Lakesidetrader - Top
Display your banner here
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17

How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?

Article about: How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items? In the field of WW2 German militaria, the designation, “Field-made” is euphemism for a crook’s immunity from liability

  1. #11

    Default

    I wonder if the recycling process discarded the mesh lining in these caps?
    The hemp lining was always reused and never discarded.

    I've always wondered if there was some documentation to prove whether they were reissued captured items or locally made like those mentioned in the 1943 reports.
    They do not single out shirts, but mention that ever since arriving in the Philippines, they have been actively making use of captured food, clothing and consumables to minimize reliance on the homeland, and that they have a section set up at the field depot to sort out what was usable from the war booty. Using enemy primary clothing would have caused problems, but secondary clothing (小被服) like shirts would have been used as is.

    Theatre produced clothing still had to conform to designs as approved in Japan, but details like stitch patterns were to be adapted to best suit the quality of locally available cloth. So I find it not likely that they made unofficial designs locally, but rather believe they were using up captured shirts. Accordingly, they were supplied with necessary cutting patterns from the Tokyo Depot.

  2. #12

    Default

    Why Theatre-made Rubber-soled Ankle Boots?



    Once Upon a Time

    One thing that most field depots seemed to produce locally in the forgoing story were ankle boots, specifically rubber-soled ones. These were prototype specs introduced on 12th November 1942.

    Why was it so critical that they were able to produce them locally at the corps level? Behind that question is the kind of grandiose calculation similar to what is done today for reduction of carbon dioxide emissions against global warming.

    Calculations behind CO2 emissions control are beyond my comprehension and attention span, but figuring out a similar challenge in the form of ankle boots for IJA use, is a question much closer to home for collectors.

    So if your child or grandchild challenges you to explain that big question of our century, give them the following ankle boots story as an analogy.



    A Big Resource Drain came in Boots

    At least back then, hobnailed military ankle boots universally consumed three major resources in production.

    First came iron. For one pair of army boots, including repair and reconditioning throughout its 6 months of average wear-life, 180 grams of iron hobnails were needed in the initial production and a further 670 grams were needed for replacement during the 6 months of use, totaling 850 grams of iron consumed for the life of a pair of boots.

    Then came leather consumption, which came to 0.31 cows per boot life, and 9.185 kgs of tannic acid (assuming purity of 20%) to process that leather.

    Multiply this by a million soldiers, wearing out 2 pairs a year each, and you end up consuming 1700 tons of iron, 620 thousand heads of cow and 18 thousand tons of tannic acid in one year of war alone.

    And all 3 resources were critically short in Japan.

    Conservation efforts like making smaller hobnails, halving the number per boot (37 hobnails/boot reduced to 23 nails/boot by the latter half of the China Incident) or designing them with splitting end-spikes to prevent them from falling out were tried, as well as changing the material to resin, aluminum or even ceramic.

    Instead of cow leather, the IJA tried out water buffalo, whale skin, seals, horses, pigs, shark, dogs and canvass as alternatives.

    The same was done for securing tannic acid that included mangrove bushes as a source.

    Details like conservation of hemp fibers for sewing the leather together did not get neglected either, for which they experimented with silk processed to resist decomposing or artificial fibers based on polyvinyl-alcohol or polyamides.

    In short, the rubber-soled ankle boots were the culmination of these desperate resource conservation efforts.

    They reduced iron consumption by 100%, raw hide by 55% and tannic acid by 76%.

    The construction of these boots also took into consideration the lower strength of alternative leathers, such as pig skin which lost 20% in comparison to cow leather and shark skin, which was 30% weaker. Pigs or sharks, come what may, these boots were ready for production with locally available leather.
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?  
    Last edited by Nick Komiya; 09-11-2021 at 08:08 PM.

  3. #13

    Default

    Close Combat, Landing Boots

    This new design also reflected needs of the new combat environment, which involved landings on coral reefs, passing through jungles and increased crawling for stealth in close proximity fighting, which put a lot of stress on the toes of boots. Therefore these boots had double-layered toecaps.

    Traditionally, IJA ankle boots had 5 sets of lace-up holes with aluminum grommets, but this was reduced to 3 sets, which also reduced aluminum consumption by 40% (5 tons of reduction annually) and a further 10% reduction in shoelace length.

    Leather soles also needed to use a lot of wooden pegs in lieu of nails for assembly, so the new boots also reduced peg usage by 75%.

    Hobnail-less boots were no novelty even before the advent of these new boots, because tankers, heavy artillery, air balloon, automobile, railroad and aircraft crew used to be issued leather-soled boots without the hobnails, because they weren’t subjected to long marches, requiring hobnail reinforcement, and also because hobnails could cause slipping on the floor and equipment damage.

    This meant that even the same boots had hobnailed and nail-less versions, which complicated resupply logistics. However, with rubber-soled boots, it was one style for all branches, so it also represented a big reduction of stress for the quartermaster.
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?   How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?  

    Last edited by Nick Komiya; 09-11-2021 at 08:16 PM.

  4. #14

    Default

    "These Boots were Made for Walking"

    Not only were huge resource savings involved, but rubber soles were also 3 times more wear-resistant than leather soles, which swelled when wet, losing strength, which got further aggravated by the swelling causing hobnails to fall out.

    In other words, rubber-soled boots could march between 1500 km to 2000 km without any replacing or repairs by the cobbler.

    So far, everything sounds rosy as the color of the rubber soles, but the army was also acutely aware of some drawbacks of using natural rubber, which were degradation during long storage, vulnerability to mineral oil exposure, cracking in extreme cold and melting in high heat.

    Heat and cold were overcome by adjusting the mixture, so the rubber soles were guaranteed to withstand temperatures from 70 degrees to minus 40 degrees centigrade. Age-degradation was also overcome by use of Aldol-alpha-naphtylamine, but without switching to artificial rubber, which resource availability did not allow Japan, susceptibility to mineral oil remained the Achilles' heel for these boots.

    Therefore troops prone to step on mineral oil, like mechanized troops, needed continued issue of leather-soled boots without the hobnails.

    Another drawback unresolved was that the rubber glue used for attaching the soles required a lot of benzene, which translated into 200 kiloliters of gasoline consumption per year in our case of 1 million soldiers wearing out 2 pairs a year. The highly flammable aspect of this also added some risk to the manufacturing process.

    Two pairs of IJA ankle boots that I happen to have are both mint without hobnails, because I’m originally a collector of German Panzer uniforms and they were known to be hobnail-less. Thus I imagined that the same would probably apply to Japanese tankers, which has now been revealed to be a correct guess 40 years later, but as we saw above, there was a much bigger story to tell behind the IJA's reason for switching to rubber.

    Well, now I broke my own vow that I will never write about army boots, unless I got paid for the work, but the relevance of the IJA mindset that led to the development of these win-win boots seemed to have some relevance to universal problems we face today, so for the sake of saving Mankind, I took a small step a man could contribute in the right direction.
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?  
    Last edited by Nick Komiya; 09-11-2021 at 10:53 PM.

  5. #15

    Default

    Here's a detailed structure comparison between the army's Type 5 ankle boots and the 1942 Rubber-soled prototype.

    Note that the Type 5 is shown in the later 23-hobnail configuration.
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?   How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?  

    Last edited by Nick Komiya; 09-12-2021 at 09:59 PM.

  6. #16

    Default

    Field Repairs of Weapons


    For every weapon, the IJA had parts categories that (1) under no circumstances, should be repaired by the unit's smith, (2) could be repaired, if arsenal replacement parts were available or (3) could be repaired with parts improvised by the unit.

    Shown below is the sword page from a thick list of all weapons, as was revised on 27th February 1942.

    The highlighted box is the Type 95 Sword.

    It said blades were off limits to unit smiths.

    However, grip, cross guard and scabbard could be replaced as long as official arsenal-produced replacements were at hand.

    The last category listed 9 non-function critical parts that could be repaired at unit level, using locally improvised parts, if necessary. These included Sarute, Screws, Wooden Inlays, Seppas and Chuso.

    Non-standard parts in category 3 are to be expected, but are red flags in category 1 and 2. Of course, last ditch exceptions could exist, but those need to be approached with caution.
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?  

  7. #17
    ?

    Default

    Ran across some production figures for those rubber soled boots that Nick talks about above.

    Table E.
    Items: Rubber soled army boots, substitute for regular army boots.
    Quantity produced: Java, 600,000 pairs; Singapore 200,000 pairs.
    Percentage of total amount needed: 40% (actual amount needed 2,000,000).
    Remarks: Very light, not suitable for marshy places.

    How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?
    Last edited by Kiipu; 03-30-2022 at 11:47 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Need Help! Theatre made/field made German ID paper carrier/wallet in Italian camo

    In Field Equipment And Accessories of the Third Reich
    07-08-2014, 06:21 PM
  2. U.s wings theatre made ???

    In Insignia, Flags and regalia
    04-18-2014, 10:16 AM
  3. Ww2 cib cloth badges theatre made ??

    In Insignia, Flags and regalia
    11-03-2013, 10:14 AM
  4. 1st Marines Theatre Made Patch Question

    In Insignia, Flags and regalia
    09-20-2012, 02:12 AM
  5. Camo cap, looks theatre made? Real?

    In SS Uniforms and insignia
    09-27-2011, 09:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Militaria-Reisig & Antiquitäten - Down
Display your banner here