Help support TMP


"How prone to jamming was the Japanese LMG?" Topic


50 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board



1,315 hits since 29 Oct 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 5:44 a.m. PST

How prone to jamming were the Japanese Type 11, 96 and 99 LMGs?

Was it enough to constitute a firing penalty?

In Chain of Command's Japanese 1941-42 list it imposes a damage penalty on Japanese LMGs versus others (e.g. Bren). It also allows for the LMG to function equivalent to an SMG in close combat due to a sling and bayonet attachment.

My understanding was that in practice the LMG was too heavy to use in CC. Having practiced a little jukendo (Japanese military bayonet) I'm a little doubtful that a 10kg LMG could be wielded like a 4kg Arisaka except for a hip-based charge.

Any thoughts on whether it could function in terms of firepower like an SMG in CC?

AlexWood30 Oct 2017 7:55 a.m. PST

Type 96 and 99

YouTube link

Type 11

YouTube link

andysyk30 Oct 2017 10:36 a.m. PST

There has been some discussion on the Chain of Command forum about various weapons. The general consensus is that the rules do not make detailed decisions about differing weapons advantages/disadvantages, it would be easy to upset the Firepower chart.
I do not think the Japanese LMG's worse than some other candidates- the Breda 30 for one. (Which I suggested be rated as a BAR)
The Type 11 is a different beast from the 96 and 99 especially.
An LMG is not as useless in Close Combat as a lot of rules state but I certainly wouldn't give it the advantages of an SMG, which was designed for the job.
Why don't you post this on the COC Forum?
But apart from the Type 11 which I might class as a BAR, Id just treat the 96 and 99 as a standard LMG, no penalty or bonus.
Andy

andysyk30 Oct 2017 10:58 a.m. PST
stecal Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 11:11 a.m. PST

In CoC the LMG penalty is a bit overdone, but I think it was a play balance thing with the massive size of 4 squad Japanese platoons

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 11:13 a.m. PST

Here is a quote from "Japanese Small Arms of WWII" about the Type 96 LMG.

"However, arms designer Kijiro Nambu did nothing to address the dimensional tolerance issue between the bolt and gun barrel, which led to frequent failures when fired cases became stuck in the chamber. In order to ensure reliable feeding (theoretically), Nambu resorted to oiling the cartridges via an oil pump in the magazine loader. In practice, this tended to worsen the problem instead, as the oiled cartridges tended to become coated with dust and sand."

As with all MGs that that used oiled cartridges jamming was a frequent problem with the Type 96

andysyk30 Oct 2017 11:59 a.m. PST

Yep a lot of weapons have faults but Chain of Command doesn't really allow for them.
I don't think it is fair to give the Japanese LMGs a penalty and not apply it to other weapons in that game.
Giving them an increased Close Combat rating? Don't get it- the system isn't that detailed. I would also disagree with with some of the weapon range caps
.
Chain of Command is a great game but its basic premise for which it is praised is off- Platoons are not designed to fight platoons. They fight Sections/Squads or a single automatic weapon team. The TFL TWAT ruleset is a better simulation and in that Platoon vs Platoon generally ends in stalemate which made it unpopular.

3 to 1 to attack still stands for conventional warfare between similarly arranged forces, without that expect high casualty rates and failure.
Wargamers want equal sized forces and balanced games not realistic simulation.

Battlegroup does the same- a lot of the German squad lists have only one MG when they should have two because it unbalances the game?

Big Platoons seem to cause problems for quite a few WW2 rulesets, i.e the Italians where because of their size they are more effective than historically, because they can take more damage in game.

You have to address that with Command and Morale rules.

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 12:08 p.m. PST

Actually CoC also gives the Italian Breda M30, which is if anything a worse LMG the same penalty as the Japanaese LMGs. Those LMGs are without a doubt the worse LMGs of the war by a very significant margin and IMO need to have it reflected in the rules.

uglyfatbloke Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 12:09 p.m. PST

Good point Andysyk….we generally play company in attack/platoon in defence type games and at least 3:1 is pretty much the standard, but I doubt if many people want to do that.

andysyk30 Oct 2017 12:57 p.m. PST

jdginaz
Don't disagree with you I think they should be penalised vs other similar weapons. The Breda 30 was classed only as an auto rifle by the Italians themselves and they even bemoaned the 6.5mm cartridge publically, which is another discussion.

I'm not aware of COC limiting the Breda 30 had some discussion on the forum where I suggested classing it as an BAR and have not come across an official penalty?

COC generally doesn't give much leeway on the Firepower chart to play with I would just class inferior LMGs as BAR. Personally I think the Small Arms need rewritten which if I played it more I would do for my own use.

Uglyfatbloke.
The Company attack vs Platoon is an excellent tactical problem and of course the staple for many real life exercises. As I am sure you and your players are aware it can also be a great game for the outnumbered defender.

I think WW2 suffers greatly from wargamers fairness and indifference. I have played many WW2 period rulesets with no acknowledgement of tactics or unit organisation.
Gamers seem obsessed with fair forces and charging about the table at whim.

Bolt Action- very popular GAME- but very very poor, well no,simulation and teaching many inaccuracies about the conflict for example.

Many gamers who are critical of Napoleonic sets for perceived inaccuracies of tactics or other points (button colours) seem not so bothered when it comes to WW2.Ive many gamer friends who will not play particular rulesets in other periods because they are "unrealistic" but will play many a WW2 set much worse on that basis.

"Conflict has never been fair. Modern tactics are designed to exploit that. Special Forces couldn't operate without that premise.

Now I'm a Gamer Ive ran many totally unrealistic games for fun, I play Fantasy Roleplaying etc

But if you really want to play the period you have to do it as it was done.

This is not a bash on COC. Its a great game and it has to be said that a lot of research was put into it reference TOE/Establishment and Tactical Manuals and bought this to the attention of many which can only be congratulated. But none of those manuals advocate Platoon on Platoon engagement or even example it in the tactical problems written.

I'm not saying it didn't happen and that sometimes lesser forces succeed against greater but for conventional low level tactical combat and which many systems are trying to replicate it is not the norm or expected.

bsrlee30 Oct 2017 1:28 p.m. PST

Well, after 60 or so years of neglect as trophies, the Japanese LMG's and MMG's in my friend's movie armourer's collection continue to function perfectly with basically untrained crews and no spare parts, and some of the Type 96/99's are of very rough construction to start with – only enough machining to get the parts together and functioning.

So I would suggest that in fairly new condition, and with trained crews with spares and new ammunition, they were as reliable as any other WW2 LMG. Toss any LMG in a mud bath and it will need at least superficial cleaning to keep functioning, I suspect a lot of the imagined 'flaws' in Japanese equipment originate in WW2 propaganda intended to boost Allied morale, not complaints from users.

andysyk30 Oct 2017 1:40 p.m. PST

Yep lots of propaganda pushed out. The US Handbook on German Forces absolutely rubbished the MP44. The writer was deliberately trying to down the weapon or simply didn't understand its purpose.
Also propaganda bigs up your own weapons!

Deadles30 Oct 2017 3:00 p.m. PST

andysyk, Very good post but just some comments:

Battlegroup does the same- a lot of the German squad lists have only one MG when they should have two because it unbalances the game?


Whilst TO&Es might stipulate 2 LMGs per squad, how often was that achieved?

Another problem of wargaming rules is they assume full TO&E.

In real life a 30 strong platoon might have considerably less troops – some are ill, others are temporarily assigned other duties, some have been killed/wounded/transferred without replacement.

They might have more or less weapons than specified on TO&E. Extra machine guns might be collected, captured fausts used or units are formed with little or no equipment due to shortages or inept logistics systems.

Same applies to vehicle units except breakdowns and spare shortages also play a role (very often units cannibalise vehicles to keep other's running).


I think WW2 suffers greatly from wargamers fairness and indifference. I have played many WW2 period rulesets with no acknowledgement of tactics or unit organisation.
Gamers seem obsessed with fair forces and charging about the table at whim.

Bolt Action- very popular GAME- but very very poor, well no,simulation and teaching many inaccuracies about the conflict for example.


In my experience I think many WWII wargamers playing games like FOW or BA care don't much for history at all. They'd be just as happy substituting their Tiger tanks for Landraiders and US infantry for space marines.

I think FOW and BA attract 40K style players who are more interested in list building, tournaments and "meta gaming" or who just want a mindless dice rolling with minis experience. FOW and BA also offer the same "one stop shop" in terms of rules/minis/terrain/dice/paint/back scratchers/panty liners that Warhammer 40,000 does.


I remember trying to get tactical advice on FOW forum on how to use Su-76Ms in FOW and being told not to use them cause they didn't work in that particular edition (and insults hurled at me for trying to play historically). So the second most common Soviet AFV of the war was regarded as a no go and people using them were regarded as idiots!

Blutarski30 Oct 2017 4:48 p.m. PST

Re Japanese light machine guns the following data drawn from a re-print of US military intelligence documents on Japanese infantry weapons:

Model 11 (1922) 6.5mm LMG
> gas-operated, air-cooled LMG derived from French Hotchkiss design.
> weight: 22.5 lbs
> typically bipod mounted; occasionally found on a tripod mount
> fires from 5 round clips of reduced charge rifle cartidges via hopper feed.
> cartridges oil lubricated internally to ease extraction.
> will not function properly with normal power 6.5mm rifle cartidges.
> effective RoF: 150rpm in five round bursts; maximum cyclic rate: 500rpm.
> RoF adjusted by gas regulator similar to BAR and gas pressure may be increased to allow for resistance caused by dirt/fouling.
> provided with spare barrel (although unclear how long required to change barrels).

Model 96 (1936) 6.5mm LMG
> gas-operated, air-cooled LMG sharing features of both French Hotchkiss and Czech Z.B. designs.
> oil reservoir for internal cartridge lubrication.
> fitted with blade + adjustable rear drum sight.
> can accommodate 2.5x 10deg telescopic sight.
> weight: gun w/ sling 20.5 lbs; spare barrel 5.24 lbs; telescopic sight 1.4 lbs.
> bipod mounted.
> fires from 30 round top-mounted curved box magazine of reduced charge rifle cartidges.
> handles well and can be easily fired from the hip; fitted to take bayonet.
> provided with spare quick-change barrel.
> maximum cyclic rate: 550rpm.
> adjustable gas pressure regulator to control rate of fire and recoil.
> same type of care and cleaning as is given to similar gas-operated U.S. weapons will suffice.

Model 99 (1939) 7.7mm LMG
> gas-operated, air-cooled 7.7mm adaption of the above Model 96 LMG.
> oil reservoir for internal cartridge lubrication.
> fitted with blade + adjustable rear drum sight.
> can accommodate 2.5x 10deg telescopic sight.
> weight: gun w/ loaded magazine 23 lbs.
> bipod mounted w/ rear monopod.
> fires from 30 round top-mounted curved box magazine of full power rifle cartridges.
> fitted to take bayonet.
> provided with spare quick-change barrel.
> effective RoF: 250rpm; maximum cyclic rate: 800rpm.
> adjustable gas pressure regulator to control rate of fire and recoil.
> same type of care and cleaning as is given to similar gas-operated U.S. weapons will suffice.

IIRC, Marines in the Pacific campaign were not averse to pressing captured Japanese LMGs into service.

FWIW.

B

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 8:19 p.m. PST

Thanks for the feedback all.

@andysyk I didn't post on the CoC forums because I wanted a 'system-neutral' opinion on the historical efficacy of the LMGs. If there seemed to be widespread belief that jamming was prevalent I was prepared to incorporate that into our house rules. I do note that the CoC Japanese list for Malaya doesn't include the LMG bonus/penalty.

@stecal The larger size of the IJA platoon should be reflected in the Force Rating modifier. This would contribute to the Support options for their opponent.

@AlexWood Great videos!

@Blutarski That's a very nice summary. No mention of design faults any greater than US weapons.

Based on the discussion above I will argue to shelve the LMG penalty/bonus. Thanks again.

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 10:17 p.m. PST

It was the Japanese themselves that complained of the unreliability of the Type 11 and 96 which lead to the development of the Type 99.

@bsrlee, I would expect MGs in an armorers collection to be kept in excellent working order. I'm pretty sure your not holing it around in the field for weeks at a time or that you under fire with all the dirt & other debris getting kicked up and covering you MG & ammo along with the other things that can happen in the field.

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP30 Oct 2017 10:37 p.m. PST

An oiler on a MG is a indication of that it has problems with jamming that is why the oiler is put on it.

Oilers are a bad thing not only because they pick up dirt and draw it into the mechanism but the oil collects in the chamber and as the chamber heats up the oil becomes a varnish like substance that can act like a glue.

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP31 Oct 2017 12:47 a.m. PST

Good points. But did they pose problems any more than contemporary LMGs from other nations?

Blutarski31 Oct 2017 6:41 a.m. PST

Here are the maintenance comments from the same intelligence document in their entirety -

Model 11 (1922) 6.5mm LMG
"Maintenance
Oiling and cleaning – As the rounds are fed into the gun, they pass against an oiled brush. In this manner the ammunition is oiled to prevent ruptured cartridges, as this gun does not have slow initial extraction. The brush is kept oiled from an oil can located above the feed mechanism. Oil should be maintained in this reservoir when the gun is being used."

Model 96 (1936) LMG
"Maintenance
Oiling and cleaning – The Model 96 (196) 6.5mm light machine gun is sensitive to dirt, dust and sand. To function well, it must be kept cleaned and oiled at all times. The magazine- and ejection-opening covers should be kept closed whenever the gun is not being fired. The same type of care and cleaning as is given to similar gas-operated U.S. weapons will suffice."

Model 99 (1939) LMG
"Maintenance
Oiling and cleaning – The Model 99 (1939) 7.7mm light machine gun is less sensitive to dirt, dust and sand than the Model 11 (1922) 6.5mm light machine gun. Nevertheless the weapon still requires the care given to similar U.S. weapons. The gas piston and cylinder should be scraped clean just as in the similar assemblies on the Browning automatic rifle (BAR), M1918."

FWIW.

B

Legion 431 Oct 2017 7:06 a.m. PST

Never fired one … but everything I've read and/or heard … the LMGs were not very reliable, with operating in humid jungle terrain in many cases, required a lot of cleaning, etc. But that should be done by any force in reality. The jungle produces some requirements across the board that are not as big a concern(s) in temperate environments.

Like much of the IJFs' land arsenal, was older tech, basic, not particularly effect, etc. The thing that the IJFs had going for them was their moral, and willingness to die for their emperor, and in many cases the terrain was in their favor and used effectively, IMO … of course. But I was not there so …

andysyk31 Oct 2017 12:55 p.m. PST

Deadles
Yes I know TOE rarely survive in their intended form. They are however the basis of an armies structure and the design of how it should operate.
Some units had completely different operational TOE some that I am sure have never been recorded.
I usually build a miniature force to full TOE and adjust according to the scenario/game.
The first thing to go is manpower the last thing assets, if a unit knows its business it hangs on to as much firepower as possible.
My gripe with Battlegroup was it didn't allow Panzergrenadier units to deploy 2 LMG which most units certainly seem to have received, the reason being I was informed it unbalanced the game?
Why?
A unit with two LMG is going to have more firepower than a unit with one, that's fact, tough. Later books in the series addressed it but I think restricted the second LMGs firepower again why?
Yes the Bolt Action forum seems full of people trying to get the most bang for points, the fact that LMGs seem to be pretty useless in the game when in fact they are the principle base of small team tactics sums up Bolt action as far as I'm concerned. People that try to use historically based TOe seem to come in for a lot of criticism as well.
FOW yep a strange system loved by many full of more pseudo history, I read a briefing that allowed US Airborne squads to have every man armed with a BAR.

Japanese LMG
Back to ether drakes original question which is about COC and Japanese LMGs.

The Japanese LMGs are not good designs and had performance issues however like I said above COC does not allow for much adjustment on its Small Arms table. It is very much a question of what you penalise and what you don't.
I think it comes down as do all rules as perceived choice within the system.

You could argue all day pros and cons especially if a gun buff, (Which I am, so that is not an insult to anyone) but transferring that to COC loose ratings is difficult.
If you want to penalise an LMG treat it as an BAR.

Just wait until you address MMGs there is a nest of controversy to be stirred up, plenty of real life not very goods there, and COC just doesn't have the flexibility to adjust for these.

Like I said Id change the whole table for Small Arms. FG42 -try that one been lots of discussion on the COC forum official line its the same as an MP44 which I would argue very strongly it is not.

ether drake
Yes you probably have gotten a better discussion here than on COC forum.
I think the fact the two Japanese lists differ in the LMG question sums it all up, obviously after Malaya all Japanese LMGs suddenly became less effective apart from in CQB where they suddenly improved.

Lion in the Stars31 Oct 2017 3:42 p.m. PST

The Italian 6.5mm was bad because it was a round-nosed slug that lost velocity rapidly. It starts dropping precipitously beyond 200 yards and has slowed to subsonic by 600 yards! That basically makes your MG range 600 yards.

The 6.5mm Arisaka has a modern spitzer bullet, so it stays supersonic to about 1000 yards. It's much flatter shooting, as a result. (Want to blow someone's mind? The 6.5mm Grendel is ballisticly identical to the 6.5mm Arisaka!)

andysyk31 Oct 2017 4:04 p.m. PST

The Japanese Type 11 and 96 LMGs used a reduced load cartridge. Another fault of those designs.

The Italians were well aware of the limitations of the 6.5mm and wanted to up calibre and started to, but ww2 and the logistics of doing so during ongoing conflict put paid to that.

The 6.5 Italian also got a lot of bad press in US gun circles because surplus users reloaded with bullets with the wrong dimensions. US commercial 6.5mm bullets were very different from the Italian originals, which most users didn't know. Which affected accuracy greatly. Not good on top of an already poor cartridge.

Of course in the hands of a US Marine it is a very effective President remover….

Which again is another topic- a tool is a tool but its effectiveness can differ greatly due to its employer.

Which applies to military units and their skill in the employment of weapons just as much.

Blutarski31 Oct 2017 5:56 p.m. PST

For reference, according to the a/m U.S. military intelligence document -

The Model 11 (1922) 6.5mm LMG fired the 6.5mm Model 38 (1905) semi-rimmed reduced-charge cartridge at a muzzle velocity of 2440 fps.

The Model 96 (1936) 6.5mm LMG fired the same cartridge at a muzzle velocity of 2410 fps.

The Model 38 (1905) bolt-action rifle fired the full-charge Model 38 (1905) cartridge at a muzzle velocity of 2400 fps. This appears at first glance to be a bit confusing, unless the reduced charge cartridge featured a lighter bullet. On the other hand, modern sources credit the muzzle velocity at 2500 fps. The rifle could fire both cartridge types. If 2500 fps is correct for wartime Japanese ammunition, the difference in muzzle velocity between the full-power and reduced-charge was </= 100 fps.

The Model 99 (1939) 7.7mm LMG fired the Model 99 (1939) 7.7mm full-charge rimless rifle cartridge at a muzzle velocity of 2300 fps. Modern sources credit 2400 fps.

FWIW.

B

Deadles31 Oct 2017 9:17 p.m. PST

andysyk

Later books in the series addressed it but I think restricted the second LMGs firepower again why?

They didn't restrict the firepower of the second LMG. Takes a crew of 2 to fire an MG34/42:

So basic ROF is 5 (1 for each infantry man with Mauser Kar 98)

Less 2 for LMG crew

Plus 5-6 for MG34/42.
= ROF 8 – 9. Pretty brutal by BG standards

I read a briefing that allowed US Airborne squads to have every man armed with a BAR.

BG allows that too. I did read that airborne units often "picked up" BARs to bolster firepower.


The first thing to go is manpower the last thing assets, if a unit knows its business it hangs on to as much firepower as possible.

Though in war it's common that a unit never gets a full allocation of equipment, including weapons. This happens in peace time too even in modern professional militaries.*

*Eg when the Aussies went to East Timor in 1999, they didn't initially even have drinking water bar personal canteens cause of problems with logistical planning.

PiersBrand01 Nov 2017 1:24 a.m. PST

Battlegroup does allow two MGs in some German squads… its in the lists as an additional purchase.

Its certainly not restricted in its firepower, same ROF as the other LMG.

Legion 401 Nov 2017 6:19 a.m. PST

Something else I have mentioned before, and not it's not an original thought of mine, of course. However, a weapon is only as "good" as the man[or woman]behind it …

andysyk01 Nov 2017 1:18 p.m. PST

Ok yep my bad 2nd LMG isn't reduced in Battlegroup.
Hands up. Read the table wrong.

I have all the BG books by the way and will buy the rest, lovely books but quite a few don't have the option for a 2nd LMG in Panzergrenadier Squads I think it should that's all, based on the historical make up of the Panzergrenadier Platoon and how the manual says it was to deploy it should.
Ok some may not have received a 2nd LMG but most based on the divisional returns I have read they did. And when I originally asked why was told because it unbalanced the game I didn't like that answer. I use the rules but with different army lists.

Yes logistics fail, there are shortages things that at meant to be are not. But as you say Deadles units also scrounge, aquire by various means, lie about lost weapons, retain weapons ordered to be returned etc even steal from other units in peacetime as well as wartime.
But if you have things that work in a Firefight you keep them going as much as you can.
All I meant is that if a fighting unit has assets that work it keeps them.

All BAR Parachute Infantry Squads, sorry but no…

The American Airborne in WW2 is one of my favourite things to research and boy will it give you problems Ive been researching awhile and their are still unanswered questions.

Yes US Paras acquired BAR before it was official issue, yes they even adopted them on an unofficial level,(depends which unit)and added more than allocated when it was official issue.

However was an all BAR squad ever common practice? not that I know of or have heard of from veterans, acknowledged authors or considered authorities.

Was it even uncommon practice again same answer..

Did a US Airborne Rifle squad ever tool up with a BAR each, maybe…..

Did a Platoon…hmmm

Did a Company…

I have never seen such a reference apart from the FOW briefing, there might well be one out there which this briefing was based on if so please let me know, and I know a lot of other people who would like to.
Like I said lot of pseudo history out there especially on the back of Bolt Action and FOW, the FOW briefings seem to be canon to a lot of people Ive seen forum replies point to them as reference works for WW2 related questions.

Legion 4
Absolutely, as a said above- its a tool and its efficiency depends on its employer.

Blutarski
Great posts.
Yes very little practical difference between the rounds, but having two different cartridge loadings intended for different weapons in a squad, whilst looking identical without close inspection is inviting trouble. The reduced loadings were to prevent case rupture in the LMGs as I think was mentioned in posts by jdginaz above.

Yea the rifles would be fine but how many times did rifle clips get stowed in a Type 11 by mistake, or used to charge a Type96 magazine, must of been a few. And a stuck ruptured case is no joy in a firefight. That's what I meant by another design fault.

But as I said all depends on how detailed your chosen ruleset is, and in COC the tables are not that detailed.

Legion 401 Nov 2017 2:55 p.m. PST

Absolutely, as a said above- its a tool and its efficiency depends on its employer.
thumbs up

Deadles01 Nov 2017 3:04 p.m. PST

However was an all BAR squad ever common practice?

Oh didn't know it was all BAR that FOW allowed. BG allows one BAR per rifle squad as an option.

Yes I doubt there was whole platoons/companies/battallions equipped with just BARS!

Personally I'd be happy if BG allowed option of each Panzergrenadier squad being able to purchase a second LMG. It's not difficult to houserule it though as the points are well known and BG is a "loose" system not designed for tournament gameplay.

FOW is terrible for historical accuracy and BA is even worse. But at least BA doesn't really pretend to be historically accurate unlike FOW.

Lion in the Stars01 Nov 2017 7:01 p.m. PST

@Deadles: Most BG army lists do allow Panzergrenadiers to buy a second LMG. Pretty sure the only ones that don't are either poorly supplied or early war.

I think some people are confusing the Flames of War "Automatic Rifles" rule with every man having a Browning Automatic Rifle. The Garand is a semi-auto and will happily fire from the hip as you move forward (done it with my SVT40, too). Between the Garand and the BAR, an American squad can put down a lot of fire. About as much as a German squad with one MG34/42, as long as all the Grunts are shooting for effect.

Deadles01 Nov 2017 7:48 p.m. PST

Lion, The original rulebook, Kursk, doesn't allow dual LMGs unless reprints allow it.

No idea about new lists in FOW. I lost interest years ago when it was started getting stupid with tank destroyers, Japanese special rule, special rules for every Sherman variant and things like BAR (British Armoured Regiment) whereby you're literally fielding like 20-30 tanks on a 6x4 table in a standard sized game and core rules that seemed less out of place in 1815 than in 1943.

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP03 Nov 2017 6:35 a.m. PST

Thanks for the great feedback.

Fascinating feedback. Thanks.

Perhaps I should have set this up as a comparative question:

Type 11/96/99 Japanese LMG v Bren – Substantially similar or significantly different?

This may have worked better for gaming purposes.

I'm currently focused on play in the Malaya theatre where, as best as I can judge the Type 11 was in use along with conventional infantry tactics (i.e. no banzai).

I did just find out that the author of the CoC article on Malaya was the former officer in charge of Australia's jungle warfare school.

Lion in the Stars03 Nov 2017 2:14 p.m. PST

I'd definitely rate the Type 96 and 99 LMGs the same as Brens.

I might give the Type 11 a chance of jamming or an increased chance of 'running out of ammo', if Chain of Command does such things.

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP03 Nov 2017 3:02 p.m. PST

The type96 still had the oiler and wasn't considered much of an improvement over the Type 11. The Type 99 however dispensed with the oiler and used the 7.7 round and was more reliable.

Blutarski03 Nov 2017 5:40 p.m. PST

jdginaz … just curious – can you point me to the references upon which you based your above comments regarding the Type 96? TTBOMK, only the Type 11 has been described as especially sensitive to dust/dirt/sand. I'm unaware of any data indicating that the Type 96 was similarly affected.

B

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP04 Nov 2017 7:38 a.m. PST

In CoC game terms I'd be inclined to keep the Type 11/96/99 LMGs the same firepower rating as the Been and other magazine LMGs, which means 6 dice.

For flavour we could say that with a Type 11 rolling two 1s means a jam and all dice rolled for that attack are voided.

A Type 96 may jam with three 1s.

There's a good chance (I don't know the math) that two 1s will come up at some point in a game.

andysyk04 Nov 2017 10:45 a.m. PST

Id really just class the Type11 as an BAR. Introducing jamming, is it really worth it?

Of course the Bren I would consider far superior to all three- but in COC?

Unless you concentrate on Malaya and rewrite the Firepower chart specifically for it.

Blutarski
I'm pretty sure there are quite a few references concerning the Type 96.
jdginaz-gives one above from "Japanese Small Arms of WWII"
and your maintenance reference post above states it.

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP04 Nov 2017 4:37 p.m. PST

As noted by andysky "Japanese Small Arms of WW2" is the source that I I have been using for this discussion.

BTW I my previous post on the Type I noted that the Type 99 dispensed with the oiler. I misread read the Type 99 retained the oiler.

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP04 Nov 2017 8:56 p.m. PST

@andysyk in CoC the BAR functions quite differently to LMGs with rerolls etc. as a semi-automatic. More confusing to do that.

The easiest approach of course is to strip off any chrome and say all such LMGs have the same properties. But if jamming was a significant feature as some suggest it was, then why not reflect it with flavour?

Lion in the Stars04 Nov 2017 10:41 p.m. PST

There's a good chance (I don't know the math) that two 1s will come up at some point in a game.

1 in 36 for any given die roll. Assuming that your LMG gets 36 die rolls in a game, it's just about guaranteed to happen.

andysyk05 Nov 2017 1:51 p.m. PST

ether drake
I know. Like I said Id rewrite the whole table.
Good gaming whatever you go with.

Fred Cartwright05 Nov 2017 2:20 p.m. PST

1 in 36 for any given die roll.

That is the chance of throwing 2 1's with 2 dice. If you are throwing 6 dice at a time the chances of throwing at least 2 1's is more common than that. It is late and I can't be bothered to look up the formula to work it out, but it is possible to calculate that chance.

Blutarski06 Nov 2017 7:15 a.m. PST

andysyk wrote "I'm pretty sure there are quite a few references concerning the Type 96. jdginaz-gives one above from "Japanese Small Arms of WWII" and your maintenance reference post above states it."

>>>>> I have no dog in this fight, but it should be noted that the US military intelligence document's maintenance assessment was that the normal US standard for care and cleaning of similar US gas-operated automatic weapons would suffice to maintain both the Type 96 and Type 99 LMGs. I do not see a case really made for any intrinsic unreliability in the performance of these two weapons.

The majority of the web resources describe them as very serviceable and reliable weapons. One post-war study of Japanese infantry weapons suggested the they had been responsible for more American casualties than all other Japanese infantry weapons taken together; anecdotal posts in the collector community also cite use of captured Types 96/99 by the USMC in the Pacific.

FWIW.

Enjoy your gaming either way.

B

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP06 Nov 2017 10:39 a.m. PST

Thanks for all the input @Blutarski

Could you share the reference for the document you quoted from several times above?

Blutarski06 Nov 2017 1:22 p.m. PST

Hi ether drake -

"Japanese Infantry Weapons", Volume 1; introduction by William R Nelson, Military Intelligence, Retired; Normount Technical Publications, Wickenburg, Arizona 85358;
ISBN 0-87947-108-5

Same publisher also put out "Japanese Artillery Weapons & Tactics", compiled and edited by Donald B McLean, under ISBN 0-87947-157-3


B

Blutarski06 Nov 2017 1:59 p.m. PST

Gotta love the interweb.

You can freely D/L a full PDF of Japanese Infantry Weapons from Forgotten Weapons website. Go here -

PDF link

B

ether drake Supporting Member of TMP06 Nov 2017 9:06 p.m. PST

Thanks very much, @Blutarski!

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2017 8:41 p.m. PST

"One post-war study of Japanese infantry weapons suggested the they had been responsible for more American casualties than all other Japanese infantry weapons taken together;

Don't doubt that but considering their competition, limited artillery, bolt action rifles, anemic grenades and grenade launchers, that's not saying that much.

As for Marines using them that is typical troops always pick up and use any available full automatic weapons.

Lion in the Stars07 Nov 2017 10:07 p.m. PST

I think that the best comment on the reliability of the Type 96/99 is that standard care for US automatic weapons was fine.

To me, that indicates that the Type 96 and 99 are just as reliable as a BAR or M1919.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.