The inferiority of Japanese weapons during WW-2

[John Lindsey]

On cable, the History Channel is running a show on the guns used by the Japanese during WW-2. Its thesis is that overall, the infantry weapons of the Japanese were of poor quality and outdated. They relied too much on the fighting spirit of their soldiers, which also resulted in experienced veterans being wasted in futile charges. There was also a short mention of the sword, but just in passing. One good observation they made was that the Japanese were never much into anti-tank weapons, other than suicide mines.

It is interesting that a Nation well known for their sword manufacturing methods stands in stark contrast to the poorly engineered weapons their soldiers used during the war.


In contrast (and not covered in the show) was the better job they did with aircraft. The zeke was an excellent fighter at the start of the war. A great turn fighter, it did suffer from a lack of armor though, and its lack of WEP meant that it was a bit slower than the later allied aircraft. The Americans soon learned how to perfect team tactics to defeat the zeros (anyone remember the Thatch weave?).

The Ki series of aircraft were good too, but I don’t think they were built in large numbers as were needed.

At the end of the show, a “historian” made the comment that the Japanese never learned how to put up a good defense that could stop the Allies, other than packing the hills full of poorly armed soldiers who would sooner or later be wiped out by the Allies.

[Joseph Svinth]

Pluses: The Japanese Navy had excellent ships, and its torpedoes and searchlights were probably the best in the world.

Minuses:

Japanese logistics were never very good.(The Americans were probably the finest logisticians in the world: the Germans did better rail movement, the British were equal in maritime movement, but only the Americans could do resupply by air.)

Japanese armor and anti-tank weaponry never improved past 1940. Thus tanks were light and 47mm guns were about as big as the folks got. Therefore US M4A1 Shermans that were obsolete in Europe by the fall of 1943 were the equivalent of Panthers on Okinawa in 1945. Thus in August 1945 the Red Army rolled through Manchuria about as fast as a T-34/85 could go: infantry divisions supported by shoeleather and horse-drawn artillery do not last long against the finest mechanized army in the world led by Marshal Zhukov, I assure you.

The Japanese leadership had trouble making spontaneous decisions. Attacks went well because the plan could be staffed, problems discovered, and politics taken care of in advance. Defense is a trickier thing, however, as it involves seat-of-the-pants decisions by subordinates willing to risk their careers or lives, or to do something wild and crazy just because.

Failures:

The Japanese failed miserably in their reaction to submarines (both their own and the ones of the Americans), and in aerial night-fighting and linked anti-aircraft fire. Both were proximate causes of their defeat.

Bottom line:

The Japanese Army based everything on lessons learned during fighting in Russia in 1904-1905, and as a result its Army of WWII has been described with some accuracy as the best infantry army of WWI. Thus it did well in 1941-1942, and progressively worse as the war went on. The Navy was modeled after the British, but with the exception of Admiral Yamamoto, its leaders had been raised to be staff officers rather than admirals, and as a result they (as a group) never learned when to turn the blind eye to orders, and therefore achieve the Nelson touch. An exception is the admiral who organized the Tokyo Express at Guadalcanal, but he was beached after the campaign because he hadn't followed the book.

As for the Japanese infantry weapons being so bad, and nobody doing anything about it, the reason, as I understand it, is that some retired generals had the contracts, and they were making way too much money to allow better weapons to be made.