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

[Bil]

Wood? ---bil

[sbl11]

Yes. I have seen this in person and will again this weekend. The german one on display facing it also has a wooden cover.

[bmg17a1]

Some pics, for your amusement, of the other LMG Type 89, 7.7 Jap SR, in my collection, and in this case the righthand gun in a twin mount setup. The mount also provides the pistol grip for each gun, a support for each of the two pie section magazines, and the sights. There is a button on the bottom of the mag that snaps into a recess on the mount to give it more stability.
The gun is a type 11 basically and uses the same stripper clip system used witht he hopper on the T11s, except in this case there is a pie chaped mag for each gun.
The mag uses five round stripper clips of ammo, and ammo was made specifically made for use in this gun. The strippers are loaded into the mag vertically between the feedway and the paddle. The paddle can be seen in the pic of the mag next to the gun inside the rectangular opening. An interesting correction to a Jap LMG myth about lost fingers in spring loaded magazines.The spring on the paddle is very, very stiff and requires a special tool to rotate it through its arc so the strippers can be inserted. The paddle cannot be rotated by hand, except with great effort and without anchoring the mag. There is an edge across the top of the mag visible in the pic at the feedend which is thin sheet steel. This mag is the one that is responsible for lost fingers, not the T11 mag. If the paddle is rotated half or more through its arc and happens to release when a finger is inserted between the paddle and that edge, witih no strippers inserted, the finger will crush or sever. No two ways about it! Once the paddle is rotated fully through its arc, the paddle can be locke din the rotated positon for loading the strippers.
This is a Nambu designed gun with a bolt/oprod system identical to the T3/92/11 and others.
If anyone ever sees a mount or a lefthand pie mag for this gun offered for sale buy either or both for me! Also looking for the lefthand gun.

Bob Naess

[bmg17a1]

Forgot to mention that the last picturte shows the gun in the position in which it would lie in the mount, with the mag on the top, the trigger on the bottom. Barrel lies to left of gastube and the lefthand gun would be the mirror inage.

Bob

[Bil]

I was just looking at some pictures of that gun in a plane! I also have pictures of the German gun you mention,I didn't take the pics,so it doesn't show much of the receiver,same as the Japanese one pictured above. Have fun checking these out,it looks like there is quite a collection there! ---bil

[sbl11]

Bil,

Not really, only a glass case of about 10 guns, but they do a good job hitting the major ones. I am going to see if I can get access to get close enough to the jap "nick" rear machine gun mount and get a few pictures. It looks like the mount left attached to the type 98/mg15(which ever you perfer) in the francillion book. I am 99% sure it is the same mount which leads me to think the picture is showing a japanese used mg-15/ or type 98. But, due to the japanese use of only wooden covers on thier guns, I guess we will play it safe and say it is a german gun given to the japanese in the picture. Unless of course the germans used the exact same mount.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

I was just looking at some pictures of that gun in a plane!

Which gun? the type 98 or the type 89?

[Bil]

The 89,I spent a lot of time yesterday looking for the 98,and also on the Japanese plastics industry before and during WW II.A lot of use of Bakelite. ---bil

[sbl11]

Neat, Well if i knew you were looking for plastics, I would have told you to stop looking. I already covered that trail. I found a 72 page doucment of Japanese plastics industry dated sept. 1945. The used it alot more than one uneducated in the subject would think! That you are correct about!

[sbl11]

Thanks for looking for the bakelite Bil,

However, I have come to the conclusion that the only definite way I will ever be able to come to any conclusion on the use of bakelite on japanese type 98's is to find a picture that is dated to the period, or to find a document that lists material sent to aid in the build(it must include the molds or parts). Aside from that, Imblizvt has a good point, we will never know who painted the guns. The paint alone is not enough proof.Lead based paint didn't just magiaclly stop after ww2, It was continually used at a lesser and lesser degree until it was banned in the 80's. I'll admitt that. However, I do believe that it is very persuasive!haha. I am waiting to hear back on when the museum acquired the weapons. I should know within the next few days. Also, I have found the document that originally recorded the tripod mounted type 98(refer to earlier posts of the cincpac 15 march 1945 " other small caliber aircraft machine guns adaptable to ground use. figure 34." ) It is offered by merriam press. Check it out, i'm buying a copy:

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


I believe that this gun is in the VA War Museum. It has very striking physical similarities. I sent them this picture and told them to be on the look out for the makeshift tripod in storage. Sure would be neat to know that Nimitz's donation to the museum was in fact the gun pictured with a bakelite rear.


-seth

[Bil]

Yes on the paint,however...... while there is still some lead paint around,presense of modern non lead based paint would say something.At the least,we are learning more all the time here,and that's what it's about. ---bil

[sbl11]

Well, i might have to get one of those $15 kits from the hardware store to test it.

[IMBLITZVT]

Haha... I guess it takes some time to sink in...

Actually I thought the paint was somewhat promising. Yes the lead test will not show for sure its WWII paint but it can show its post WWII paint... I think the main thing with this paint it to take a look at it and see if the guns were used (not moved) with this paint on them. Just moving them will wear paint. However if there is paint down the muzzle for example, you know the gun was never fired after painting. Is there any paint in pitting... that also tells a LOT. Next step would be finding that color on other Jap items. Yes painting the inside of planes is for a different reason then painting the guns. Guns are blued so they have a finish on them. The inside of the plane would be bare metal.

Part of my point in shown with Bil's pictures of Bobs MG15. These are just so easy to switch, it just impossible to tell when it was done. Here you thought you had another example and it proved not to be.

Even Historic pictures will be hard to show what you are looking for. As you have shown, we know the Japs got some MG15s from German. So how do we know if we are looking at MG15s or Type 98s? Now if you can find a pictures with a Type 1 with that front grip... the Germans did not have that grip so it would show for sure that its a Jap gun! Now you could argue that its still a German cover, but I would not. This would be proof enough for me.

I was reading some of the original posts. Here is a picture of your cover:


If this is a German Eagle stamped into your cover... I think the answer, if one is out there, will come from a careful examination of these top covers. If no differences can be seen from known German covers, they can all be assumed to be German.

I know you think I am just in this to bust your balls... but I am really not. You are trying to disprove a pretty well accepted idea historically speaking. So the burden of proof is on you. I am just holding your level of proof to a level that would stand up to review.

[sbl11]

The inside of the plane would be bare metal

wrong

As you have shown, we know the Japs got some MG15s from German

Its a good thing I did my research for you in this case, huh?

If no differences can be seen from known German covers, they can all be assumed to be German.

I haven't seen any others stamped with this mark. So I am not willing to make that assumption!

You are trying to disprove a pretty well accepted idea historically speaking

I don't know what historical sources you are reviewing, if any, but I have found more than has ever been published on these weapons. There is no accepted idea on the type 98 mg 15 relationship because little is known about it. Ideas are not facts, as you would tell me. The truth is that I have brought more attention and informatioin to this topic than any other, aside from possibly Mr. Libby.

[TactAdv]

.......I have found more than has ever been published on these weapons. There is no accepted idea on the type 98 mg 15 relationship because little is known about it. Ideas are not facts, as you would tell me. The truth is that I have brought more attention and informatioin to this topic than any other, aside from possibly Mr. Libby.

Indeed, you have, and in doing so Seth, you are hopefully beginning to realize that you have now incurred a responsibility to the Community at large, probably more than you ever thought about when you jumped into this...... ;-)

When you are ready to think about publishing, there are certain people who can assist you.

-TomH

[sbl11]

Wow, you know what guys, my last comment was totally out of line and cocky. I apologize for my blatant remarks in this "pissing contest"...haha.

I intend to provide alot more evidence than what I have found. But, I do not want there to be a bias against the use of bakelite when we do not know for sure whether it was used. No published works have turned up indicating that it was not used. And everything that I have found, especially from period documents and capture photos leans in the direction of it being used to some extent.

But!!!


I know that the burden of proof is important to this research. And I am trying to be nuetral to the idea as well. In fact I have contacted the previous owners of the three painted machine guns, and am trying to sort out when they were painted. It is looking like they could have been painted post war. But, I will not know until they can provide any information. And if they dont have any information, then all we have is the lead paint test.


Look, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about the research I am doing. I am looking all different makes and variants of the japanese copied guns. I am looking at all the different variations and am determining alot about production. For instance, today after reviewing the usna museum's type 1(it is cool bc it is mark type 100 and the zeros are crossed out, they were originally type 100s before changed to type 1's) i discovered that the barrels are double numbered. One number for each barrel matches it to the dual reciever, while the barrels ahve a seperate number for each. The seperate number marks its production off the line, and they are consecutively marked. the left barrel is marked: 10573 and the right barrel is marked 10574!!! The gun was made in 17.3 as serial number nagoya 244! that means that in march of 1942, this gun was made and the barrels off the line fall into the range of barrels marked for the type 98's nagoya produced. There for, my observation was correct! No matter which gun the barrels were going to be installed on, they were marked with the serial number as they came off the line. My gun has the 18889th barrel to come off of nagoya's barrel line in 19.1. That means that two years of production at nagoya produced 8,316 barrels for all the different types of aircraft weapons. In one year's time, nagoya produced only 2,706 barrels(from 17.3-18.3) based off the barrel on the painted type 98. That means that in the following 9 months of production, from 18.3-19.1 nagoya's aircraft armament was booming! the number more than doubled in barrel production during those 9 months than in the entire previous year of production. From 18.3-19.1 a total of 5,610 barrels were made. Why the increase? Well, by this time, the u.s. navy was getting mighty close to tojo..haha and the mainland of japan was begging to be bombed. With the increased need for air armament to combat bombers and and fighters close to japan, the nagoya arms industry simply produced more acmg's. With the increase of barrels the increase of machine guns facilitated the need for lots of parts to complete the guns!


Now, I will not say what i think could have aided in the manufacture, but you get the picture!

-seth

[IMBLITZVT]

Wow, you know what guys, my last comment was totally out of line and cocky. I apologize for my blatant remarks in this "pissing contest"...haha.

Yeah I seem to be good at getting this out of you. How about waiting 12 hours before responding and think about what I said and give yourself time to see its not a personal attack. Then respond accordingly. Its really not a pissing contest. Show me facts and I will agree. Hell it just happened to me in the For sale section. I was thinking something was completely wrong, I got shown facts and I responded, "Good point. I agree." Its not an ego thing for me. Here is a link: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10613 if you wish to see for yourself what providing good proof is. He showed me a picture of a MG34 scope and there was nothing left to say but he was right! I like Firearms history and like finding out the truth.

"I know that the burden of proof is important to this research. And I am trying to be nuetral to the idea as well. In fact I have contacted the previous owners of the three painted machine guns, and am trying to sort out when they were painted. It is looking like they could have been painted post war. But, I will not know until they can provide any information. And if they dont have any information, then all we have is the lead paint test."

This is kind of what I am trying to tell you. Look at facts, study them and what they mean and they draw loose conclusions. At first you said:

I think this is the final nail in the coffin on the bakelite usage by the japanese air force, on nagoya type 98's.

Now its looking the other way. What I am saying is don't jump to any conclusion... research first then see where it takes you. It could still be correct Jap paint but first thing is first, see if you can figure out when they were painted. Don't assume that because you can't understand why some collector would paint the guns green means that someone did not do it! I think its fair to say that I was not a complete idiot for suggesting that now, was I? Even if it does turn out to be Jap paint in the end, more research was needed.

I haven't seen any others stamped with this mark. So I am not willing to make that assumption!

Hmm... Well that would seem the first thing I would research! A stamp that looks like a proof mark! Now that is some real evidence! If its a German Proof, or a Jap proof, it will all but tell you your answer...

Oh and I knew the Japs had German MG15s before we ever talked. It was no secret. I just wanted to confirm that we agree with each other on this point.

[sbl11]

Im sure you did. After all it makes sense that the germans would have shared some of their guns. But, I bet you didn't know that 57 were known to have been given to the japanese by 1942.

And, under what publication is there an accepted idea of what the japanese used for their mg-15 copies. We still don't know if they used water jackets, what type of brass catcher(although i believe its a safe bet to consider the one pictured in the manual and attached to the francillion gun), and in which aircraft they were used.

Please by all means, explain what the actual "accepted idea" of the type98/type 1 acmg is? I must have missed that thread.

[IMBLITZVT]

So much for that waiting to respond part...

But, I bet you didn't know that 57 were known to have been given to the japanese by 1942.

Nor does it matter. I new they had some as they were used examples to get the Jap version up and running. What difference does it make how many "some" is?

"And, under what publication is there an accepted idea of what the japanese used for their mg-15 copies."

Where in navy publications does it tell you how to wipe your ass? Its just something thats known? When I got my parts kit, I asked around and heard that from several long time gun collectors. I saw the large majority of the guns with wood covers and as you can't question everything or find everything in a book... I was not looking for that 1% that may or may not break the rule. I also was able to accept that many broken covers (like mine) would be replaced with German covers (as I considered doing) which was eventually done to my parts kit after it was made into a posty!

"We still don't know if they used water jackets, what type of brass catcher(although i believe its a safe bet to consider the one pictured in the manual and attached to the francillion gun), and in which aircraft they were used."

This is not the first gun to have unknown history to it. Most of it is that people just don't care at this level of research into something.

Please by all means, explain what the actual "accepted idea" of the type98/type 1 acmg is? I must have missed that thread.

No I think Bob pretty much laid it out early in this thread. Then you pissed him off and he removed himself from the argument. Why I bother to carry on probably relates to times I am bored at work... like today. Hopefully tomorrow the more meaningful parts of my last post will sink in and we can discuss them.

[sbl11]

Nor does it matter. I new they had some as they were used examples to get the Jap version up and running. What difference does it make how many "some" is?

Well, It does matter, because it indicates the degree of knowledge you have acquired on the subject. If you don't have information to add to help this discussion, then you are not a contributing factor and should be ignored.

This is not the first gun to have unknown history to it. Most of it is that people just don't care at this level of research into something.

Seems like you don't really care. So why argue? Be careful not to "crash" while rubbernecking at the other "car crash" , as you put it.

Where in navy publications does it tell you how to wipe your ass? Its just something thats known?

Now, who needs to take a step back and wait to repost without emotion again?

No I think Bob pretty much laid it out early in this thread.

Look, Bob is a very helpful person. No offense to Bob, Bil, Tom or SETH! but, none of us know the full truth. With that being said, I am actively researching it with the best of my ability, dodging the darts you are throwing at my progress the entire time, and doing so with zeal and persistence to figure out the truth. Imblivzt, you have made great points about assumptions, now I think its time you practice what you preach.

Remember this is not something to be emotional about...haha ...and when you find that publication on the "accepted idea" of the type 98, let me know. I'll do the same for the "ass wiping" policy statement, im sure there is one...hahaha

How about shooting down my other research!..haha...Its not just the bakelite that has been mentioned here. All, what are the ideas on the barrel manufacture? Could I be right about something?

Where are my cheerleaders? ( i just wanted to use that one...haha)