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

[sbl11]

Tom, I forgot you stold me this:

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.

So i guess you told me about the nagoya guns also. I agree, it seems very odd, but it also seems odd that they would also mark them differently from the type 98. There was obviously some rivalry between the services and a desired distinction between the two, otherwise nagoya would have just shipped the navy some type 98s(marked with the nagoya symbol and all). Odd too to think that if the navy was so concerned to have thier guns marked a certain way, that they would have settled for a gun that didn't have two grips. Maybe Nagoya was proping up yokuska by supplying recievers and other parts...that could be one reason nagoya marked the type 1's different from thier type 98s

-seth

[IMBLITZVT]

Well... sounds like you need to make a trip to see some of these guns. I am still waiting to see pictures of your and other Jap made covers next to known German covers for comparison! Manual's sketches mean little in this case as they were probably copied from the MG15 manuals that went with the guns. Historical pictures are not conclusive and at best show that it could have been possible but if we are going by numbers, unlikely. Museums often know nothing about gun history. Plus any broken wood covers would have to be replaced with German Bakelite as there are no Jap Wood covers floating around even if the Museum would have known what to look for. Think if you owned a Museum and had a Jap gun come in without a cover... what would you do? Yeah thats right, buy a German cover to replace it as otherwise it will look like crap on display with no cover.

So unless these museum guns are examined, they are all but meaningless as are any modern pictures.

Again, lets see the covers compared... There is no way covers made on opposite sides of the world, in war time, with countries that used different markings and letters, came out looking exactly like each other. As with the parts of the guns, they are close but you can tell them apart!

Put it this way... if you ever get your cover off... if you put your cover in a pile of 5 known German covers, had someone else mixed them up, while you were not allowed to look, COULD you pick yours out without trouble? What markings would your cover have? What marking do the German covers have? Mold lines, colors...

All things said, the simple answer is most likely to be the correct one. The most simple answer is that these few guns had German covers put on them as replacement covers by post WWII owners. That is the most simple answer by far. Without detailed pictures of the covers in question, all of this is pointless unless we can see that these covers are different enough from German covers to look deeper as to the cause. For all we know, when you finally get your cover off, its going to have a big eagle with a swastika inside and make these hundreds of posts for nothing.

[Bil]

Oh,surely not for nothing! Even if it is as you say,there has been a lot more info passed around on these than we have seen in past years. Even a failed experiment shows us something,even if it is just that we were wrong!
---bil

[sbl11]

Manual's sketches mean little in this case as they were probably copied from the MG15 manuals that went with the guns.

I think you are dead wrong. These blueprints have japanese markings in them. Why would they add them to mg-15 blueprints? (I am talking about the safety ring)

Look Imblitztv, I am not the only one suggesting the use of bakelite on the rears, Tom also agrees, and he has from page 1, that bakelite was used on Japanese guns. And as far as the simple answer is concerned, an ignorant person would look at all the details that have been posted thus far and try to simplify the issue. IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THESE DETAILS ARE NOT SIMPLE. so what i suggest is that this did occur. The Navy Museum sent me a picture of a type 98 that was painted. You may refer to the previous page if you like and see the reciever is painted with a sort of olive green. Well, today they sent me a picture of the bakelite rear, and it is also painted green. I believe that the Japanese painted this type 98 to match the plane it was in, but heck you might argue that a post ww2 collector like the color green and went through his entire collection painting all his weapons green. Yes, possible, but not probable.
Here it is:

Almost looks like wood underneath the paint, but it is formed into the bakelite mold. i will investigate further soon.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

The biggest take away from these guns is that there are a wide array of variations. Bakelite or not, these guns are almost always differing from one another.

I talked to a Japanese naval liason officer today, and showed him the document. He scanned the document, and said he could not find any information on materials used in construction, but that the document dealt with up-keep and maintainence, as well as procedures for fixing jambs and other simple operations. It was provided with type 98 guns after the Japanese air hq printed it in July of 1942.

-seth

[IMBLITZVT]

I know its an on going debate and will probably never convince one side or the other... However I think we are starting to get down to the issues with some pictures with the covers in question.

I have seen lots of errors/prototypes... etc in manuals. If the Japs are making a manual, it would be a pretty good guess that they had a MG15 manual in front of them and had someone do the drawings off them. Either way, its not really proof of anything, a drawing just is not evidence in this case, IMHO.

Now the new painted Jap gun... Could be War Time paint, could be post war... its hard to say. Lots and lots of guns were painted green esp post war as Americans think any Military items should be green. I see German stuff painted green like this fairly often. First you can do a lead paint test. Not lead paint... post war for sure. Then you need to see if they used the paint on other painted Jap items. If so a good sign its original. If not... probably never be able to tell.

.... more to come.

[sbl11]

nothing will satisfy you. If i may ask, what is your stake in this investigation anyways? just slightly curious?

[sbl11]

My main concern is to find the facts. Imblitzvt, I understand you want to keep me honest and that is admirable, but I am not attempting to make a story of history. I am simply providing edvidence that I have found on the type 98/type 1, whether it pertains to the bakelite or not. I am however very curious about the many variations, and in my opinion(bc i have seen on numerous levels bakelite used) that strage parts do appear on these weapons. You may think i am trying to fashion a story, because my gun has such odd part, and i'll admit it is A driving factor in this investigation, but the evidence i have acquired tends to support the bakelite on japanese guns anyways among other parts being investigated. You, whether you will accept it or not, are yourself fashioning a story of a post war rebuild on numerous weapons, not just my own, as a simplied answer to a complexity of history. Sure, i understand you are acting as the antagonist to keep the potential evidence inconclusive for good reasoning, any good critical thinker does just that, but it is also quite easy to sit back and "throw darts" without doing any of the leg work.

[sbl11]

If the Japs are making a manual, it would be a pretty good guess that they had a MG15 manual in front of them and had someone do the drawings off them.

Hahaha....maybe they got the Bakelite rears along with the manuals!

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[IMBLITZVT]

nothing will satisfy you. If i may ask, what is your stake in this investigation anyways? just slightly curious?

Haha... Not true. Cold hard facts will. Find me a cover with a Jap marking! I will back you all the way.

What is my stake? I read this thread early on and like a good car wreck, I just can't seem to look away! Thats all. Mostly I think you would have convinced yourself no matter what you found. I think you set out to prove it was a correct cover on your gun. As anyone who has taken high end science classes, I know you can prove whatever you want if you look hard enough and convince yourself. As far as doing the leg work, this is not a cause I set out to prove. I have my own and I know how hard it is to find out that what you want it not the case. That all being said, you have made in-roads into my thinking. Some of the historic pictures could leave me questioning things. However like you have shown, they could all be German MG15s in Jap service.

Look at this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eKc18qVLno I know this is a Jap type 98 with a Bakelite cover on it. I know this for a fact. I have had this gun in my own hands and I have even owned it. Now is this evidence that you are correct? Given the level of proof that you have been providing, this would have to be considered Jap gun #4 with a bakelite cover, correct? Can we prove this cover is not correct for the gun? Can we say for sure its German? From the clips no! So did we find gun #4?

With so many German MG15s being in the US, with the Jap wood covers being so likely to break as the one I owned was, I just see that there is a very high likelyhood that a lot of Jap guns ended up with German covers.

So at this point, I see the historical evidence as showing that its unlikely but possible. So lets look at the covers themselves. Lets compare them. Find me one with a Jap marking. Like the MG15 barrel I put on my Type 98, it did not fit 100%, only 95%. Show me that there is a difference and I might start to believe. You have your cover with you and you have a MG15 parts kit. Lets see the covers side by side! After all, even if the Japs did make a Bakelite cover, that does not prove your cover is not a German replacement does it?

Most of these Museums will let people examine these guns for research. They are close to you. If you want to prove it, go visit and show us.

I once bought over $1k worth of Maxim parts out of France. I was told they were original. I thought I had a late post WWI rare versions. I wanted to believe it as I had money in it and I wanted post WWI parts. I thought they were for a long time and even offering them for sale that way. However after some time I had to agree they were repro. No one can prove either way but after looking at others and really studing the parts, quality and slight differences, I had to say they were repro and it hurt to do so...

[sbl11]

your story is heart felt

I agree with you 100%, and I may never be able to convince you that your parts were indeed original or whether my bakelite is original to the gun. Heck that can be said for any unserialized part. But, what i can do is prove to you that it is correct for the weapon. It is clear that germany supplied detailed information on numerous guns, supplied numerous guns themselves, and equipment to build parts for construction of the guns or the tools that would fix them. The posts above show diagrams of such tooling. Whether these were taken from german documents or drawn first hand from actual material is unknown. However, these were included into a manual designed for the japanese to maintain thier weapon. I believe that the essentials here were included bc the japanese did in fact have them. The document shows both wooden and bakelite rears, and numerous tools. I don't imagine the japanese were able to build exact copies of many of the very complex items that are listed in this manual without having the tools to do so. I can only imagine how hard it would be to start from scratch on a saddle drum, have it exactly match a german drum, and do so in a matter of a few months prior to production. Tool inevitably were sent for such processes. Unless the germans supllied ample amounts of spare parts. One thing that has been glossed over is the fact that barrels have two serial numbers. Mine has one that matches it to the gun while another is apparently the one that designates which one it is from the barrel line in the factory.I have been told that these barrels were completely japanese made, and that they were stamped to match the guns. if that is the case, then my barrel is the 18,889th barrel japan produced for type 98's in the short 3 year time frame that it took to produce 1/4 of that in complete guns. plus it begs the question of having multiple barrels marked with your serial number on it, that would follow that very gun from the factory to the squadron? I think not. what i am getting at here is that some parts were proably not entirely japanese made, but were contracted to the japanese.

Mr. libby tends to think these barrels were made in ample supply, which make since for such a slender barrel that very easily over heats, but as far as logistics are concerned with keeping the barrels prescibed in the factory with that guns serial number, to have them follow that gun makes no sense. I think that you would see alot of mismatching original japanese barrels in type 98s if there were multiple guns. I sure as heck know that if i was the average ordinary japanese airman i would give two shits about putting the correctly marked barrel in the matching gun.

What is fairly obvious from the photos is that the germans supplied alot of information, and material to prop up the japanese arsenals for production of this weapon. I don't want to underestimate the abilities of the Japanese, but such intricacies for a production of a weapon of so few just does equate to the time and effort required to do such work when the work has already been done for them by germans. The japanese bought plenty of war material from europe, just look at the intalian carcano type I.

To ignore such ideas is a critical neglect for aquiring of technological data much desired from germany. Remember, the japanese procurred a license to build, so naturally in doing so they rather than recieved fully functional mg-15s, they probably got data, tooling, examples, and more difficult-to-manufacture parts from rhienmetall.

-seth

[IMBLITZVT]

plus it begs the question of having multiple barrels marked with your serial number on it, that would follow that very gun from the factory to the squadron? I think not.

I think that you would see alot of mismatching original japanese barrels in type 98s if there were multiple guns. I sure as heck know that if i was the average ordinary japanese airman i would give two shits about putting the correctly marked barrel in the matching gun.

German MG08s were issued with 4 barrels, one on the gun, one in the sled, two in a spare carrier. This was common in German MG and all barrels would be matched to the gun. Many WWI/WWII guns were issued with more than one matching barrel. It makes perfect sense to me.

If you were an average ordinary Jap airman and put a mismatched barrel in the gun, you would likely die the first time you needed to use it. The headspace would likely be off and the gun would jam or blow up. If it jammed the American would shoot you down. Headspace is the most important thing that is least understood. No Jap would have made this mistake. Barrels were matched to the guns so they did not have to recheck the headspace every time the spare barrel was installed. If you don't understand exactly what I mean, you need to research this, its very important in rifle cal guns!

Lets see some pictures of these covers!

[sbl11]

ok, i am not at home, so sorry no cover pictures...im sure you can look at the posts i have put up and compare for your self....that still means nothing. If it is a german part, it could have been japanese used. oerlikon guns with german markings were sent to japan in the mid to late war time frame and they have been found with kaji characters on them. I forget who posted this, and on which thread , but it is on this mg42.us forum. with that in mind, can you look at the other japanese guns with bakelite and compare them? or can you find me a german bakelite rear with the same mark that mine has(for all i know it is of japanese orgin a katakana symbol)? i haven't found one yet. now then, who is to say that the wood on your japanese gun is original to it? Is it serialized?


You have not addressed the manual at all! it was intended for use by japanese air personell for maintainence of the guns as of july 1942. It shows numerous parts including both type of covers. Why would the japanese field a manual with incorrect/unissued parts?

You ignore all variations!

You have no other pertainent imput other than what you have repeatedly stated. Maybe its time you sat back and surveyed the data presented. My method on this topic has been unbiased, i did not expect to find bakelite on the diagrams of the guns. In fact i thought it would be the end of the road. You sir seem to have bias. And you are having fun with this for no other reason to to antagonize my research...it is after all "like watching a car crash". You have not contributed at all to this research. yet in some light you have raised questions on your previous beliefs based on the data/ pictures displayed.

I enjoy listening to you continually disregard any pertainent information to this topic and revert back off topic.

My point in the barrels is that the number produced seems a bit high in relation to the guns actually made. And while i understand the issue of head spacing. the design of the type98/mg15 relys on a quick detachable barrel, so as to replace in a hurry or in an easy fashion. Maybe i am horribly wrong, but the headspace issue seems a mute point in this argument as it seems to be minimalized by the design of the gun in the first place.

antagonize my research all you want, "buti ts not the critic who counts..... the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena"-teddy

[IMBLITZVT]

"ok, i am not at home, so sorry no cover pictures...im sure you can look at the posts i have put up and compare for your self....that still means nothing. If it is a german part, it could have been japanese used."

So if we are going to the point of German parts being used by the Japs on Jap guns... whats the point of the research? Yes the Japs had MG15, no doubt. So it must be possible for there to be a German cover on your gun put on by a Jap, no doubt! The problem with historical pictures is that we know the Japs did get MG15s. So unless you can find a picture of a Jap holding a Type 98 with the receiver marking showing, it could be a MG15. Now if you can find a picture of a Type 1 (with front handle) with a bakelite handle... Now that would be more interesting as we know thats not a MG15! It is impossible to say when a German cover might be put on your gun. So if you think its a German cover, it must be viewed as a replacement of a correct Wood cover... there is no way to tell who replaced the cover but history will judge it as an incorrect cover unless you can prove this cover was in Jap WWII hands, which is next to impossible.

" i haven't found one yet. now then, who is to say that the wood on your japanese gun is original to it? Is it serialized? "

Jap wood is different wood then German wood and has a different look. So it does not need to be serial numbered to the gun.

"You have not addressed the manual at all! it was intended for use by japanese air personell for maintainence of the guns as of july 1942. It shows numerous parts including both type of covers. Why would the japanese field a manual with incorrect/unissued parts?"

Yes I addressed it. Its a drawing... drawings are not proof as I can draw you one right now. Its very likely the manual would have been made during the development of the gun. They surely would have used a MG15 manual that would probably show a Bakelite cover. Plus manuals always have things slightly off or incorrect. Even in the modern age, its common to run into drawings that don't exactly match the end product.

"... did not expect to find bakelite on the diagrams of the guns. In fact i thought it would be the end of the road."

Why? If the Jap nanual would have shown all wood, I would not rule out bakelite covers because of it! Hell, the early MG15 manuals probably all have wood in the diagrams... does not mean they didn't produce bakelite later on.

"You sir seem to have bias. And you are having fun with this for no other reason to to antagonize my research..."

What is my Bias? Just to waste my time responding? No, I have an interest in the subject. You set out to show that your bakelite cover is correct and not a replacement. I am making you prove it with real info. I have read 10 pages of it, so I continue because I responded to the first post and have been following it.

"the design of the type98/mg15 relys on a quick detachable barrel, so as to replace in a hurry or in an easy fashion. Maybe i am horribly wrong, but the headspace issue seems a mute point in this argument as it seems to be minimalized by the design of the gun in the first place. "

I would say you are horribly wrong. Anything that would change the dimension between the bolt face and the chamber shoulder can complete change the headspace. It could keep the bolt from fully locking up and cause the gun to explode or be to large and cause the brass to expland to much and crack.

"antagonize my research all you want, "buti ts not the critic who counts""

Research is always reviewed by others and judged. I am not convinced. Manual diagrams just are not proof either way as they are drawings. The historical pictures show its possible but are not clear enough to really give any proof. Modern Pictures of 3 Jap guns with Bakelite covers does not prove anything without further looking into each gun. I have shown video of a 4th Jap gun with Bakelite cover that we know is a post war replacement. Thats 25% of the jap guns with bakelite cover seen, that we know are post war replacements! A close examination of the parts in question and comparison has not been done and posted. So its not about a bias, I just feel you have failed to prove your case.

Lets see:
1: A comparison of know German bakelite cover and the three bakelite covers on the Jap guns. This might show details that would make one think they may or may not be German made. Jap proofs might be on the cover or the cover could be numbered (or not) to the gun.

OR

2: A historic picture of a Jap with a type 1 Jap gun with the front grip and bakelite cover. We know this is not a German MG15 and would make one think the cover might be Jap made. (We can not know for sure its not a German cover on the gun, but it would go a LONG way to proof).

OR

3. A Historic picture of a Jap with a Type 98 showing the markings on the receiver and the bakelite cover.

[sbl11]

Jap wood is different wood then German wood and has a different look. So it does not need to be serial numbered to the gun.

yes! but who is to say it is original to the gun? maybe a collector had some remains of a japanese gun, and bought another with a broken wood cover, and simply swapped them ...haha...I guess we will never know because they arent serialized, or even marked with a japanese character. Its funny how we expect to see a double standard here. We expect the bakelite covers to be marked for proof while ignore that idea on the wooden ones.

Its very likely the manual would have been made during the development of the gun.

the manual is dated july 1942...the type 98 began to be developed by the japanese in 1938! And, records indicate 1940 was the beggining of production. Once again, you wouldn't know this off hand unless researching it. Sure you can always be skeptical, but until having researched it yourself, you word is just that, uneducated skepticism. The date on the manual places it well within the lines of production!/not development!

Why? If the Jap nanual would have shown all wood, I would not rule out bakelite covers because of it! Hell, the early MG15 manuals probably all have wood in the diagrams... does not mean they didn't produce bakelite later on.

because the date of the manual is mid 1942(july) the production was in phase and there would have been no indication of bakelite being used. If bakelite were not included in a maintainence manual for the type 98 as late as 1942 where the developmental stage was nonexistent, and the tooling wasn't already in place for such work, then there would be no reason to assume. However, the manual does show both bakelite and wooden covers!

I would say you are horribly wrong. Anything that would change the dimension between the bolt face and the chamber shoulder can complete change the headspace. It could keep the bolt from fully locking up and cause the gun to explode or be to large and cause the brass to expland to much and crack.

seems to me that this was addressed in the design! heck i have used multiple barrels on my parts kits and all seem to funtion fine.



You may believe what you want! I will not waste anymore of my time arguing with someone that will not regard all that has been shown, including an origianl japanese document! as evidence to this issue.

Maybe you can ask TOM HOEL why he thinks there are bakelite rears!

[TactAdv]

Maybe you can ask TOM HOEL why he thinks there are bakelite rears!

Boy oh boy, am I sure glad I started this topic a year ago!! ;-) ;-)

You BOTH are not going to know what to do with yourselves when it turns out all these bakelite covers were all actually made somewhere obscure and forgotten in the Dutch East Indies where there existed a huge chemicals industry that was taken over when captured by the Japs. ;-0

Seriously, in cases like this, much of what becomes a vigorous argument where there is little actual chance of having it ever resolved with absoluteness due to lack of provable means can be sufficiently explained by the Law of Parsimony.

And, Seth, please don't assume I am an expert on anything.....I am just a vested spectator of History.

-TH

[sbl11]

Yea, What he said! haha...oh and i think i found a picture on page 1 of a type 1 with a bakelite rear!!!!!!! I think it might even be somewhat known by Tom!...haha...Im pretty sure he is shooting it!

[TactAdv]

Yea, What he said! haha...oh and i think i found a picture on page 1 of a type 1 with a bakelite rear!!!!!!! I think it might even be somewhat known by Tom!...haha...Im pretty sure he is shooting it!

And I can give you a very detailed breakdown of where that 'kunststoff' part was made, and by whom.....in Germany. ;-)

IMA swore that is was original Japanese made, though.

[TactAdv]

Seth, don't forget when investigating a topic like this to not develop tunnel vision.....hence my comment on the law of Parsimony above. So far, I think you have focused your energies on proving the Japs used bakelite on military items.....well and good.....but I think since your base argument is trying to prove the likelihood of them using bakelite because the COULD, you should look beyond the military realm and take the argument more in the direction that Japs could have used bakelite on guns because there existed solid evidence of their use of bakelite already on a large scale elsewhere in their industrial economy.



http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/j ... -114035751

http://www.quanonline.com/military/mili ... _phone.php

....in just 1 minute of looking. It appears that Japan had been using bakelite, in and out of the military realm, for quite some time prior to adopting the MG15.....that they should somehow NOT have been able to produce a bakelite rear cover for it.....seems ludicrous.

-TH