Shortround6
Major General
In actuality the American equipment was fully the equal of the Japanese equipment even at the start of the war, which really leaves the Allied troops lacking in training and leadership.
The US 75mm pack howitzer was fairly close to the Japanese 75mm Mountain gun Meiji 38 in weight,elevation, traverse, shell weight and range. The American 75mm field guns came in two kinds, the older pole trail versions even if modified for motor towing was pretty much equal to the Japanese Japanese 7.5cm Fieldgun Meiji 38 and when mounted on a split trail carriage was equal to the Japanese 7.5cm M 90.
The 70mm infantry gun was in a class by itself firing a much lighter shell, (3.8kg) instead of the 6.5-7.0 kg shells of the bigger guns. it also had a much short range. which was compensated by it's much lighter weight and greater portability. It was more of a breech loading rifled mortar. More accurate than a smooth bore mortar and with ability to be fired horizontal. At a scale of issue of two 70mm guns per battalion they were a useful addition but hardly provided overwhelming firepower except in extraordinary conditions.
For actual combat use rather than target range there was little to choose between the Bolt action rifles of the Americans and Japanese.
The BAR was not a very good light machinegun but the Japanese were in fierce competition with the Italians as to who could build the worlds worst LMG. Nobody had much for submachine guns at this point and the Japanese heavy machine guns were serviceable but not really the equal of the Brownings. Firing at high elevations to try to get plunging fire down into weapons pits is a nice trick but is also pretty much an admission that your artillery can't do it's job. Not enough barrels/tubes, not enough ammo (chronic problem for the Japanese) poor forward observer system, something is wrong. Artillery had been using airburst for direct observation fire since well before the American civil war. It was the principal behind Shrapnel shells and was extended to howitzers and plunging fire before WW I, at least in text books. Firing hundreds of rounds of MG ammo into the air trying to get a few projectiles into enemy weapons pits is a fringe tactic.
Mortars were the normal battalion support weapon and some countries were better than others (and supply could greatly affect how the receiving troops viewed their opponents mortars) The US 81mm mortar was supposed to use a light and heavy bomb with different ranges but the heavy bombs saw very little use and the US 81mm light bomb could range to 3000 meters although accuracy could be pretty poor. The Japanese 50mm mortars were little more than Grenade throwers (indeed one projectile was the standard hand grenade with a gas check and propelling charge attached) but whatever advantage the American 60mm mortar had in range may have been lost to field of vision and lack of communications in the company (no feildphones/radios for a company mortar forward observer).
Poor showing of American troops in the early part of the war cannot be placed on superior Japanese weapons.
The US 75mm pack howitzer was fairly close to the Japanese 75mm Mountain gun Meiji 38 in weight,elevation, traverse, shell weight and range. The American 75mm field guns came in two kinds, the older pole trail versions even if modified for motor towing was pretty much equal to the Japanese Japanese 7.5cm Fieldgun Meiji 38 and when mounted on a split trail carriage was equal to the Japanese 7.5cm M 90.
The 70mm infantry gun was in a class by itself firing a much lighter shell, (3.8kg) instead of the 6.5-7.0 kg shells of the bigger guns. it also had a much short range. which was compensated by it's much lighter weight and greater portability. It was more of a breech loading rifled mortar. More accurate than a smooth bore mortar and with ability to be fired horizontal. At a scale of issue of two 70mm guns per battalion they were a useful addition but hardly provided overwhelming firepower except in extraordinary conditions.
For actual combat use rather than target range there was little to choose between the Bolt action rifles of the Americans and Japanese.
The BAR was not a very good light machinegun but the Japanese were in fierce competition with the Italians as to who could build the worlds worst LMG. Nobody had much for submachine guns at this point and the Japanese heavy machine guns were serviceable but not really the equal of the Brownings. Firing at high elevations to try to get plunging fire down into weapons pits is a nice trick but is also pretty much an admission that your artillery can't do it's job. Not enough barrels/tubes, not enough ammo (chronic problem for the Japanese) poor forward observer system, something is wrong. Artillery had been using airburst for direct observation fire since well before the American civil war. It was the principal behind Shrapnel shells and was extended to howitzers and plunging fire before WW I, at least in text books. Firing hundreds of rounds of MG ammo into the air trying to get a few projectiles into enemy weapons pits is a fringe tactic.
Mortars were the normal battalion support weapon and some countries were better than others (and supply could greatly affect how the receiving troops viewed their opponents mortars) The US 81mm mortar was supposed to use a light and heavy bomb with different ranges but the heavy bombs saw very little use and the US 81mm light bomb could range to 3000 meters although accuracy could be pretty poor. The Japanese 50mm mortars were little more than Grenade throwers (indeed one projectile was the standard hand grenade with a gas check and propelling charge attached) but whatever advantage the American 60mm mortar had in range may have been lost to field of vision and lack of communications in the company (no feildphones/radios for a company mortar forward observer).
Poor showing of American troops in the early part of the war cannot be placed on superior Japanese weapons.
