Re: Japan's invasion of Russia


TOliver wrote:
"TOliver" <toliverjrFIX@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote > "Kevin Brooks"
<brooksvmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...

"Guy Alcala" <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...

The 6.5mm round was a good one
for jungle
fighting, and the Arisaka was an adequate bolt-action rifle.

Have to disagree a bit with the last point. The 6.5mm Ariska had a
pretty
high muzzle velocity and a rather light bullet, which means a greater
chance
of deflection from striking vegetation (watch a 5.56mm range operation
and
you can get an idea of ricochet potential). In the jungle role the
6.5mm was
probably the least effective of the major rounds used in SWA (.303,
.30-06,
both of which featured significantly heavier bullets propelled in the
same
general velocity range; even the rather puny .30 cal carbine was
(arguably)
a better *jungle* weapon).

Comparing the two provides interesting results.....

The 6.5mm round, even counting ease of deflection due to "Spitzer" nose
and higher velocity, was certainly more effective in jungle/heavy brush,
but the long, clumsy Arisaka rifle, heavy and awkward, (as bulky as an M1
Garand and not much lighter, ranks miles behind the M1 Carbine in carrying
and handling ease.

Function? Sure, a bolt action is more dependable, but most who trained
with, carried or owned as civilians M1 Carbines would recall many
instances of jamming or misfires, far, far less than the early M16s with
their propellant/rifling mismatch.

Then there's volume of fire. As modestly effective as the carbine round
was, not very, simply a stocked high velocity pistol in developers'
planning, the volume of fire, with either the original 15 round magazine
or the later 30 round, would have been far, far greater than an Arisaka.



My comment was based on the difficulty of determining the direction of a
6.5mm
shot. As to lethality etc., I think that tends to be a tempest in a
teapot.
.22s can and have killed hundreds of thousands of people in wartime,
despite
pooh-poohing of their lethality/stopping power.

Hunting in company with folks with all sorts of rifle calibers, from .223
up through .45/70, including some 6.5s, including the old Swedish, but no
Arisakas, I'll be damned if the "sound" and direction-finding qualities of
6.5s are identifiable. Some rounds have a sharper crack, while the thud
of a .45/70's pretty apparent. For HV service rifle rounds, they all
sound much alike when passing overhead, the sound most apparent when
you're working miltary target butts or being fired upon in combat. I can
recognize the old US M2 carbine in full auto, the chug of a BAR, and old
hands swear that MG42s and MP-38/40s have a sound all their own, but 6.5mm
Arisaka?


I'd never poo-poo a .22; of the four pistols I used to own (S&W 459, Colt
Mark IV, Baretta 92, and Ruger Single Six), the .22 is the only one I
still have. I am far from being an expert in the area of pistol
marksmanship, but I can manage to consistently hit a pie-pan sized target
at maybe 25 yards with the Ruger. Firing magnums with hollow points...
*I*sure as heck would not gladly stand in the way of such. Which is why I
did not address the issue of lethality in my comments to you. I know one
fellow who has killed quite a few deer (caught in the act of pilfering
his orchard and/or corn) with .22 LR (and IIRC that is the usual caliber
of choice for the spotlighting crowd).

More people are killed with .22 rounds than with others, but then, far
more folks are hit with .22s, there being far more .22s to be hit with.
Certainly, the .22RFM is a more effective pistol cartridge than the .22LR,
the .25acp, the .32acp/7.65mm, maybe the .32 S&W, but less so than the .32
Mag, 7.62 Tokarev, 7.65 Luger/Mauser and larger calibers. One might
rather be hit by the jacketed .30 Carbine round than by a HP .22RFM, not
that one would want to choose....

Most of the current studies as
to the 'ideal' small arms caliber seem to fall in the range of
6.5mm-7mm.

Yeah, but that "ideal" is not based upon being particularly good for
"jungle fighting", now is it?

Deflection from twigs, leaves, whatever in my experience has more to do
with velocity than caliber. Any caliber pointed round at 3000 fps is a
likely candidate for deflection. Drop the velocity to 22-2300fps and the
frequency of deflection (and the range and accuracy) decline. The
7.65X39mm of the Simonovs and AK series probably does better than the
5.56/.223 and the 6.5mm Japanese, but the old and less lethal round nose
.30M1 Carbine was likely less subject to deflection than any of the above.

Leaving the largely religious (IMO) caliber argument aside, the biggest
problem
with the carbine was having it work when needed.

I have no first hand experience with the M1 carbine (have to ask my dad,
who did get to shoot one during WWII). Heard lots of folks bemoan its
lack of stopping power, and its relative inaccuracy at longer ranges (not
a jungle concern), but I don't recall reading much about them being
particularly troublesome when it came to functioning.

The Carbine misfunctions not often maybe more often than the Garand, but
the design makes "clearing" the chamber easy. I doubt one will function
as dirty as legend accords the M1, but the real tale has more to do with
how clean the weapon is kept and the conditions underwhich it's operated.
Obviously, gas operated weapons are less dependable than bolt actions, but
fire much faster...


As a weapon for support troops
it was probably more useful than a pistol, but as a combat infantryman's
weapon,
while light and handy it seems to have lacked robustness and
reliability. FWIW,
the projectile was 108g @ 1900fs vs. the Arisaka's 139g @ 2500fs. The
Arisaka
was an unspectacular bolt-action rifle, but like almost all of its peers
it
seems to have worked when required.

That was my point--the Ariska fired a pretty fast round (number I saw was
more in the line of a shade under 2400 fpm) .....

We've gotten deeply into a debate, but have obscured an important factoid,
that by 1943, most Japanese infantry (and naval personnel serving as
infantry) would not have been equipped with the 6.5mm Arisaka (model 38? or
the short rifle and paratroop versions thereof)), but with the bulkier Model
99 in 7.7mm, the same raound as the Hotchkiss-based Nambu air-cooled GPMGs.
Bulky wood stocks, a heavy shrouded bolt, anda 31+" barrel combined to make
the rifle awkward, unhandy and among the least suitable for jungle fighting,
and how effective as a brush cutter is a spire-point 6.5mm @ 2400fps
compared to a 7.7mm with the same bullet design is subject to wild
interpretation.

Back about 1960, with cheap factory ammo (long round nosed jacketed
bullets), the 18" barrel of the Swedisgh 6.5X55mm was much favored by poor
or student deer hunters around here, nor much drop before 150 yards (less
than the Thuddy Thuddy) and with little recoil. The Model 94 in .30/30
remains a popular iron sighted deer hunter, reputedly effective asa brush
cutter, but old soaks were fond of being "under-gunned". My first deer was
a doe, admittedly, but with a Model 1992 in .25/20 - a mile or so short of a
HV magnum round - there was no recoil to frighten a little boy.

IIRC the 6.5 dimension came in respect to the armament on the Japanese
94 Tankette, a joke vehicle involved in the Homonham/Khalkhin Gol
battles ofMay-August 1939. No jungle guns or rifles just the old flat
Manchuria-Mongolia.

.