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

[bmg17a1]

Thanks tom, figured you'd know what it was. Of course, I knew it wasn't part of the receiver.....

Bob

[sbl11]

I have made two fairly interesting discoveries recently.

1st: I have located the japanese machine guns that were dumped in the alabama creek a few years back. They are in storage at the USS Alabama Battleship. If you dont know what i am talking about google machine guns in bibb county alabama creek. One of them is a type 1(army pattern)

2nd: There is a consecutive pair of type 98's in the U.S. Thats a big deal, due to the lack of specimen. ( i have roughly 15 or 16 known type 98/type1 guns logged.)

More to come, including pictures.

-seth

[TactAdv]

I change my mind. The I now believe that the two different type 1 variations were built at the yokosuka naval arsenal or some smaller arsenal within the same area.

Seth, I think that you are making the reasonably obvious conclusion (finally??!!), but I would suggest for a differing reason than you originally started thinking of.

"Markings", while important, are probably rather low on the spectrum of importance in making determinations such as this, especially with the Japanese wartime record essentially being non-existent for most cases. Even with the fanatical German adherence to documentation and the vast amount that survived and has been deciphered, much of that even leaves great gaps in being able to state with definitive accuracy where something "was made".

I think you need to be comfortable with a general idea of where these Jap guns might have been made, then base any further ideas on formal forensic evidence, things like tool and fixturing marks or traces, machining or manufacturing similarities, etc. Taken with a forensic eye, no matter the markings, a gun from Yokosuka at any point is just not similar in those evidenciary aspects to a gun from Nagoya, period. If -ANY- generalization can be made as regards Japanese production of these guns, it is clearly that Yokosuka Arsenal had a far lesser degree of importance attached to cosmetic finish, and probably overall, the notion of producing guns intended for a long service life.....they, being "the Japanese Navy", probably took a very stoic and somber look at the actual usage of their equipment and rightfully concluded that in almost all cases, it simply wasn't going to survive long as such they were not going to waste time, money or effort on things other than bare-bones functionality. That mentality, taken as a whole concept, neatly differentiates the Jap Army from their Navy on historical grounds going back to the original "modernization" period of the late 1860's as their Navy, as an institution, never had the same level of cultural identity and heritage issues as the Army did.

-TomH

[sbl11]

Seth, I think that you are making the reasonably obvious conclusion (finally??!!), but I would suggest for a differing reason than you originally started thinking of.

I'm sorry Tom, did you make this point before? I didn't think so, but could be wrong.

I do agree with your points about looking at the overall craftsmenship of the two type 1 veriants. I didn't mention that because it seemed to be a no brainer for me. The way in which the markings are applied, as well as the overall finish seems to be on par with both variations. However, based on what I have found in reviewing serial numbers and dates, I believe that these two variations are connected within the same serial number sequence. As I have seen the army type pattern (without two grips) with what I believe to be 1945 (showa 20) dates, and the two grip navy patterns all seem to have 1944 dates(showa 19). all the army pattern type 1 guns have later serial numbers. The only one I am unsure of, yet still awaiting information on is that gun on display at the US Naval Yards Museum in D.C.. I believe that that gun( the one pulled from the Kamikaze attack on the USS Reno). I believe that it was of the army pattern type 1, but obviously made prior to its destruction in the kamikaze in late 1944.

Looking at the general timeline of American bombings of Japanese cities, Nagoya would have taken a beating throughout early to mid 1944 so as to prompt the move of operations to the yokosuka naval arsenal. Yokosuka probably transitioned to the less complex(one grip) variation and marked these guns accordingly(without stamps and the backwards E "yo" symbol). Also, at this time, theYokosuka most likely transitioned from the oblong ventalation holes to the round holes seen exclusively in the army pattern type 1 guns.


I have 2 more type 1 (army variations) to look at, so I am hoping they do not disagree with what I have thus far stated.

-Seth

[TactAdv]

Looking at the general timeline of American bombings of Japanese cities, Nagoya would have taken a beating throughout early to mid 1944 so as to prompt the move of operations to the yokosuka naval arsenal. Yokosuka probably transitioned to the less complex(one grip) variation and marked these guns accordingly(without stamps and the backwards E "yo" symbol). Also, at this time, theYokosuka most likely transitioned from the oblong ventalation holes to the round holes seen exclusively in the army pattern type 1 guns.

Totally agree; Things like those happen for a reason, not randomly in areas like this. Would sure be nice to see extent records proving this out, though. ;-)

[sbl11]

haha, well where there are no records, serial numbers and cosmetic appearance generally point to the correct answer. However, concrete evidence may never arise with this educated guess much like the bakelite issue. As for the bakelite issue, all i can do is prove that they had access to those parts and leave it at that for now.Im sure I could be entirely wrong about the issue of my persoanl gun, but I also want to judge those others seen in pictures and in person with bakelite fairly. As for this issue emerging within the type 1 guns, the encripted markings on the receivers seem to create a great distraction.

There is one issue that I am having. type 1 SN 1763(gun fragment from the Reno kamikaze) falls within the production lines of 1945. This is odd, and while all I have is the SN and not the date to verify, I am fairly certain that the 1945 date is correct. This poses a big problem with the timeline given to when the USS RENO was supposedly struck by the plane carrying this gun. They believe it is from October 1944, but based off the recognition of this gun fragment as the remenants of an army type 1 with SN 1763, the date of the kamikaze and the gun do not add up.


More to come... I hate jumping out on a limb early as in the past it has caught up with me, but I honestly feel at this moment that the gun may be from a different kamikaze or even a different ship if the gun and date are correct. It is hard to get anymore concrete than the date stamped in the gun.

-seth

[TactAdv]

It is hard to get anymore concrete than the date stamped in the gun.

-seth

....when you're done with this, can you figure out the Shroud of Turin when you get a moment?? That one's been nagging at me too for awhile. ;-)

-TomH

[sbl11]

I think you are S.O.L. for that one buddy...ahaha

[sbl11]

Well, I looked at those remaining type 1's and they did not disspell my thought on yokosuka naval arsenal producing the 2 variations. In fact, because I have yet to find an army pattern type 1 in low enough serial number range to fit between any of those navy type 1 variations, I do think that they are part of the same production line. I think that yokosuka naval arsenal recieved the orders to produce a copy of the mg-15 for both the army and the navy by late 1944/early 1945. In considering compromises in ways of production, a hybrid was decided upon in order to fulfill the roles both services saw fit. Also, a slight modification(round holes and simplified none locking grip) would help in faster production. Thus, the hybrid army variant type 1 shows features carried over from the type 98 previously produced at nagoya army arsenal, and those still in use at yokosuka. The overall design of the gun appeared more along the lines of a type 98, but the general finish and method of marking lacked any features of the nogoya arseanl and took on those of its new manufacturer, yokosuka naval arsenal.


any thoughts to this hypothesis?
-seth

[TactAdv]

In considering compromises in ways of production, a hybrid was decided upon in order to fulfill the roles both services saw fit. Also, a slight modification(round holes and simplified none locking grip) would help in faster production. Thus, the hybrid army variant type 1 shows features carried over from the type 98 previously produced at nagoya army arsenal, and those still in use at yokosuka. The overall design of the gun appeared more along the lines of a type 98, but the general finish and method of marking lacked any features of the nogoya arseanl and took on those of its new manufacturer, yokosuka naval arsenal.


any thoughts to this hypothesis?
-seth

I think in -general- terms you are being within reason here....that some form of middle-ground variant was obviously delivered to both using Services by then whether they were each happy about it or not.....what I am not willing to sink too much faith into is that there was much of ANY discussion of "compromise" between the IJA and IJN.....there is NOTHING to indicate they EVER "compromised" on anything and EVERYTHING to indicate they actively FOUGHT each other on just about EVERY armaments angle....guns, cartridges, etc. What I feel is much more likely is that Nagoya simply was ordered to stop production of the T98 as it had become so minimally needed in terms of field demand that they needed to use that factory production capacity on much more relevant weapons programs, like T-99 LMG's for instance for the long-expected mainland invasion they knew was coming. The IJA planes that had used the T98 were in massive decline operationally, almost all IJA demand at that point for aircraft guns was for more highly relevant designs such as Ho-5 or other more operationally significant types, mostly large caliber HMG's or cannon. Nagoya was making all of these, and probably needing to make as many more of them as they possibly could....T98 guns were simply anachronistic to the strategic war demand by then.....and the small remaining demand by the IJA for T98 type guns was probably simply ordered to be filled by the IJN's contract production of Type 1's, which as you surmise, at that point was probably also under intense pressure at Yokusuka to gain as much production efficiency as possible in terms of guns deliverable, quality be damned. Any "compromise" or "hybridization" of the T98 features into the Type 1 features was thus probably strictly a decision @ Yokusuka to make one, simplified, product deliverable to both using Services. Also, it is clear overall that the IJN was probably far more in terminal decent than the IJA in terms of getting desperately needed raw materials or other needed industrial capacity, switching to a more simplified T1 variant was probably out of necessity as much as anything else.

-TomH

[sbl11]

I reviewed most of the guns recovered from the Bibb county creek the other day, and determined that the army pattern type 1 was SN 1498. It also appeared to have been fired by its previous owner as it had the common IMA parts kit installed. It also appeared to have been a dewatt. So, my feelings on its legality hint at it having been a registered Dewatt at some point, but "illegal" by ATF officials. I want to be perfectly clear, the ATF is a vital organization that helps control criminal activites, but I also know that some agents do not understand some laws regarding the reactivation of registered Dewatts. I speak from personal experience. Whoever had this collection, had quite a great deal of japanese weapons, and very rare oddities at that. I am just glad they weren't destroyed. It appears that at least in this case, the ATF recognized the historical significance of these weapons.

-Seth

[sbl11]

Here is a the type 98 mount from the Japanese "Nick" night fighter at Dulles Air and Space. The gun pictured was at one time in Japanese use, whether it be an mg-15 or a type 98 due to the fact that this mount is specific to this aircraft.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[TactAdv]

Nice pictures there, Seth! ;-)

Though I am not going out on a limb and attempt to link it to any specific German-style mount they may/may not have copied without going and digging through my old LuftWaffe lafette manual first, with a quick look here only it does resemble pretty closely what I will call a "typical" scarf-ring mount, pretty much the basic layout that everyone came around using in the mid-to late 30's. Nothing remarkable about it, technically. The one thing that DOES seem awkward though is unlike almost all other scarf mounts in use at the time, that one is severely overbuilt! Most other ones used lightweight, thin-wall, DURAL tubing, or even in some cases, wooden construction, whereas that thing looks like solid bar stock for the ring with some heavy castings and forged hardware! HEAVY to move around. ;-) It looks like more like a skate-ring mount for a AFV!

-TomH

[sbl11]

Thanks Tom,

I was referring specifically to the mounting bracket for the gun's trunnion as pictured attached in the black and white photo. The rest of the mount seems fairly stock for the time as you mentioned. If you can, see what you can dig up on the trunnion brackets that the Germans used. All this will be a bust if they also used one identical to this bracket. I have looked fairly in depth, but haven't been about to turn any up from Germany.

-Seth

[sbl11]

my latest purchase! Type 1 army pattern dated 1945.
Note the differences between the type 98 and the type 1 army pattern.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[sbl11]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us