, easiest to produce weapons available. Other than the trigger, which simply engages a sear cut right into the bottom of the bolt, there is only one moving part-the bolt itself. The firing pin is cast or milled right into the bolt face, there is no locking mechanism, hence no rotating parts, etc...
Interesting bit of trivia:
The brass follower on the Sten was more expensive to produce than the entire weapon.
18Bravo
Member Since: January 20, 2005
entire network: 7,219 Posts
KitMaker Network: 981 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 04:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
How about the "knee mortar"? Don't know how it got its name but if you tried to fire it in the manner it suggests a destroyed knee & leg were the inevitable result.
It was called a "leg mortar" by the Japanese because it was carried strapped to the leg. Poor translation led to "knee mortar."
An alternate explanation was offered in front of one (I think dosplayed at the museum at USMA, although it could ahve been another museum I visited last year) stating that it actually was called "ni" by the Japanese, but that was a designation, obviously not the English word.
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Japanese machine guns were copies of the Besa and Bren
Sort of, the HMGs (like the Taisho 14) were based on Hotchkiss designs and only the Type 99 LMG used much that was recognisably from the ZB stable. There was also a Lewis gun copy.
And if you're going to copy things, you may as well pick the best
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.