Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Akira Takizawa » 20 Sep 2009 15:26

Sewer King wrote:left: Thompson M1928A1 submachine gun, apparent from the compensator at muzzle. How much hint might this give for the location, if not already told?
This photo was taken in Burma.

Taki

User avatar
Sewer King
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:35
Location: northern Virginia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Sewer King » 20 Sep 2009 16:01

Thanks, Taki. It looked like a jungle background but I could not picture further where.

Isn't the soldier with the Thompson wearing the standard Japanese leather cartridge pouches? Wouldn't their nonstandard magazines have had to be carried in some improvised way? It would also be interesting to know what Japanese users thought of this weapon.

If the light machine gunner is using 6.5mm ammunition, wouldn't the riflemen also use it? Surely, no unit in the field would want to mix 6.5mm and 7.7mm weapons together? I have seen common general history of Japanese Army small-arms which tell the change of rifle calibers, but not how this was handled in the front lines.

-- Alan

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Peter H » 20 Sep 2009 22:38

Thanks Alan,I thought it was a Thompson but just needed to confirm this.

Might have been picked up in Malaya.Pic here from the AWM of an Australian with one.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Sep 2009 22:51

MORE interesting however - an Australian soldier using a scoped five-shot P14??? 8O

User avatar
Sewer King
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:35
Location: northern Virginia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Sewer King » 21 Sep 2009 04:02

This Wiki entry for the Pattern '14's history ends by mentioning Australian use of the sniper variant.

Is it still more remarkable for Aussie troops to wear steel helmets? :lol:

Between the World Wars, the early Model 1921 Thompsons with pistol foregrip saw limited official US Navy use and unofficial US Marine use. The British acquired M1928A1s with pistol foregrip through Lend-Lease from 1940, but what and when were the Australian arrangements?

The photo in question was taken in Burma, but might not be possible to tell a date. Does it seem that its Japanese-held Thompson has the foregrip of the British-issue one, as does that of the Australian gunner?

-- Alan

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Peter H » 21 Sep 2009 05:20

Steel helmets were standard issue to the Australians in Malaya.

Russell Braddon( The Naked Island) relates in pre battle training that:
..we ran up and down the roads wearing gasmasks and helmets...

Also of interest after the 8th December(page 43):
The Intelligence Officer spoke to us at great length on three subjects.First the frequent use made by the Japanese of crackers with which to frighten their enemies--specially at night.Second,the use that the Japanese would make of gas.Third,a quaint element in battle termed 'justifiable war risk'...

It is regretable to have to relate that the Japanese never in my experience resorted to crackers--apparently working on the old-fashioned principle that mortar bombs were better:that they used no gas..and that once the war started,practically the only order ever issued to an army only too anxious to indulge in a spot of profitable war risk by engaging the enemy,was "Withdraw!"...

Photos from Soldiering On,AWM,1942,in Malaya from late 1941:

Photo 1--ambush training

Photo 2--includes photo already posted

Photo 3--standard Australian infantryman 1941.Helmet(with sandbag cover)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Peter H » 21 Sep 2009 10:22

Looks like a Dutch Mannlicher carbine
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Zaf1
Member
Posts: 758
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 15:01
Location: Kota Bharu, Malaysia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Zaf1 » 21 Sep 2009 14:25

If these were ex-Dutch weapon, could it be possible these troops might be Indonesian in Japanese-trained PETA auxiliary army?

User avatar
Zaf1
Member
Posts: 758
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 15:01
Location: Kota Bharu, Malaysia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Zaf1 » 21 Sep 2009 15:17

The army uniform is more akin to the Dutch uniform near the cuff with a band of this uniform and the Japanese cap lacked the usual leather chinstrap on the cap
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Akira Takizawa
Member
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 17:37
Location: Japan

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Akira Takizawa » 21 Sep 2009 16:59

Zaf1 wrote:If these were ex-Dutch weapon, could it be possible these troops might be Indonesian in Japanese-trained PETA auxiliary army?
Yes, they are soldiers of PETA.

Taki

User avatar
Sewer King
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:35
Location: northern Virginia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Sewer King » 22 Sep 2009 04:26

Peter H wrote:Steel helmets were standard issue to the Australians in Malaya.
Certainly i knew Aussies wore them. It's more that Phylo is a good one for framing funny ironies in topics. except that I thought the P14's widest combat use was as a sniper's rifle during WW1. I simply continued his form, only about the steel helmet.

Osprey Men-at-Arms series volume 123 The Australian Army at War, 1899-1975 made some passing mention of Australians leaving off their helmets, although not to say that it was universal. I don't have my copy to hand, so can't remember if this mention had to do with the Digger's natural dash -- or the heat of some places where he campaigned.

=============================
Peter H wrote:Indonesian PETA troops
Image
From another thread ("Something different") -– hard to see what weapons are being carried here at “trail arms,” but I think they too are likely 6.5mm Mannlicher Model 95 carbines. The cartridge pouches would also seem to be the Dutch pattern with buckled strap round the centers.
Zaf1 wrote: The army uniform is more akin to the Dutch uniform near the cuff with a band of this uniform and the Japanese cap lacked the usual leather chinstrap on the cap.
Some of the PETA troops here are probably wearing Dutch tunics with Japanese caps also. The front ranks seem to have what look like name tags of the kind worn by Japanese SNLF troops. If so, could this be for their Japanese NCOs or officers to read PETA soldiers' names when they cannot speak their language?

-- Alan

User avatar
Sewer King
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:35
Location: northern Virginia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Sewer King » 30 Sep 2009 16:05

From the "Corregidor 1942" thread:
Peter H wrote:Battery Hearn 1942 ...Image
Can anyone identify the carbine held up at far right?

It resembles the old American Springfield carbines that were issued to Philippine Constabulary, but those were decades earlier and used older ammunition. Maybe a civilian sport rifle, then?

-- Alan

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Peter H » 01 Oct 2009 00:07

Interesting.

Gordon Rottman in his US Marine Corps Pacific Theater of Operations 1941-43 states that the USMC did have some M-1 carbines issued to them in 1941.This is contrary to what I have seen as a mid 1942 date onwards for the general issue of this carbine.But does it look like an early type M-1?

Corregidor also had a rifle range?It might be a target rifle of some sort?

Has anyone got a photo of a Springfield 1903 Carbine as a comparasion?

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Peter H » 27 Oct 2009 00:01

From the AWM.

New Guinea 1944--Australians after taking Japanese MG position.Vickers MGs being used by Japanese,said to have been captured in the Malaya campaign.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Sewer King
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:35
Location: northern Virginia

Re: Japanese Use of Captured Equipment

Post by Sewer King » 27 Oct 2009 18:29

What would have been done with the captured weapons? Since they fired .303 could they be simply be taken on by the field units that got them? Presumably recaptured Mk III rifles seen earlier here would be sent to the rear and back to Australian arsenal.

=======================

From the “North Sea Expeditionary Force, Aleutians” thread:
Peter H wrote:Image
This M3 Stuart light tank has Japanese written on its side, though not brightly so. It looks like the same kind of unit capture’s pride inscription that Taki explained earlier here. Can it be read?

Although one of them is holding a 37mm shell for the tank gun, there is no certainty that these soldiers crewed the tank or drove it to the location of the photo. Those up around the turret simply look as curious as any soldiers are about enemy equipment. It seems that the photo was taken to make them look benevolent among local Filipinos, against the evidence of American defeat.

How widely would the Japanese have actually used its captured US armor during their occupation of the Philippines, before the Americans cam back to retake the islands? In occupied Russia the Germans used captured French armoured cars for police combat against partisans. Was Japanese use comparable, if lesser in extent?

-- Alan

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”