Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated

[sbl11]

I was talking with a japanese machine gun expert, who brought up a good point about the black and white photo. He said, " I believe that gun to be japanese because of the mount, but also the cartridge catcher." He explained that it is not built the same as the german football and believes it is of japanese construction. He said that the seams on the leather are different and it doesn't have the same football shape, yet hold a few similar characteristics. I haven't seen very many cartridge cathers, only one football shaped one in any detail. Does anyone have pictures of the different catchers?

[sbl11]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... s%3Disch:1


here is the only style other than the canvas "elephant trunk" one that i have seen

[sbl11]

As I was, Apparently there were three types made in germany.

Check out this site:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... s%3Disch:1


Lots of great pictures

[Bil]

Hey-someone translated JBaums manuals into German! Thanks for the links,I hadn't found that site yet! ---bil

[sbl11]

i had never seen that site either. I was trying to look at the german mounting systems. Its hard to see in the pictures, but i still don't feel like they used the simple square one, that is previously pitured in the toryu.

[sbl11]

still cant get the endcap off, used the tool, put it in a vice, and just about striped screwdriver slot....I give up.

-seth

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Here are some more pictures of type 98's:two captured apparently in the same place(believed to be New Guinea or somewhere in the Soloman Islands c. 1943) as well as an unknown picture of one mounted in a japanese bomber(believed to be a "lily") and an ordnance record card of some sort. The capture pictures appear to show two different type 98's with phenolic resin rears. The could be the same gun, but in one picture sights are in place and another, it seems to be tagged forward of the rear sight mount. There are slight differences in the weapons themselves. These weapons show the use of "bakelite" on Japanese mg-15s.

Seth Labak

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Bil]

Nice! Glad to see the research continues! ---bil

[sbl11]

I believe these few pictures prove that bakelite was undoubtedly used on japanese manufactured type 98s. These pictures are obviously from the pacific, as the men holding them are in marine uniforms. Both pictures show possibly two different guns with resin rears, while the last picture shows a wooden rear stocked gun crudely configured for ground use. Distinguishing the rears in these pictures is clear, and even more so in the actual photos, but either these weapons are some of the 57 mg-15s believed to have been delievered to Japan, or more likely fully japanese in origin.

seth

[TactAdv]

Seth, VERY interesting pictures you dug up! Nice work.

I especially congratulate you on finding the pic of the ground adaptation variant. I have never seen the Japanese equivalents, and that field-expedient and very rough wooden stock piece is quite interesting, almost looks a lot like MG34/42 curves there. The field-expedient bi-pod assembly rather closely approximates pictures I have seen of other such German ideas.

I agree the "Ordnance Dept" ID card picture likely shows a synthetic rear cover, the surface texture is undeniable, but I am having a lot of trouble when you suggest the other personal capture photos show the "proof" equally as well.....those pictures are just not well enough focused to have the same level of undeniable surface texture visible to my eyes. I would haltingly even, tend to say they appear like the crappy wood on my own Type 1 rear cover to a better extent. Perhaps the actual pictures you have in your hands show more focused details....??

Also, that picture of plane is the first time I have seen the (late war) large-ring sight actually in a period picture. Not a common item.

-TomH

[sbl11]

tom,

I'll see what i can do to get the pictures in better quality, I understand it is a bit difficult to see. I have recieved these photos from Mr. Edwin Libby, and he has reviewed them and believes them to be phelonlic resin rears. If i can get better qualities pictures up you will see that there is no bulge (bottlenecking) forwar of the pistol grip as evident in the wooden rears, but like the bakelite rears a straight tubular rear. Don't thank me, thank mr. libby for the pictures, he has been a great help. Let me see what i can do for better pictures.
-seth

[sbl11]

The key in looking at the rears isn't in the texture, it is impossible to tell the difference. It is the shape of the rear part that is the key.

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


I think this is about as good as i can do with the scan's clarity, its a shame, the pictures loose alot of detail when digitized, shadowing is blurred.

[sbl11]

Tom,
I tried to zoom in, but it looks even more blurred, but if you look across the top of the rear, you will see that there is a straingt line shilouette, and doesn't bulge like the wooden covers. As far as the other pics, the Asian man(i say asain because i am not sure if he is Japanese(i think phillipino) )appears to be dressed in a late period american style uniform with field cover, in a neglected or crashed "lilly" bomber. All the glass appears to be broken out of the nose, and structural damage is seen on the wing surfaces and fuselage. The ground adapter is very interesting. I heard somewhere that aircraft machine guns were being removed from planes and used on Iwo Jima. I am not sure from who i heard this, but it would be interesting to find out if it is true. The bipod looks like part of an aircraft mount, cut free from a gunners position in a plane, and bent or restructured for use as a bipod. The wooden rear is very odd, and appears to be fashioned of two pieces of wood, and attached to a wooden reciever cover rear. Do you have a late war sight, similar to the one in the lilly?
-Seth

[TactAdv]

Tom,
I tried to zoom in, but it looks even more blurred, but if you look across the top of the rear, you will see that there is a straingt line shilouette, and doesn't bulge like the wooden covers.
-Seth

Damn, NOW I feel stupid!! You are absolutely correct, Seth. Do you know how many hundreds of times I have looked at my own gun and NEVER cottoned on to that little difference?? Damn. Sure as shootin', here's mine again and you can plainly see the "drop" in the wooden covers-



...which is exactly opposite of what I would have thought, synthetic vs. wood, as being necessary for strength. I would thought the wood would have needed the extra thickness there for strength as opposed to the synthetic.

Okay, Seth, I'll give you those pictures "prove" it out, can't deny the contours there. Good work. ;-)

-TomH