The Arisaka Type 99 - Early war vs. Late war - a comparison

[Aragorn243]

I love the comparison but have to take issue with the condemnation of the aircraft sight wings. I see a lot of criticism about the Japanese rifles, the sights, the dust covers, the monopod, etc but frankly, these were very innovative additions to the rifles and far from useless. The criticism probably comes from the general prejudice against anything Japanese from WWII.

As an officer in the US Army, I received instruction on how to shoot down aircraft with my M-16. I was also expected to provide training to those under my command in how to do so. Now if the modern US Army still has it's soldiers shooting at jet and armored helicopter aircraft with a 5.56 round, it is not a stretch to say that an impact could be made with a much heavier and more powerful Japanese round against slower and less armored aircraft. And for the record, the most common aircraft likely encountered by an infantryman was most likely going to be a liason/spotter aircraft which were as slow as the WWI biplanes and easier to shoot down. The Japanese were pretty methodical in their weapons development. I doubt they would include "useless" items on their rifles. They only removed them late in the war when they were trying to reduce materials, cost and time in production.

Just some thoughts.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Claven2]

I love the comparison but have to take issue with the condemnation of the aircraft sight wings. I see a lot of criticism about the Japanese rifles, the sights, the dust covers, the monopod, etc but frankly, these were very innovative additions to the rifles and far from useless. The criticism probably comes from the general prejudice against anything Japanese from WWII.

As an officer in the US Army, I received instruction on how to shoot down aircraft with my M-16. I was also expected to provide training to those under my command in how to do so. Now if the modern US Army still has it's soldiers shooting at jet and armored helicopter aircraft with a 5.56 round, it is not a stretch to say that an impact could be made with a much heavier and more powerful Japanese round against slower and less armored aircraft. And for the record, the most common aircraft likely encountered by an infantryman was most likely going to be a liason/spotter aircraft which were as slow as the WWI biplanes and easier to shoot down. The Japanese were pretty methodical in their weapons development. I doubt they would include "useless" items on their rifles. They only removed them late in the war when they were trying to reduce materials, cost and time in production.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for your insight! The view on the AA sight was based on my personal opinion, not any trial or fact and it's great that it's sparked some discussion The monopod was an interesting feature as well, though in reality I believe the reason it was dropped had more to do with the height and exposure of the soldier if it were deployed - it really puts you up there and lowers cover. Since WW2, infantrymen generally want to be as low to the ground as practical. The dust cover was a good idea, but used up valuable steel better allocated elsewhere in my view. The Germans invented a similar cover in WW1, then dropped it as being to expensive for the small gain. (we're talking economies over millions of rifles here)

[Walt59]

Thank you Claven2. My late father was in the US Navy during WW2 and was given a Japanese rifle as a war souvenir at the end of the war. It had been rendered inoperable by one of the machinists aboard his ship - something about the bolt being "welded". I remember him telling me that was the standing order at the time. Anyway, he gave me the rifle when I was a kid. I recall running around in the backyard with this thing playing war games with my friends. Good gawd, the thing was heavier than I was. The rifle has been sitting in my old childhood bedroom closet for the last 40 years. I take it out when I periodically visit my mom - not often enough since she's 2000 miles away. Even though it's been a few years, I still still have a clear picture in my mind & remember lots of details about it. I've often thought of having it restored to firing condition. I've always wanted to know more but never found the time to research it. But now for the first time, I know what it actually is. Turns out I have an early type 99, with mono-pod, aircraft sights, metal butt-plate, intact chrysanthemum, etc. The bayonet was lost long ago, in one of the many military moves we made to various bases around the globe, and there is no sling. But now I have a place to start. Thanks again for a great article. Walt

[Jim]

I love the comparison but have to take issue with the condemnation of the aircraft sight wings. I see a lot of criticism about the Japanese rifles, the sights, the dust covers, the monopod, etc but frankly, these were very innovative additions to the rifles and far from useless. The criticism probably comes from the general prejudice against anything Japanese from WWII.

As an officer in the US Army, I received instruction on how to shoot down aircraft with my M-16. I was also expected to provide training to those under my command in how to do so. Now if the modern US Army still has it's soldiers shooting at jet and armored helicopter aircraft with a 5.56 round, it is not a stretch to say that an impact could be made with a much heavier and more powerful Japanese round against slower and less armored aircraft. And for the record, the most common aircraft likely encountered by an infantryman was most likely going to be a liason/spotter aircraft which were as slow as the WWI biplanes and easier to shoot down. The Japanese were pretty methodical in their weapons development. I doubt they would include "useless" items on their rifles. They only removed them late in the war when they were trying to reduce materials, cost and time in production.
Just some thoughts.

I know this is an old thread. But I believe my comment with this quote could add to a greater understanding of how this would relate to the subject of infantry in air defense.

Aragorn243 neglected to mention how that defense against aircraft was accomplished. I think we may assume what he is referring to has not changed radically since I received that training in 1974.
We were trained to point our rifles straight up set on auto (no burst select) and on command, all fire as one. The theory being throw up a wall of small arms fire the attacking a/c must fly through, the concentration of fire having some probability of causing some damage at least.
This is with full auto.
Trying to achieve the same results with bolt action rifles simply cannot compare and training individual soldiers to hit such a target has always proved utterly impracticable.

[Eaglelord17]

I know this is an old thread. But I believe my comment with this quote could add to a greater understanding of how this would relate to the subject of infantry in air defense.

Aragorn243 neglected to mention how that defense against aircraft was accomplished. I think we may assume what he is referring to has not changed radically since I received that training in 1974.
We were trained to point our rifles straight up set on auto (no burst select) and on command, all fire as one. The theory being throw up a wall of small arms fire the attacking a/c must fly through, the concentration of fire having some probability of causing some damage at least.
This is with full auto.
Trying to achieve the same results with bolt action rifles simply cannot compare and training individual soldiers to hit such a target has always proved utterly impracticable.

You have to remember it was volley fire. This wouldn't have been one guy trying to do this, rather the whole platoon. Yes I agree that full auto would be better for that purpose, but having the capability to even somewhat aim for those targets would still be better than nothing. Volley fire does work, its all about quantity in the general area. You can still get a fair bit of lead down range with bolt actions, might not be nearly as much as a M16 on full auto, or a MG, but it is still something.

To the OP, the dust cover originated from the Russo-Japanese war, as it was extremely dusty conditions which would jam up there rifles. It also happens to be part of the reason the Arisaka Type 30s were replaced, and attempted solutions like the Type 35 came to be.