The Leather Crunch of 1938

**Nick Komiya** · 01-25-2020, 04:06 PM

The Leather Crunch of 1938

Recap on Army Leather

This time, let’s look at what restrictions were imposed on leather consumption by the civilian population, while the army was systematically bracing itself for a plunge in supplies of critical materials. But first, let’s do a brief recap of what went on in the army.

Hopefully you know by now that leather substitutes like rubberized canvas appeared as early as 1938 in the army, as a result of the China Incident of July 1937, not as any WW2 last ditch effort you would expect from 1944 onwards. The concept behind the launch of the entire Type 98 uniform series itself in mid 1938 was to design things to work with various substitute materials (cotton, rayon and felt instead of wool, rubberized canvas and straight canvas instead of leather, Bakelite instead of brass, etc, etc). It was all an extremely well organized backup plan that may even seem exaggerated and too pessimistic for a country that had not lost a single war so far.

As a matter of fact, even field-gear developers within the army itself were thinking that Japan was overreacting to fear of material shortages even before moving into the first ditch.

Some basic background should help you understand Japan’s sharp defensive reaction. Japan used to be a leading member of the League of Nations, but ever since leaving that stage in 1933, because of disputes over the Manchurian Incident, Japan was becoming isolated and susceptible to sanctions and embargoes on trade, just like Iran and North Korea of today. Japan had to rely totally on imports for leather, oil, metals and wool, the very basic substances wars are fought with. It was, after all, the oil embargo the US imposed on Japan that gave Japan only 6 months of oil reserves that caused the Pacific War, so material shortages could never be taken lightly by Japan.

The Two Commandments of 1938

So finally getting into the meat, Japan’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued an ordinance on 1st July 1938 that restricted commercial use of leather.

Article 1 forbade use of cow leather (to include Yellow Cow Leather as well as Water Buffalo Leather) in the following products, unless it was a military purchase.

-Shoes
-Horse harnessing gear (saddles, bridles)
-Bicycle and motorbike saddles
-Drive belts for pulley systems
-Bushings (washers and packings)
-Razor-sharpening straps (as used by barbers)
-Sports equipment (baseball mitts, etc)

Article 2 went further to forbid the use of not only cow leather, but also, horse, sheep, pig, whale and shark skin, in producing the following items, unless it was a military order or for export outside Japanese territory (sales to Manchuria, China and Taiwan were not regarded as exports).

-Sandals, slippers
-Suitcases, bags, rucksacks, school backpacks, map cases and any other portable containers
-Cloaks, coats, jackets, pants and any other clothing
-Hats, gloves, waist belts, trouser suspenders, socks suspenders, leggings and any other clothing accessories
-Eyeglass case, makeup case, camera case, music instrument case, hunting rifle bag, sports shoe bag and any other carry bags
-Handbags, wallets, tobacco pouches, tissue pouches, business card holder, pen case
-Straps for canteens, watch wristbands and other straps
-Collar band, towing leash, whip and other animal harnessing straps (except for horses, for which non-cow leather could be allowed).
-Upholstery for furniture like chairs and couches
-Album, book, and other stationary covers
-Vehicle handle straps and upholstery

**Nick Komiya** · 01-25-2020, 04:10 PM

Any military item using leather must be viewed against this kind of civilian deprivation as a backdrop. You simply could not lavishly continue to use cow leather when civilians could not have leather shoes, watch bands or whips.

The army was a huge consumer of leather, because of horse saddles, ammo pouches, etc. And although pigskin seemed available enough, that leather was only readily interchangeable with cow leather when used thin, like in helmet liners.

Pigskin, with all its pores, was not suited to be bonded into thick form for shoe soles, etc. So in order to make best use of rationed leather, the army immediately switched thin cow leather to pigskin. According to a report issued in May 1939, pigskin in thick form could gradually be used for shoe soles, horse harnesses, and drive belts by then, but durability was poor and delamination of bonding remained insurmountable problems.

The navy was less dependent on leather, so they could afford to use cow leather even in helmets much longer than the army, but they too eventually had to follow the army example.

**Nick Komiya** · 01-25-2020, 05:36 PM

Joined Leather

This is probably a good place to add that even army leather could not have much continuous length without being joined leather.

This point wais defined within 1938 March guidelines on leather and hemp substitution policies of nearly 400 pages. For gear that required continued use of leather, it said "Unless the leather is for a load-bearing component, normal use should withstand a minimum tension of 2K and made thinly as practical for its purpose (minimum thickness being 2mm)"

"Leather straps with lengths less than 1 meter, unless problematic for use, should be in principle, joined leather" "The number of joints to be one up to 1 meter strap lengths, and two joints for lengths between 1 and 2 meters. For straps longer than 2 meters, maximum number of joints to be up to 4 points"

**Nick Komiya** · 01-25-2020, 07:53 PM

Replacing Leather in Blueprints

You could not change the material and yet keep design details unchanged. Different materials required different construction to maintain the same load-bearing strength, etc. Thus in the Army's 1938 material transition program away from leather, all major items got two blueprints done to show what design conversions were necessary in the switch of materials. This was done for rifle slings, box-shaped cases for communication equipment, etc. Here is just one example.