In the original pictures, the contours are not blurred from the scan and is much more evident. Now that it is clear that phenolic resin covers seemed to be on the Japanese guns, what is the next step in solving a slightly boring topic of Japanese arms production is the fact of whether the Japanese produced thier own bakelite rears or imported them from Germany, or both? Given the typical Japanese mentality of self supremacy, i believe that if any were imported, attempts at reproducing them in Japan were also made. Having reviewed the pictures of Admiral Nimitz' type 98 in the Newport News War museum, I feel very odd about its bakelite furnishings. They seem to appear rough in tecture, "bumpy" if you will. It could be the glass case its in, but until further review in person, I can not be sure. One thing is for certain, they don't have it assembled correctly, the trigger group is not twisted completely into the forward receiver so as to make them out of line. I feel however, that there is a possiblity that both rsein rears were imported and made. Probably not so many made, and more imported, making the nimitz gun(if original and japanese produced resin) quite rare. Needless to say, if bakelite was used at all, as these few picture indicate, then there may be no way of telling whether resin rears were always on type 98s or replaced after the war. It complicates the collectors world, and is a nightmare for authenticating originality. Wood on the other hand lacks these issues, and i feel would be prefered. I am still trying to hunt down more information on these weapons, but am afraid that little remians in records. There is one last record i am going to review at the National archives and it pertains to the material shipped from Germany to Japan between 1936-1941. Perhaps this will be conclusive. Mr. Libby feels that there is no time period to when the bakelite rears where used. In other words they could appear during in line of productio early or late, and used when available. I just wish i could get my endcap off to see the manufacturer's mark on the inside and to look for other clues as to its orgin. Unfortunately, i feel that i may damage the weapon in the process. the thing is really stuck.
-seth
Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Ok, since asked I will comment. Lets start with the first two.
To start with, the pictures as shown on the internet are not very clear. The first thing to look at is where these pictures are taken. From the picture, it looks like its hot. So either the Pacific or Mediterranean... I can tell no more just from the picture. This does not really help us unless I am missing something. The people in the pictures look Military with dog tags. Now I don't know the Marine or Army uniforms of the period. However I don't see any patches at all and just don't know enough about the subject to say one way or another. I could not find in my 5 min search of the internet any Marine uniforms that match but that does not mean much. If them pictures do not come with a location... well it could be anywhere thats hot! So it neither helps nor hurts IMO.
Next the guns. Neither picture is great or close up. On the first picture, at first it looks like there is no step in the cover. However if I zoom in I do see what "could be" a step where the right side of his arm intersects with the top of the cover and it looks like the shading changes a bit. You can not see if there is a bump in the bottom of the cover like the bakelite would have. So I would say it looks like it might be a bakelite cover but I can not rule out a wood cover. I would give it about a 65% of being bakelite. Now the second picture. This one really looks like its bakelite. Clearly no step. The cover also looks to me a smaller Diameter than the receiver and have the rim where it connects to the receiver. Now you still can't see if there is a bump on the bottom of the receiver... but I would give it a good 95% chance of being bakelite.
Now for my questions?
1. Did the Japs ever make a straight wood cover or to all have a step?
2. Can we ID these uniforms as Marine issue? Lets see proof. Did the Marine uniform differ from the USGI? If not, then the uniform can not ID them as Marines. If these guys are Army. It could be in Europe or Pacific. The Marines would pretty much mean Pacific.
3. Can we find out where the pictures are from? Guessing Islands will not help as I can add in Sicily and screw up everything. We need proof from the picture or from the picture taker or in a book..etc. Remember the Germans where bombing in all conditions and these guns could show up anywhere.
4. Do we know they are WWII pictures? Vietnam or Korea could have seen these guns in use too?
Comments. Its a good start but just a start. If you can not tell where these pictures are from they will not prove anything. If it was Jap soldiers holding the guns... that would say a lot more. Guessing will not help in this area, you either know or don't. The pictures are not very good and are maybe just good enough. Better pictures would help!
The third pictures is a nice picture but clearly is not the same gun in the first two pictures. You can tell by the sights. So its no help.
The ID card does not mean much. The US had very little Jap info in WWII. Hell they did not even know what there largest battleship looked like! They probably just took a German MG15 and used it.
The fourth picture is nice but does not help us.
I would suggest a few things. First bakelite is a very odd product. There is no way Bakelite made in Japan and Germany look the same. Its just not going to happen. Get yourself a German cover to compare with. If its the same color and pattern, the simple answer is probably correct, a replacement post war. If it is Jap made, its probably early in the war. Late war, things got cheaper and more wood was used. Just take a look at their bolt guns. Wood butt plates...etc. With the lack of supplies because of the lose of their merchant fleet, its more likely Jap would have moved to wood rather then from wood to bakelite. Second look at the mold marks. If they are the same... If the Japs copied it, they would not have come out the same. Also Bakelite wears out and looks very different when it does.
Is there a whole in the middle of the butt screw? Lets see a picture of yours.
I had one other thought but can't remember it now...
To start with, the pictures as shown on the internet are not very clear. The first thing to look at is where these pictures are taken. From the picture, it looks like its hot. So either the Pacific or Mediterranean... I can tell no more just from the picture. This does not really help us unless I am missing something. The people in the pictures look Military with dog tags. Now I don't know the Marine or Army uniforms of the period. However I don't see any patches at all and just don't know enough about the subject to say one way or another. I could not find in my 5 min search of the internet any Marine uniforms that match but that does not mean much. If them pictures do not come with a location... well it could be anywhere thats hot! So it neither helps nor hurts IMO.
Next the guns. Neither picture is great or close up. On the first picture, at first it looks like there is no step in the cover. However if I zoom in I do see what "could be" a step where the right side of his arm intersects with the top of the cover and it looks like the shading changes a bit. You can not see if there is a bump in the bottom of the cover like the bakelite would have. So I would say it looks like it might be a bakelite cover but I can not rule out a wood cover. I would give it about a 65% of being bakelite. Now the second picture. This one really looks like its bakelite. Clearly no step. The cover also looks to me a smaller Diameter than the receiver and have the rim where it connects to the receiver. Now you still can't see if there is a bump on the bottom of the receiver... but I would give it a good 95% chance of being bakelite.
Now for my questions?
1. Did the Japs ever make a straight wood cover or to all have a step?
2. Can we ID these uniforms as Marine issue? Lets see proof. Did the Marine uniform differ from the USGI? If not, then the uniform can not ID them as Marines. If these guys are Army. It could be in Europe or Pacific. The Marines would pretty much mean Pacific.
3. Can we find out where the pictures are from? Guessing Islands will not help as I can add in Sicily and screw up everything. We need proof from the picture or from the picture taker or in a book..etc. Remember the Germans where bombing in all conditions and these guns could show up anywhere.
4. Do we know they are WWII pictures? Vietnam or Korea could have seen these guns in use too?
Comments. Its a good start but just a start. If you can not tell where these pictures are from they will not prove anything. If it was Jap soldiers holding the guns... that would say a lot more. Guessing will not help in this area, you either know or don't. The pictures are not very good and are maybe just good enough. Better pictures would help!
The third pictures is a nice picture but clearly is not the same gun in the first two pictures. You can tell by the sights. So its no help.
The ID card does not mean much. The US had very little Jap info in WWII. Hell they did not even know what there largest battleship looked like! They probably just took a German MG15 and used it.
The fourth picture is nice but does not help us.
I would suggest a few things. First bakelite is a very odd product. There is no way Bakelite made in Japan and Germany look the same. Its just not going to happen. Get yourself a German cover to compare with. If its the same color and pattern, the simple answer is probably correct, a replacement post war. If it is Jap made, its probably early in the war. Late war, things got cheaper and more wood was used. Just take a look at their bolt guns. Wood butt plates...etc. With the lack of supplies because of the lose of their merchant fleet, its more likely Jap would have moved to wood rather then from wood to bakelite. Second look at the mold marks. If they are the same... If the Japs copied it, they would not have come out the same. Also Bakelite wears out and looks very different when it does.
Is there a whole in the middle of the butt screw? Lets see a picture of yours.
I had one other thought but can't remember it now...
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Matt,
You bring excellent points to the table. I will see if I can answer some of these questions to your satisfaction, and if not, then thats ok too.
1.- I have not seen any Japanese wooden covers that are not stepped. The only covers that I am aware of are the straight contoured bakelite covers. I believe that the two different diameters were needed in the wooden covers for stength. Without the thickened front, I assume they would be much easier to damage or break.
2.As for the uniforms, it is a tricky issue. The uniforms appear to be herrinbone twill. Unfortunately the Army and Marine Corps did use the same type material. But,they had different cuts and buttons. Obviously we can see the buttons, but if you look on the man wearing the jacket open, just behind the rear sight there is a highlighted area that appears to be the mouth of a pocket, without a flap. The marines did use this single open pocket jacket, and the pocket is on the correct side of the jacket.
3. The pictures are referenced from Edwin Libby, who did research and found these photos in the still picture section of the national archives. He found them, so I am relying on his research. There is a possibility that the islands are wrong, but I believe that he found them in a section of reports from the pacific, along with the other photographs present.I am merely relying on what he documented. Also, it makes sense that if indeed the men are marines(at times marines were also issued army uniforms due to supply problems which may further complicate the matter) then they would be from the pacific as you mentioned. I am unaware of the herrinbone twill being used by the army in Europe, but i am sure it could be possible. However I do believe that what appears to be a single open(without flap) pocket on the one marine's uniform indicates this is from the Pacific.
4. If these are not from WW2, and instead are from the other conflicts you mentioned, then I don't see a change in covers of Japanese machine guns taking place still. I am fairly sure that these are not from Vietnam, they would have different uniforms, and color film would probably have been used.
Finally, Bakelite from Germany can not be ruled out. If 57 mg-15s are know to have been sent to Japan prior to the end of 1942, they very well could have had bakelite stocks. The Japanese could have copied bakelite, but they also could have access to parts and used them when needed. Edwin Libby and I have done research on this issue, and he believes that the mentality of the Japanese would be to be self sufficient in all aspects of the build. In doing so, copying exactly the model desired. So, if bakelite was made in Japan for these guns, which is still very possible, then they would have to have models to copy. We believe that the japanese had access at multiple times during the production to Bakelite from Germany, and that copying could have occurred. We also agree that the time frame for which the bakelite covers were being used, did no depend on time of production of the Japanese weapons, but availiblity of the Bakelite from Germany(so as to have both early, middle, and late war guns with the possiblity of having a bakelite rear).
The other pictures have nothing to do with the bakelite other then to show the contours and distinct shape of the rears of wooden as opposed to bakelite rears in a black and white and aged photo. I understand that the picture quality is not as clear due to the digitalization of the originals, but in the actual pics I do think that you would change your percentages from more likely than not, to almost certain. The other pictures just show a rare ground adapted type 98 and one mounted in a lily. Both very interesting and not seen unless through a great deal of research, not mine, but Mr. Libby's.
There is a hole in the butt screw, and the locking washer is visible through it on mine. Still wont budge, even with the tool. I doubt the cap has ever been removed.
Perhaps someone else more familiar with uniforms should take a look at the pictures, because that would be the best way to place this picture in the pacific aside from the location in the national archives. I am not sure myself about the uniforms and am only speculating based on very little to look at. You are right, It must have been quite warm that day though, haha.
-seth
You bring excellent points to the table. I will see if I can answer some of these questions to your satisfaction, and if not, then thats ok too.
1.- I have not seen any Japanese wooden covers that are not stepped. The only covers that I am aware of are the straight contoured bakelite covers. I believe that the two different diameters were needed in the wooden covers for stength. Without the thickened front, I assume they would be much easier to damage or break.
2.As for the uniforms, it is a tricky issue. The uniforms appear to be herrinbone twill. Unfortunately the Army and Marine Corps did use the same type material. But,they had different cuts and buttons. Obviously we can see the buttons, but if you look on the man wearing the jacket open, just behind the rear sight there is a highlighted area that appears to be the mouth of a pocket, without a flap. The marines did use this single open pocket jacket, and the pocket is on the correct side of the jacket.
3. The pictures are referenced from Edwin Libby, who did research and found these photos in the still picture section of the national archives. He found them, so I am relying on his research. There is a possibility that the islands are wrong, but I believe that he found them in a section of reports from the pacific, along with the other photographs present.I am merely relying on what he documented. Also, it makes sense that if indeed the men are marines(at times marines were also issued army uniforms due to supply problems which may further complicate the matter) then they would be from the pacific as you mentioned. I am unaware of the herrinbone twill being used by the army in Europe, but i am sure it could be possible. However I do believe that what appears to be a single open(without flap) pocket on the one marine's uniform indicates this is from the Pacific.
4. If these are not from WW2, and instead are from the other conflicts you mentioned, then I don't see a change in covers of Japanese machine guns taking place still. I am fairly sure that these are not from Vietnam, they would have different uniforms, and color film would probably have been used.
Finally, Bakelite from Germany can not be ruled out. If 57 mg-15s are know to have been sent to Japan prior to the end of 1942, they very well could have had bakelite stocks. The Japanese could have copied bakelite, but they also could have access to parts and used them when needed. Edwin Libby and I have done research on this issue, and he believes that the mentality of the Japanese would be to be self sufficient in all aspects of the build. In doing so, copying exactly the model desired. So, if bakelite was made in Japan for these guns, which is still very possible, then they would have to have models to copy. We believe that the japanese had access at multiple times during the production to Bakelite from Germany, and that copying could have occurred. We also agree that the time frame for which the bakelite covers were being used, did no depend on time of production of the Japanese weapons, but availiblity of the Bakelite from Germany(so as to have both early, middle, and late war guns with the possiblity of having a bakelite rear).
The other pictures have nothing to do with the bakelite other then to show the contours and distinct shape of the rears of wooden as opposed to bakelite rears in a black and white and aged photo. I understand that the picture quality is not as clear due to the digitalization of the originals, but in the actual pics I do think that you would change your percentages from more likely than not, to almost certain. The other pictures just show a rare ground adapted type 98 and one mounted in a lily. Both very interesting and not seen unless through a great deal of research, not mine, but Mr. Libby's.
There is a hole in the butt screw, and the locking washer is visible through it on mine. Still wont budge, even with the tool. I doubt the cap has ever been removed.
Perhaps someone else more familiar with uniforms should take a look at the pictures, because that would be the best way to place this picture in the pacific aside from the location in the national archives. I am not sure myself about the uniforms and am only speculating based on very little to look at. You are right, It must have been quite warm that day though, haha.
-seth
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
All these photos came from the same source. Mr. Edwin Libby found them in the USMC still photo collection at NARA 2.
-seth
-seth
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
"just behind the rear sight there is a highlighted area that appears to be the mouth of a pocket, without a flap. The marines did use this single open pocket jacket, and the pocket is on the correct side of the jacket."
Well... when we are getting to this level of detail to try and determine if the photo is a good reference... its going to cause lots of doubt.
"All these photos came from the same source. Mr. Edwin Libby found them in the USMC still photo collection at NARA 2"
I think the pictures themselves don't tell enough to confirm its in the pacific in WWII. It must be from the collection. What is NARA 2? Does that confirm that it was taken in WWII and where?
"but I believe that he found them in a section of reports from the pacific, along with the other photographs present.I am merely relying on what he documented."
It seems to me that being sure on this detail is the a critical part of the value of these pictures.
"then I don't see a change in covers of Japanese machine guns taking place still. I am fairly sure that these are not from Vietnam, they would have different uniforms, and color film would probably have been used."
Lots of WWII weapons were used in Korea. The Russians had tons of captured weapons that they gave out to Commie forces in Korea and Vietnam. I am not thinking its a Jap gun but a German MG15 issued by commie forces. You will see lots of MG34 and MG42 used in at least vietnam and I am guess but do know much about Korea.
"If 57 mg-15s are know to have been sent to Japan prior to the end of 1942, they very well could have had bakelite stocks."
That is correct so finding a picture of Jap gun where it shows the Jap markings and a bakelite cover is going to be a tall task! As you say, even if you can confirm the picture... it does not really prove anything about a Jap made bakelite cover... I hate to say.
"The Japanese could have copied bakelite, but they also could have access to parts and used them when needed."
Well unless its a spare from the 57 complete guns that were sent, I HIGHLY disagree that the German would have used up very valuable shipping space on spare Bakelite covers that could have been made out of wood. This just makes no sense at all to me. Unless you find a packing slip with it completely spelled out, I will never buy that spare covers for the MG15 were shipped. The only way it makes sense for German covers to end up in Japan is if they came on the gun. There were just much much much more important things to send them and this space was almost worth its volume in gold!
"Japanese would be to be self sufficient in all aspects of the build."
I agree, no doubt here.
"In doing so, copying exactly the model desired."
Complete disagree here! The Japs NEVER copy anything exactly! The always made improvements and made their own version. They copied the Hotchkiss guns from WWI. However they never made an exact copy. The Japs are well known for taking a product, they copy the good and improve the bad. In this case, why in the middle of a war try and copy a part in bakelite that worked perfectly fine in wood? The had lots of wood and used it as we can see in the last ditch rifles. The bakelite, was a very small industry at best. Why do this? It does not fit the character of the people. The only way I could buy the japs making covers is early prewar or at the beginning of the war and even then as a prototypes only as the very large majority are wood.
"So, if bakelite was made in Japan for these guns, which is still very possible, then they would have to have models to copy."
Well I would assume they had production drawings of all parts of the gun including bakelite and wood receiver covers. The molds would have been made off them. However with any molded production, you should be able to see a difference. So find a German cover and compare... if there are not some key differences... its a German cover. I also think the color and style of bakelite would be different as they never seem to be two alike. Again watch out for wear as it does change the look a good deal. I would not waste any more time researching until you answer this question. I don't even think you need to get the cover off for this.
"We also agree that the time frame for which the bakelite covers were being used, did no depend on time of production of the Japanese weapons, but availiblity of the Bakelite from Germany(so as to have both early, middle, and late war guns with the possiblity of having a bakelite rear)."
As stated above, I complete disagree that Germany was shipping bakelite, either as a finish product or just the raw materials, for these covers... just does not make any sense. Have you ever been on a U-Boat? If so you know there was no room for such things and even if there was, watch big advantage would it be to the Japs? It does not make sense. Now maybe prewar the Germans might have been helping Japan develop Bakelite production but I am sure it was not for these covers. Any bakelite for these gun would be produced in Jap and non likely after the first year or so of the war, if that.
"but in the actual pics I do think that you would change your percentages from more likely than not, to almost certain."
Can you see the bottom bump in the receiver? As we have talked about. Its almost a moot point as it could be a German MG15.
"There is a hole in the butt screw, and the locking washer is visible through it on mine. Still wont budge, even with the tool. I doubt the cap has ever been removed."
DId you take a punch and stick it through and smack it with a hammer, lightly?
Seems you could have two problem. Rusted threads (if end cap will not move at all) or the retaining disk not releasing if the end cap does turn a bit.
You know you might have to destroy that bakelite cover to get that end cap off! Maybe thats why it was replaced to begin with!???
Do you have a MG15 parts kit? If not buy one from IMA asap. That should tell you a lot and you need the spare parts anyway!
Well... when we are getting to this level of detail to try and determine if the photo is a good reference... its going to cause lots of doubt.
"All these photos came from the same source. Mr. Edwin Libby found them in the USMC still photo collection at NARA 2"
I think the pictures themselves don't tell enough to confirm its in the pacific in WWII. It must be from the collection. What is NARA 2? Does that confirm that it was taken in WWII and where?
"but I believe that he found them in a section of reports from the pacific, along with the other photographs present.I am merely relying on what he documented."
It seems to me that being sure on this detail is the a critical part of the value of these pictures.
"then I don't see a change in covers of Japanese machine guns taking place still. I am fairly sure that these are not from Vietnam, they would have different uniforms, and color film would probably have been used."
Lots of WWII weapons were used in Korea. The Russians had tons of captured weapons that they gave out to Commie forces in Korea and Vietnam. I am not thinking its a Jap gun but a German MG15 issued by commie forces. You will see lots of MG34 and MG42 used in at least vietnam and I am guess but do know much about Korea.
"If 57 mg-15s are know to have been sent to Japan prior to the end of 1942, they very well could have had bakelite stocks."
That is correct so finding a picture of Jap gun where it shows the Jap markings and a bakelite cover is going to be a tall task! As you say, even if you can confirm the picture... it does not really prove anything about a Jap made bakelite cover... I hate to say.
"The Japanese could have copied bakelite, but they also could have access to parts and used them when needed."
Well unless its a spare from the 57 complete guns that were sent, I HIGHLY disagree that the German would have used up very valuable shipping space on spare Bakelite covers that could have been made out of wood. This just makes no sense at all to me. Unless you find a packing slip with it completely spelled out, I will never buy that spare covers for the MG15 were shipped. The only way it makes sense for German covers to end up in Japan is if they came on the gun. There were just much much much more important things to send them and this space was almost worth its volume in gold!
"Japanese would be to be self sufficient in all aspects of the build."
I agree, no doubt here.
"In doing so, copying exactly the model desired."
Complete disagree here! The Japs NEVER copy anything exactly! The always made improvements and made their own version. They copied the Hotchkiss guns from WWI. However they never made an exact copy. The Japs are well known for taking a product, they copy the good and improve the bad. In this case, why in the middle of a war try and copy a part in bakelite that worked perfectly fine in wood? The had lots of wood and used it as we can see in the last ditch rifles. The bakelite, was a very small industry at best. Why do this? It does not fit the character of the people. The only way I could buy the japs making covers is early prewar or at the beginning of the war and even then as a prototypes only as the very large majority are wood.
"So, if bakelite was made in Japan for these guns, which is still very possible, then they would have to have models to copy."
Well I would assume they had production drawings of all parts of the gun including bakelite and wood receiver covers. The molds would have been made off them. However with any molded production, you should be able to see a difference. So find a German cover and compare... if there are not some key differences... its a German cover. I also think the color and style of bakelite would be different as they never seem to be two alike. Again watch out for wear as it does change the look a good deal. I would not waste any more time researching until you answer this question. I don't even think you need to get the cover off for this.
"We also agree that the time frame for which the bakelite covers were being used, did no depend on time of production of the Japanese weapons, but availiblity of the Bakelite from Germany(so as to have both early, middle, and late war guns with the possiblity of having a bakelite rear)."
As stated above, I complete disagree that Germany was shipping bakelite, either as a finish product or just the raw materials, for these covers... just does not make any sense. Have you ever been on a U-Boat? If so you know there was no room for such things and even if there was, watch big advantage would it be to the Japs? It does not make sense. Now maybe prewar the Germans might have been helping Japan develop Bakelite production but I am sure it was not for these covers. Any bakelite for these gun would be produced in Jap and non likely after the first year or so of the war, if that.
"but in the actual pics I do think that you would change your percentages from more likely than not, to almost certain."
Can you see the bottom bump in the receiver? As we have talked about. Its almost a moot point as it could be a German MG15.
"There is a hole in the butt screw, and the locking washer is visible through it on mine. Still wont budge, even with the tool. I doubt the cap has ever been removed."
DId you take a punch and stick it through and smack it with a hammer, lightly?
Seems you could have two problem. Rusted threads (if end cap will not move at all) or the retaining disk not releasing if the end cap does turn a bit.
You know you might have to destroy that bakelite cover to get that end cap off! Maybe thats why it was replaced to begin with!???
Do you have a MG15 parts kit? If not buy one from IMA asap. That should tell you a lot and you need the spare parts anyway!
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
There are fundamental disagreements here which is expected. NARA 2 is the National Archives at location 2(college park maryland). These photos are classified very specifially as to when and where they are from. I learned their origins from the researcher, finding that they did in fact come from ww2 marine still photos collected and documented, and retained in the records at the national archives. So, the question of the pacific in ww2 is answered. I know this because i talked to Mr. Libby yesterday on this issue on the phone.
Alot of things the Japanese , when looked at closely, didn't make sense. For instance crashing planes into ships, spending time, material, and money on aa sights, monopods, and dust covers for type 99 rifles, as well as running head first into machinegun fire in banzai charges. These things don't make sense. But, never the less they were common. My research shows that everything from piano wire to ball bearings to finished aircraft engines(and aircraft) were sent to Japan at numerous time during the war, especially before 1943 when the germans finally stopped sending surface ships due to tonnages sunk by allied blockade. But even before this, through siberia trains were carrying material. I believe that all equipment needed to build these type 98s were sent through siberia prior to soviet-german war in 1941. Including in these shippments casts for bakelite, as well as spare parts. More likely than not, spare parts for German designed machine guns were provided, it just makes sense, especially as to the restriction of production on the 6,000 type 98 and type 1's produced. This was by no menas a large scale build. Parts would be helpful to make weapons complete.
It would be an amazing find for these marines to discover two or the 57 german mg-15s at the same location in the pacific. But, hey it is possible.
I don't understand the statement about removing the rear and how it could have been the way it was broken. I dont think attempting to remove the endcap and being unsuccessful, breaking the original, then being able to remove the rear to replace the original would leave the endcap once again unable to be removed. It seems to me that if that were the case, the endcap would be removeable to this day, otherwise there would be no way to have slipped the bakelite rear on for replacement of the broken part.
Now, if the pictures showed wooden rears, there would probably be no questions asked about whether they were japanese.It would probably just be assumed. My point here in this statement is to show that that assumption is flawed, mainly because the germans themselves built wooden rears for their mg-15s. Also having inspected another japanese aircraft gun, the type 97(vickers clone) i noticed that the cocking handle was made of a very dark glossy black bakelite like material. It looks like a plum. If these parts were being made of plastic, that does some speaking for other aircraft guns(especially the bakelite on type 98s).
Bottom line is that these picture are from the pacific in ww2 as they are documented captured by marines during 1943.
German molds display german markings. If molds were provided early between 1938-1941 or there abouts, which i find highly likely as to develop the licenesed built of the german made gun, then bakelite can appear in verysimilar fashions. Bakelite is bakelite, an if there was bakelite resin powder in Japan, supply could have come from germany.
Having seen the type 97 with very similar "plastic" as the "plastic" on the mg-15 covers, i can not rule out bakelite on Japanese weapons. I believe these pictures do show it. Again the diameter of wooden rears at the very front where it meets the safety ring is about 1/4" thicker..if you go look at the wooden covers and bakelite covers in previous posts. There is a lip that forms at the safety ring on the bakelite in order to bring it to the same diameter at the safety ring and forward reciever.
The rears in these photos are dark, as opposed to light(compare to the ground adapted with wooden cover) in the black and white pics. they seem to have the same diameter from end to end, and are found in ww2 pacific marines hands. German mg-15s, maybe, but enough information just from these photos can determine that german guns, and most likely replacement parts, for the"assumed" german guns would be present. Also, it is known that the reason that the japanese did not want the german ammunition and electrical fuse technology wasnt because they did not have the industrial strength as one might believe to continue production, they opted to accept the trust worth percussion cap ammo for the simple reason that they figured it would be more reliable in the wet tropical climate of the pacific islands. What would last longer in these conditions? bakelite or wood? maybe a very similar question was asked early in the war. But one must remember that type 98s and type 1's built at nagoya and yokuska naval arsenal, were done under very limited production lines from around 1940-1944. averaging less than 1,000 a year between both plants if division of work load were equal(i know it wasn't). for convience sake, bakelite and other help from rhienmetall would be expected. As seen in late war submarine transfers, blueprints for weapons being solely sent, I believe that the ability to transfer quite a bit more in terms of help and ease of production was carried out in the intial phases between 1938 and 1940(when the first production began).
As stated above, I complete disagree that Germany was shipping bakelite, either as a finish product or just the raw materials, for these covers... just does not make any sense. Have you ever been on a U-Boat? If so you know there was no room for such things and even if there was, watch big advantage would it be to the Japs? It does not make sense. Now maybe prewar the Germans might have been helping Japan develop Bakelite production but I am sure it was not for these covers. Any bakelite for these gun would be produced in Jap and non likely after the first year or so of the war, if that.
Alot of things the Japanese , when looked at closely, didn't make sense. For instance crashing planes into ships, spending time, material, and money on aa sights, monopods, and dust covers for type 99 rifles, as well as running head first into machinegun fire in banzai charges. These things don't make sense. But, never the less they were common. My research shows that everything from piano wire to ball bearings to finished aircraft engines(and aircraft) were sent to Japan at numerous time during the war, especially before 1943 when the germans finally stopped sending surface ships due to tonnages sunk by allied blockade. But even before this, through siberia trains were carrying material. I believe that all equipment needed to build these type 98s were sent through siberia prior to soviet-german war in 1941. Including in these shippments casts for bakelite, as well as spare parts. More likely than not, spare parts for German designed machine guns were provided, it just makes sense, especially as to the restriction of production on the 6,000 type 98 and type 1's produced. This was by no menas a large scale build. Parts would be helpful to make weapons complete.
It would be an amazing find for these marines to discover two or the 57 german mg-15s at the same location in the pacific. But, hey it is possible.
I don't understand the statement about removing the rear and how it could have been the way it was broken. I dont think attempting to remove the endcap and being unsuccessful, breaking the original, then being able to remove the rear to replace the original would leave the endcap once again unable to be removed. It seems to me that if that were the case, the endcap would be removeable to this day, otherwise there would be no way to have slipped the bakelite rear on for replacement of the broken part.
Now, if the pictures showed wooden rears, there would probably be no questions asked about whether they were japanese.It would probably just be assumed. My point here in this statement is to show that that assumption is flawed, mainly because the germans themselves built wooden rears for their mg-15s. Also having inspected another japanese aircraft gun, the type 97(vickers clone) i noticed that the cocking handle was made of a very dark glossy black bakelite like material. It looks like a plum. If these parts were being made of plastic, that does some speaking for other aircraft guns(especially the bakelite on type 98s).
Bottom line is that these picture are from the pacific in ww2 as they are documented captured by marines during 1943.
German molds display german markings. If molds were provided early between 1938-1941 or there abouts, which i find highly likely as to develop the licenesed built of the german made gun, then bakelite can appear in verysimilar fashions. Bakelite is bakelite, an if there was bakelite resin powder in Japan, supply could have come from germany.
Having seen the type 97 with very similar "plastic" as the "plastic" on the mg-15 covers, i can not rule out bakelite on Japanese weapons. I believe these pictures do show it. Again the diameter of wooden rears at the very front where it meets the safety ring is about 1/4" thicker..if you go look at the wooden covers and bakelite covers in previous posts. There is a lip that forms at the safety ring on the bakelite in order to bring it to the same diameter at the safety ring and forward reciever.
The rears in these photos are dark, as opposed to light(compare to the ground adapted with wooden cover) in the black and white pics. they seem to have the same diameter from end to end, and are found in ww2 pacific marines hands. German mg-15s, maybe, but enough information just from these photos can determine that german guns, and most likely replacement parts, for the"assumed" german guns would be present. Also, it is known that the reason that the japanese did not want the german ammunition and electrical fuse technology wasnt because they did not have the industrial strength as one might believe to continue production, they opted to accept the trust worth percussion cap ammo for the simple reason that they figured it would be more reliable in the wet tropical climate of the pacific islands. What would last longer in these conditions? bakelite or wood? maybe a very similar question was asked early in the war. But one must remember that type 98s and type 1's built at nagoya and yokuska naval arsenal, were done under very limited production lines from around 1940-1944. averaging less than 1,000 a year between both plants if division of work load were equal(i know it wasn't). for convience sake, bakelite and other help from rhienmetall would be expected. As seen in late war submarine transfers, blueprints for weapons being solely sent, I believe that the ability to transfer quite a bit more in terms of help and ease of production was carried out in the intial phases between 1938 and 1940(when the first production began).
They copied the type 98 exactly, and experimented with a slightly different design in the type 1. As you mentioned previously, get a parts kit(i have two) , the parts are identical. When looking at the two weapons in the Dulles air and space muesum(both german and japanese have wooden rears and are side by side) they did a good job copying exactly. they mad no improvements with the type 98 as mentioned in the Technical Intelligence report number 19 a direct translation from the original japanese documents from the factory, unfortunately they are a snip bit or information on the type 98(only 3 or 4 brief mentions).Complete disagree here! The Japs NEVER copy anything exactly! The always made improvements and made their own version. They copied the Hotchkiss guns from WWI. However they never made an exact copy. The Japs are well known for taking a product, they copy the good and improve the bad. In this case, why in the middle of a war try and copy a part in bakelite that worked perfectly fine in wood? The had lots of wood and used it as we can see in the last ditch rifles. The bakelite, was a very small industry at best. Why do this? It does not fit the character of the people. The only way I could buy the japs making covers is early prewar or at the beginning of the war and even then as a prototypes only as the very large majority are wood.
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
The NARA archives are an excellant source,especially of photos.While mistakes can be made,they are rare there,they are very carefull as to the captions and collections.
I am still stumped as to what is causing the cover retainer to stick.Do you have John Baums manual on this gun? There may be something in there.
If and when you get it removed,it will be interesting to see if there are any German markings.If not,perhaps there could be an analysis of the bakelite,as the composition may vary.I would think that even if the germans had shipped phenolic resin,the Japanese would have used a filler of a local material. At any rate,I am glad to see that the research and discussion continues.Now if only we can find in-use pictures of the water-cooled '15! ---bil
I am still stumped as to what is causing the cover retainer to stick.Do you have John Baums manual on this gun? There may be something in there.
If and when you get it removed,it will be interesting to see if there are any German markings.If not,perhaps there could be an analysis of the bakelite,as the composition may vary.I would think that even if the germans had shipped phenolic resin,the Japanese would have used a filler of a local material. At any rate,I am glad to see that the research and discussion continues.Now if only we can find in-use pictures of the water-cooled '15!
---bil"I dream of a world where I can buy alcohol,tobacco and firearms from the same drive-up window,and use them all on the way home from work!" Dogbert
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
These could be some of the very few completely German mg-15s sent for use by the Japanese, and hence captured by Marines with bakelite rears. But, numerous pictures show bakelite rears onwhat is believed to be japanese guns, and have already been shown. The picture from Francillion's book for instance has a bakelite rear, and would appear German in all characteristics(it even has a german style cartridge catcher), but has still attached part of the mount from a Ki-45 Kai Toryu(nick) I have looked in detail at the only remaining Nick in the world and at the mount. they are the same. So the wrtten words below the weapon the say "type 98" seem to be correct. It was pulled from a Japanese mount. That is very strong evidence sugguesting its use with a bakelite rear, aside from these pictures. I will see what other pictures I can dig up, but I just don't see how much more in depth I can go. I know i will never be able to reasonably "spell it out", but analytically and rationaly, one can determine that more than likely an event did occur. One thing is certain, there is a timeline for when material could have easily reached Japan in regards to the type 98, that begins in 1938-1943, five years(two of which involved a prewar Japan and a dominating Germany).
Bil, I think you are totally right about the national archives. As far as the rear, I do not want to risk damaging it in the removal of the endcap. I checked out j-buams and also recieved an instruction of disassembly from the Aberdeen proving ground from the ww2 era(they had another method that i first tried, because they like me originaly had no access to the tool) and still did not work. It would come down to me breaking the cover to remove it, and I do not think tht its worth it, especially if there is a chance of it being original to the gun.
Bil, I think you are totally right about the national archives. As far as the rear, I do not want to risk damaging it in the removal of the endcap. I checked out j-buams and also recieved an instruction of disassembly from the Aberdeen proving ground from the ww2 era(they had another method that i first tried, because they like me originaly had no access to the tool) and still did not work. It would come down to me breaking the cover to remove it, and I do not think tht its worth it, especially if there is a chance of it being original to the gun.
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Does anyone have a Navy type 97 7.7mm(vicker copy)that can post pictures so that we can see the handle material?
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
tom,
Can you post a picture of the bolt side of your type 1. basically the same as last posted but turned bolt up. I was told that there is a difference in bolt length between the type 98s and type 1s.
-seth
Can you post a picture of the bolt side of your type 1. basically the same as last posted but turned bolt up. I was told that there is a difference in bolt length between the type 98s and type 1s.
-seth
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
sbl11 wrote:tom,
Can you post a picture of the bolt side of your type 1. basically the same as last posted but turned bolt up. I was told that there is a difference in bolt length between the type 98s and type 1s.
-seth
Seth, I would SERIOUSLY doubt that a difference exists between a Type 98 and a Type 1 as, remember, Nagoya Arsenal made BOTH guns side by side simultaneously under contract to the IJN and there is NO reason to believe that with all their other problems in just making guns AT ALL, that they would endure such a ridiculous divergence for guns being made side-by-side when there is no technical distinction internally that would command such a difference in the bolts requiring them to be made that way.
Nor do I believe there exists any meaningful difference between the major components in the guns of either Type made between Nagoya or Yokusuka Arsenal's. While stupid differences between the IJA and the IJN are the stuff of legends (and subsequent Western ridicule) , in this case when both using forces specified the same gun, for example the Type 98 in both services, there is just no believable reason why the IJN then would alter the major components, even slightly, for "their" Type 1 iteration when the only differences apparent in the Type 1 are seeming for improved handling (extra grip), not mechanical function, and more lean toward their proprietary production theories (no wasting time on finishes, etc.). Even the slight distinctions in the last guns made in the shape, size, and location of the barrel jacket cooling holes/slots more fits this mind set, than any desire to alter the mechanical operating functions.
Of note, when considering the likelihood of what you were told, one should immediately consider a direct comparison with the German counterpart and start there, I feel, when considering the veracity of that supposed difference, and there is no difference between a Japanese and German bolt, or rear receiver extension, or bolt opening in that extension....so far as my Yokosuka-made Type 1 and a couple of Heinrich Krieghof-made MG15's. When I first got my German parts kits, I took every single internal part and rear ends, part-for-part, side-by-side with caliper and micrometer in hand and did an informal but detailed inspection......there is no technical difference save for some distinction in markings (or lack of markings) and some machining marks.
My actual Type 1 parts are sitting Bob Naess's shop as he is re going to refinish them all to match; I just have the functional receiver now so I can shoot the gun. I suppose we can impose on Bubba for a picture, it needs be. ;-) (Bob....if you're reading this.....)
Here are some picture again:
Couple points to note- All the parts in these pictures are German parts-kit parts, save for the Jap receiver of course. That is how I shoot the gun and it runs perfectly. You'll note the 'hulsensack', prior to these pictures I was told by several "experts" on the Japanese guns that this style of hulsensack would not fit a Type 1 due to the forward grip location, and that only the "old style" sacks or "shell hose" would fit. Not so! When I got the Type 1 I was immediately curious as to why the forward grip was located on the off-set angle from its mounting ring....if there was no need to do that, it should have been located directly under the strongest point of the mounting ring......and now you see that the off-set was done to fit, exactly, the needed clearance of the "new style" huslensack, and more importantly, the SOLID "football" type. It has long been repeated that the Japs never made anything of the new style sacks; I do not believe this and I have been told recently that there are PTO pictures of the new-style sacks extent on Japanese service mountings. Just FYI, here is a picture of what is believed to be a early style hulsensack of Japanese origins...not mine, the pictures were kindly provided to me bei the owner-collector who has it. There are obvious distinctions in the "quality" of the item and in its use of much more coarse weave of the fabric and stitchings, all facts that tend to divert its origins away from Germany and toward the Japanese:
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Im sorry, I meant the bolt handle length. I totally agree about the issue in the Nagoya factory, but maybe Mr. Libby was refering to a specific gun. He said he believed that the type 1's did not incorporate the aluminum bolt hand extension, and were quite significantly shorter. Do you know if your bolt handle has the aluminum tip? It was a suprise to me when he mentioned it, so I am not sure how true it is. I'll see if i can get back down to dulles and take photos of the type 97 "bakelite" handle. I say "bakellite", bc im not sure of its real make, but i do not believe that it is black laquered wood. I do know that the ijn liked to black laquer things, but this seems to be a composite, resin, or some plastic material.
When i referred to the type 1 as being a a modification of the original german gun(in response to imblitzvt) i was merely talking about the application of the extra grip. And thats why i was curious as to your gun's bolt handle length.
thanks for the pictures, maybe bob will be able to post the pictures of the japanese bolt and show it having an aluminum extention or not.
-seth
When i referred to the type 1 as being a a modification of the original german gun(in response to imblitzvt) i was merely talking about the application of the extra grip. And thats why i was curious as to your gun's bolt handle length.
thanks for the pictures, maybe bob will be able to post the pictures of the japanese bolt and show it having an aluminum extention or not.
-seth
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Seth, I'll ask Bob if he can take a picture of mine.....sbl11 wrote: thanks for the pictures, maybe bob will be able to post the pictures of the japanese bolt and show it having an aluminum extention or not.
-seth
-TomH
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
TactAdv wrote:Seth, I'll ask Bob if he can take a picture of mine.....Honestly, I seem to remember it being identical/very close to the German parts, as I had a kit from IMA by the time the transfer came through and I field stripped the gun and pulled the Jap parts out (to the extent I could as it was lightly DEWAT-ed still then), but I could get out the bolt and I just don't recall being alerted to any immediately visible differences to the German parts I was fiddling with simultaneously......sbl11 wrote: thanks for the pictures, maybe bob will be able to post the pictures of the japanese bolt and show it having an aluminum extention or not.
-seth
-TomH
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
im just curious to see if its true...thats all. It would be very interesting if so.
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
The following picture is ofa japanese tripod mounted type 98 with bakelite reciever. It comes from CINCPAC 15 MARCH, 1945. After reviewing the Nimitz Gun in the Virgina War Museum(Newport News VA) suprising similarities between the picture below and the that of the previously discussed nimitz donated weapon appear. First and most obvious: the bakelite rear. Second: the drum without carrying handle. Third: the skewed shroud(note the sight bases are not in line with 12 o' clock and are more at the 2 o'clock position much like the one on the Nimitz gun). Forth and Finally: CINCPAC during WW2 =NIMITZ. I once thought that the rear was loose in the forward part of the gun giving the shroud a skewed look, but upon further review it appears that the drum, forward reciever, and aft reciver/pistol grip assembly are all in line and that the shroud is the only part mis aligned. For what reason in 1945 this would have been done, who knows? But the similarities are very striking.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Also pictured is the bipod mounted type 98 previously shown in order to show yet another application for aircraft guns in a ground fighting configuration.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Also pictured is the bipod mounted type 98 previously shown in order to show yet another application for aircraft guns in a ground fighting configuration.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
To my knowledge, the Germans never used this type of tripod adapted for MG-15 use on the ground. I believe the above tripod is japanese and is evidence that the japanese used bakelite. There is no doubt in my mind that the picture is showing a japanese gun mounted on a japanese tripod, and here's proof:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
These are "relics found in old Japanese installations buried near Clark Field, Manila, P.I. in the 1980's. Navy Type 1 Flexible ACMG on makeshift tripod."-Edwin Libby
Odd thing is that the wooden reciever cover detoriorated, yet the wooden grips did not. Maybe it never had a reciever cover. Or maybe it was made of a different material, possibly bamboo. If it was plastic, i am sure it would have survived.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
These are "relics found in old Japanese installations buried near Clark Field, Manila, P.I. in the 1980's. Navy Type 1 Flexible ACMG on makeshift tripod."-Edwin Libby
Odd thing is that the wooden reciever cover detoriorated, yet the wooden grips did not. Maybe it never had a reciever cover. Or maybe it was made of a different material, possibly bamboo. If it was plastic, i am sure it would have survived.
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Matt says:
perhaps I don't understand what you mean. I don't see how the inability to remove the endcap and the fact that the rear is bakelite correlate to my gun's bakelite having been replaced. If you mean that at one time a wooden cover was broken off in order to remove the endcap, then wouldn't the endcap remain broken free and readily removable today. After all, to get the bakelite on, the endcap would have at one point been removed.You know you might have to destroy that bakelite cover to get that end cap off! Maybe thats why it was replaced to begin with!???
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Above is a picture from an original Japanese manual on the type 98 mg. These are from microfilm copies of the originals. I recieved these copies from the smithstonian air and space museum.*****Note, this blue print utilizes a bakelite reciever cover*****
Re: Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated
here is the English overview of what the manual contains. It displays many blueprints and individual parts break down with all Japanese characters. If viewed closely, even kanji appears on the actual depicted weapon itself(Ie the previous picture shows kanji on the safey ring)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us