Best German Weapon for the Japanese

Morning Worsham.
Good question. I wonder though, if Japan’s problem was less about weapons and more about tactics or strategy.
I certainly do not think a tank would have benefitted their own Blitzkrieg(which was more spectacular than the German one) or in holding the islands, once gained. From films,
I have understood their artillery was good enough too.
If I had to choose, I would say the MG42, as the Western Allies certainly envied it and  I thought I remembered the Japanese one was capable, although not as potent.
Subs would have been an option; I think they did not properly utilise theirs, so again tactics/strategy more of a problem than the weapons themselves.

I chose the Radar system. War could’ve been different if Japan could’ve had quality Radar systems before the war (FuMO was first designed in 1938), especially if they had them in significant numbers. They could’ve reverse engineered them to help produce different models as well, so it would’ve benefited them in other areas and not just in locating allied ships.

In the end though, Japan’s problems were pretty numerous and it would’ve taken a super weapon to overcome their disadvantages of poor pilot training programs, horrible maritime commerce protection, horrible maritime commerce building programs, manpower issues, industrial production shortcomings, etc.  Maybe early and numerous jets could’ve won Japan the war, but I’m not really seeing anything else that could’ve significantly changed the course of the war. Anything else might’ve bought Japan a couple more months or maybe a year or two tops.

I chose the 88mm.

Considering most of the Japanese engagements against the americans, as well as their need for anti-vehicle equipment, and their opportunities to dig in.  This would have significantly improved their defensive capabilities.

MG42 is also an excellent choice, but it would have to come with a healthy supply of ammo.

on that note… MG34’s (LEGAL) are now for sale at my local gun store!!  It’s legal to hunt with LOL!  Though “plate restricted” to semi auto.  It has no magazine limit because it is belt fed.

MK IV was easier and cheaper to produce as you know Worsham.
I would have loved to put it too, as I have a problem with German tanks, as you know. Tank is for offensive ops and wod have been wasted in static positions. Hence Garg’s suggestion of the 88 made sense.Maybe a Stug!

I think we all agree a defensive weapon was best as they spent most if the war defending the Islands they captured. Panzerfaust did cross my mind. It was cheap to manufacture and only needed one (mad)man to use. Would have been ideal. And a total shock to those hard Marines and Tankers.

Defence was the problem.  You have 100s of points to defend but the attacker can bring all his power to bear on just one point at a time.

The best defence is a good offence, so tactics and u-boats to go with new tactics.  But that’s two things……

@Gargantua:

MG34’s (LEGAL) are now for sale at my local gun store!!  It’s legal to hunt with LOL!  Though “plate restricted” to semi auto.  It has no magazine limit because it is belt fed.

For real?

On land, I’d say the Panzerfaust.  The land equipment which Japanese had in the early part of the war, when Japan was on the offensive, worked well enough for them; light tanks were all they needed, and adding Panzer IVs to the mix would just have increased Japan’s fuel-consumption problems.  In the second half of the war, Japan was basically in the position of defending the territory it already held against the American advance, so defensive weaponry would have been more useful to it than offensive weaponry.  The Panzerfaust would have been useful in that role, particularly against the conventional and flame-throwing Shermans the Americans were using as infantry-support weapons.

At sea, the FuMO radar might have helped.  Japan’s heavy warships had excellent optical sighting systems, but their radar technology wasn’t great.  Japanese naval crews were highly skilled and trained when it came to fighting at night, as the Americans learned to their chagrin in places like Guadalcanal, but one factor which helped to equalize matters was the superiority of American radar.  The Type VII U-boat was too small and too short-ranged for operations in the Pacific; the Type IX would have been a better choice, but Japan already had good long-distance submarines in its own inventory.  (I think they even sent one all the way to Germany on an experimental wartime cargo-carrying mission.)  As others have pointed out, the problem with Japanese subs wasn’t their techology, it was the way Japan used them.

@variance:

@Gargantua:

MG34’s (LEGAL) are now for sale at my local gun store!!  It’s legal to hunt with LOL!  Though “plate restricted” to semi auto.  It has no magazine limit because it is belt fed.

For real?

Yes.

$5000,

Semi Auto MG34, with a 50 round Non disintegrating belt, + Bipod.  NON RESTRICTED, Legal to hunt with.

@rjpeters70:

Of course, why would you WANT to hunt with that?  I mean, it would rip apart any deer you hit.Â

Also, under Canadian law, any firearm that is “capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic fashion” is classified as a restricted firearm.  Such firearms can only be discharged at shooting ranges, so they can’t legally be used for hunting.

If I had an extra $5000 I would buy that.

Very nice Garg. It would be worth buying a German NCOs uniform, just to take that to WW2 reenactments and walk around with it balanced over you shoulder.

@CWO:

@rjpeters70:

Of course, why would you WANT to hunt with that?�  I mean, it would rip apart any deer you hit.�

Also, under Canadian law, any firearm that is “capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic fashion” is classified as a restricted firearm.  Such firearms can only be discharged at shooting ranges, so they can’t legally be used for hunting.

Unfortunately Marc - you are incorrect!

Please call Island Outfitters at 250-475-4969 regarding the sale of this NON-RESTRICTED firearm, that with $5000 down, you can walk out of the front of the store with on the same day.

My SKS is also semi-automatic, and is not a “restricted” firearm.  As are many non-bolt action hunting rifles.  Please see any number of retaliers sites on like, like canadaammo, or frontierfirearms.

Semi-automatic shotguns are also Non-restricted.

The MG-34 although entirely impractical, can be used for hunting.

Would it be legal to mount this MG34 replica on a motorcycle sidecar and go hunting with it?

I knew .22 semi autos are not restricted along with shotguns but that weapon surprises me but I can see the extension of the logic/rules to the ridiculous end.  Damn I want one……

I disagree with the japanese needing a defensive weapon. Bu the time Japan had to rely on defensive weapons, she had already lost. The Pacific is not a practical place to defend lol. I would give their best chance at winning the war sans the first few months at either Guadalcanal or Midway. With that, I would go for radar, would have helped save them from the trap at Midway at least.

Also, just so you guys are aware Japan did have a large number of what was basically Panzer tanks, called Chi tanks, ranging from type 1-5. However, they were guzzlers of gas (the thing Japan basically went to war for in the first place) and entirely impractical anywhere but China, hence most of them were committed to the defense of Japan itself.

They also had dual purpose 88mm after encountering German 88’s being fielded by Chinese forces. The Japanese Type 99 88mm antiaircraft gun. But like the medium tanks, it was posted in the home islands more often than not. As far as anti-tank weapons, the japanese used the the Type 93 and the Type 100 flamethrower to great effect as anti-tank weapons, and their own bodies and the Type 99 AT Charge when all else failed.

OF the choices of items/inventions listed, I’m going to go on the offensive side and say the MP40.

The Arisaka was a fair-to-decent weapon (I’ve owned my share of them) for it’s time,…but it was the absolute wrong weapon for attacking and counterattacking in a short-range action, especially in situation where banzai attacks are being employed as the Japanese made use of them historically: one shot on the run and then lead with the admittedly wickedly-long bayonet into a fixed, well-entrenched, and desperately-determined defensive line fielding weapons with much higher rates of fire, not to mention quality. Now, consider re-arming those banzai waves on Guadalcanal, etc with a submachine gun far superior to their own examples (of which much fewer were actually employed by Japanese forces), and when the action gets close, the balance of firepower becomes much less unbalanced…perhaps enough to carry the day somewhere along the line. Would such a change have averted the eventual outcome of the war as happened? No, it is far too likely that they still would have lost eventually any way, but with such increased firepower being widely employed, their mass-attack tactics would’ve been more effective in inflicting higher casualties…something that had already begun to wear heavily on morale amongst both the public and the troops themselves as the war dragged on. The A-Bombs themselves were used specifically because (at least in part) the high command and the gov’t didn’t believe the public would stand for the horrific casualty numbers they expected to suffer during an invasion of the mainland. Now, just imagine battles like Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Okinawa and Peleliu where the MP40 could’ve been employed to its fullest advantage in large quantities during quick, violent short-ranged actions in the jungle and across all of that rough terrain. And their actions against the British and Australians during the New Guinea campaign would’ve been more effective in that similar terrain, too. It’s a much bloodier scenario for Allied forces.

If i had a 2nd choice I might have gone with ‘other’…and chosen German defensive doctrine. Yes, they lost, but they were very very good in defensive warfare…much more so than the Japanese imho. I think the Japanese wasted a ton of time, resources, and initiative during the island hopping campaign and i firmly believe that the Germans would’ve been more effective in that role if one were able to swap the two. The Germans were very effective in counter-attack and retaking the initiative from defensive to offensive momentum, two things that I believe history shows the Japanese were not effective at.

Rob.

Rob,

My understanding was the Japanese were severely lacking in Ammunition.  Perhaps a healthy supply of bullets AND the Mp40 would have been better? ;)

Perhaps. :)

I have a vague memory of reading something about ammo shortages, although that might have been more a problem of supply ability than actual shortage. Whatever the case may be, the IJA really only fielded one submachine gun/machine-pistol type during WW2, the Type-100. They weren’t made in any significant quantity (from more than 10,00 to less than 30,000, depending on what source you use), they weren’t made very well, and they used virtually the same weak 8mm round that the Nambu pistol used. I have no real idea if the various Japanese arsenals could have supplied a copy of the MP40 in large enough quantities to make a difference, but if so they would have increased their firepower per man dramatically.

Rob.