The ZH-29 is garbage through and through. It's an under-engineered proof of concept design that some people were dumb enough to actually buy.
The vz. 52 existed back then?
Spelling Nazi alert.
I agree with the rest.
That said, I have a suspicion you could give Japan the G3 & MG42, & it wouldn't make an appreciable difference: Japanese industry couldn't produce enough of them. Not to mention the need to supply ammo, a perennial problem when your high command is as stupid about oceanic strategy as a "Star Trek" writer & can't see you need to control your SLOCs--which IJN was incompetent at.
Sorry, parade rainshower over.
You mean "winkle".
I agree with the rest.
That said, I have a suspicion you could give Japan the G3 & MG42, & it wouldn't make an appreciable difference: Japanese industry couldn't produce enough of them. Not to mention the need to supply ammo, a perennial problem when your high command is as stupid about oceanic strategy as a "Star Trek" writer
& can't see you need to control your SLOCs--which IJN was incompetent at.Sorry, parade rainshower over.
Yea verily, "The [rifle] I have in front of me is, I propose to you... the best Japanese self-loading rifle of the early 20th century."
A Japanese gas-operated, or maybe gas-piston-delay-operated, Pedersen.
If they adopted them prior to going to war with the West, how many are fielded? Surely not a complete replacement for the Arisaka.
These weapons get issued at the level of the SVT-40 in the Soviet army? Or the G-41, G-43 or Stg 44 in the wehrmacht? Or is that even too much?
The small arms they needed most was the same weapon the Chinese also needed most, a cheap light machine gun. Something like the Besal. Make enough to equip every squad with two. Replace the knee mortar with the French 50mm Mle.1937 as it’s a bipod weapon less dependent on user skill. Platoon level mortar men did not live long.
McPherson
Banned
a. Being Czech (read BRNO and somewhat "German"), the VB 53 fortress machine gun was EXPENSIVE to make. The British BESA clone was not any cheaper.
b. French 50mm Mle.1937 was a specialist weapon.
c. Why the Japanese knee mortar terrified Marines - Americas ...
Lesson learned? What you think you know and what happened are two entirely different things. The Japanese Type 89 was a simple bomb thrower that the average IJA "farmboy" peasant soldier could stick into the ground off the march (No base plate required.) using its spade end as the inbuilt base. He could by eye hand hold the tube and "walk fire" into an enemy position WITHOUT fiddling with range stakes or making knob adjustments. One man could handle it. It was fast, light, cheap, simple, DEADLY.
Last edited:
I said the Besal, not the Besa:
The French mortar is even cheaper than the Type 89, being a smoothbore weapon. It was light and compact, and had a very simple aiming system with bipod and sights. The big problem with the Japanese mortar is it’s useless in the hands of an inexperienced operator since it‘s accuracy depends on user experience. Platoon level mortar men died too quickly to maintain these skills. It was a good weapon, the Mle.1937 was better,
McPherson
Banned
Stamped metal version of the BREN that was prone to Private Fumbles breakage and that jams in usage? No thank you. The British stuck with the expensive BREN because they knew it worked. The Besal appears to have been an "invasion gun".
=====================================================
The point about the Knee mortar is that it is point target ACCURATE because it is somewhat rifled, fast and it was cheaper to make and easier to use than the French 50 mm mortar. The claim about specialized skill being required to use it... since the Japanese issued it the way we do grenade launchers today ... is bogus.
Last edited:
The Besal was not produced because it wasn’t perfected until long after the Battle of Britain and the threat to the Bren gun producing Enfield factory had ended, There was nothing wrong with it apart from service life, immaterial in a world war. By late war most armies have switched on to the value of having more than one machine gun in a squad.
There’s no way the Type 89 was easier to use than the French mortar. Impossible. The weapon might be accurate but it would take many practice rounds to get the hang of it. The Chinese used both Type 89 and the 60mm Brandt mortar in Korea. They learned it’s much easier to train replacement mortar crew with a weapon with sights and bipod.
McPherson
Banned
One, you just proved my supposition about the Besal being an "invasion gun".
Two. You are not apparently well informed about how Japanese weapons were used and what the Japanese soldier (or any soldier) could do.
The Chinese used mortars they were able to obtain. The Type 89 was for them a functional rifled GRENADE launcher, masquerading as a mortar. And you are entirely wrong about Korea. The Chinese knew the Type 89 was never intended to be used in the way that a "traditional mortar", like the French 50 mm mortar was to be used. As
well understood. Burma campaign; the British used it as a patrol issued fire support and instant ambush weapon. The Japanese hated the things.
Two. You are not apparently well informed about how Japanese weapons were used and what the Japanese soldier (or any soldier) could do.
The Chinese used mortars they were able to obtain. The Type 89 was for them a functional rifled GRENADE launcher, masquerading as a mortar. And you are entirely wrong about Korea. The Chinese knew the Type 89 was never intended to be used in the way that a "traditional mortar", like the French 50 mm mortar was to be used. As
well understood. Burma campaign; the British used it as a patrol issued fire support and instant ambush weapon. The Japanese hated the things.
Sure just like Sten, PPSh-41, PPS-43, PTRD-41, M3 grease gun, MG-42, StG-44.
The Japanese were effective with the Type 89 when they hadn’t lost their well trained men to attrition, not so much after going through the meat grinder. The mark of a great weapon is how effective it‘s in the hands of replacements, not veterans. This is why nobody make weapons without sights today.
Dismissing the Besal as merely an invasion gun is making huge assumptions and a somewhat arrogant IMHO, the Sten was 'just an invasion gun' and history shows that it was of great utility at the time. Was it the Best No! was it good enough at the time it was needed Yes. If the Besal had been in production in 1939/40 it would most certainly not be a forgotten weapon now. One of the reasons it was not put into series production was that it was 'rather to well made' so if Bren construction was not interrupted (at the time it was increasing) then there was no real advantage in making Besals and resources could be employed else where. That does not make it a bad weapon!
McPherson
Banned
a. The STEN had a role post invasion scare, as it filled a niche that the British infantry section needed filled. The fact that it was a crappy gun, seems not to have mattered in the role it was asked to fill.
b. The Besal had no role to fill post invasion scare. It was a crappy gun compared to the BREN or the Berthier, and as such when the British could have economized (War is expensive.) and used it to replace either other light machine gun in service, they chose not to do so. Machine guns have to be reliable. The Besal was not for all its "cheapitude". Hence it is not arrogant to dismiss it for the same exact reasons and logics the British army did.
c. A throwaway crappy submachine gun that fails you (M3 grease gun was cheaper than the firing pin assembly on a Thompson.) is more practical to use in service than a cheap base of fire machine gun that fails you in battle. Ask the Italian army about that one. They got it backwards, too.
Have you actually seen or handled the Besal? I have not and until I have been to the RA and done so I would never write in absolute terms on it's qualities. so I would never dismiss it as crappy as that would be arrogant and not an opinion based on known fact!! Nothing in History is Absolute so opinions should not be either.