Article about: How the Type 32 Sword was born Sword Indigestion Unlike the Cavalry Sword of the 25th Year of Meiji, the next model in line, the Type 32 was born more out of exasperation over a supply chain
Unlike the Cavalry Sword of the 25th Year of Meiji, the next model in line, the Type 32 was born more out of exasperation over a supply chain overload, rather than from any steady Arisaka-style evolutionary improvement, based on scientific experimentation.
As explained earlier, at the time of the Sino-Japanese War, the Army simply had too many types of swords designed at the whim of the various branches. Thus the 1894-95 War was a total mess in terms of weapons supply logistics.
Keenly aware of the inefficiency of this situation were the people responsible for setting annual army budgets, the Military Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of the Army 陸軍軍務局. The chief of that office was the legendary General Major, Gentaro Kodama 児玉源太郎, who will later become the man whose "out-of-the-box" strategy won the land battle for Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5.
He intuitively knew that what they needed was a unified sword design for the entire army, the only possible concession being the need for two blade lengths, the longer version to give cavalrymen the extra reach from atop his horse to the enemy infantry on the ground.
On 30th March 1897, Kodama’s plan was outlined in a letter addressed to the Artillery Commission, which instructed them to conduct a study on specifications for a new sword design for NCOs and men. The letter said--------
“Currently we have the NCO Sword 下士用刀, Cavalry Sword 騎兵刀, Transport Troop Sword 輜重兵刀, Artillery Sword 砲兵刀 and Walker Sword 徒歩刀, all in different designs, making it hugely inconvenient for resupply and replacing.
You are therefore tasked to search for an alternative that ideally brings the variety down to a long and short version of one unified design.”
Therefore, planning for the Type 32 started as a process of elimination before they even knew which sword design needed to be improved.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 04-17-2021 at 05:29 PM.
In his interim report, Chairman of the Artillery Commission, General Major Shigehisa Sakurai 桜井重寿 wrote the Minister of the Army, on 30th September 1898, that they could readily be replaced by the Type 30 bayonet (to be historically accurate, it was still called at this time, "Bayonet for the Type 30 Infantry Rifle").
This, however, is unlikely to be a happenstance discovery, as Kodama’s mandate to the Artillery Commission to slim down the sword line-up was issued a year before the launch of the Type 30 Infantry Rifle on 21st February 1898, while the designing of the bayonet was still in progress.
Therefore the design of the bayonet must have already had in its sight, the supplanting of the Artillery and Walker swords which, in terms of design, were both more bayonet-like than sword to start with.
Army Ordinance number 106 of 11th November 1898 officially announced that the bayonet would be replacing these two swords.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 04-17-2021 at 08:22 PM.
With the Walker and Artillery swords now out of the way, the remaining question was how to merge the transport and NCO swords into one, as another longer sword for cavalry was anyway unavoidable and allowed for in Kodama’s mandate.
They were able to work this out by 24th February 1899, when Chairman of the Artillery Commission, General Major Shigehisa Sakurai 桜井重寿 wrote the Minister of the Army that the Model Koh (A) was meant for NCOs and men of the cavalry, while model Otsu (B) was for those NCOs and men of other branches that neither carried the Model Koh nor the Type 30 bayonet.
Thus the Model Otsu was the replacement for the NCO and Transport Troop swords, while the Koh replaced the Model 25 Cavalry Sword. The letter further explained that an additional auxiliary leather hanger 副吊革 was available for use by horse-mounted personnel.
The Minister of the Army seemed happy with the two sword designs, but didn’t seem to fancy the leather hangers, as he responded, on 18th March 1899, by ordering the Artillery Commission to immediately reconsider specs for the hanging belt to ensure durability and try to drop the optional auxiliary leather hanger.
I don't know what this extra hanger for mounted personnel looked like, but it appears to have been dropped.
Satisfied with the result, the Military Affairs Bureau officially passed on the proposals from the Artillery Commission to the Minister of the Army in a letter dated 11th July 1899. It said……
“Currently, three types of Guntos are in use by NCOs and men, namely the Cavalry Model, NCO Model and the Transport Troop Model. Having as many as these three different models has been a strain on supply chain logistics, and additionally none of these swords have the right cross section design for the blade, neither the right heft nor optimally set center of gravity.
Thus their slashing and stabbing performance as demonstrated in the war of 1894/95 regrettably left a lot to be desired.
Therefore immediately after that conflict, steps were taken to address these issues. After several rounds of research sessions and experiments, we have completed designing two swords that are only different in their blade lengths.
The model Koh 甲 (A) is primarily for issue to NCOs and men, serving in the cavalry troops, and Otsu 乙 (B) is meant for other NCOs and men meant to carry a sword.”
The proposal was endorsed by the minister and was adopted as the Type 32 Sword on 23rd August 1899.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 04-17-2021 at 05:36 PM.
Those Meant to Wear Swords 帯刀本分者 (Tai-toh Honbun-sha)
As a result of introducing the Type 32, the 5-sword supply line congestion that caused Kodama to order an overhaul of the sword line-up, ended up with the Type 30 bayonet and two versions of Type 32 swords.
How these 3 weapons were issued by branch and rank is shown in the following chart, issued on 13th October 1933. As evident from the chart, the only NCO rank that automatically got to wear a sword was Sergeant Major, which is why they were called Sergeant Major swords until WW2.
Also shown below is a belt extension that later became necessary for wear over bulky winter clothing. They became aware of the need for longer belts in early 1905、when troops started to request belts with 30 cm of extra length for winter gear.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 04-17-2021 at 08:13 PM.
The two charts below summarize the changes introduced after the launch of the sword.
Note that the width of the drag attached to the tip of the scabbard was reduced by 3mm in October 1922, because the haikan support ring would not slip over and got caught on the wider drag when the ring needed removal or attachment in repairs. Otherwise, large size drags had to be removed before sliding the haikan on and off. Drag size difference is a question of manufactured date, not a difference between Koh and Otsu models as some authors claim.
The tool change occurring in 1921 was probably due to the switch of engineering standards to metric, so the two-pinned wrench designed under the former Shaku measure would show minor deviation in decimal measures from things designed in metric.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 04-18-2021 at 11:04 AM.
In the beginning, the Type 32 Sword was virtually handmade with low production figures, but by the 1930s, workers made extensive improvements to raise production efficiency quite dramatically until production of the sword was well automated. More on that topic here.
Serviceability Criteria for Type 32 Swords at Inspections
Shown below is the Type 32 page from the Weapons Inspection Manual printed in August 1943.
Criteria for serviceability was that the blade length of 1002mm for Model Koh (930mm for Otsu) should not be shorter by more than 20mm, and for a length of 450mm from the tip, the blade width of 27mm must not be worn down more than 3mm, nor should the 5mm thick ridge be reduced by more than 1mm. Examples not within these limits were judged not suitable for further service and were scrapped.
2/3 of the overall blade length from the tip was regularly sharpened with files at times of war and dulled down for safety in peacetime, so wear of the blade due to such repeated filing was taken for granted, which is why clear limits were set for allowable blade wear in the manner above.
The saber is strong and slightly curved. It is a little lighter and a little shorter than our sword and is used as a cutting weapon.
The lance is carried by the Imperial Household Cavalry only.
The quote above is coming from a report submitted by an American officer upon completion of his attachment to the 16th Cavalry Regiment, Imperial Japanese Army. The report is dated 1929-01-08.
2nd Cavalry Regiment: The Colonel being absent the Lieut.-Colonel and Major conducted the inspection. Cavalry regiments either consist of 3 squadrons or 5 squadrons. These squadrons are about the size of our American troops and would more properly be called troops. The 2nd Regiment is a 3 squadron regiment and consists of about 400 officers and men. Last year’s recruits gave some simple exhibitions at a walk, trot, and run, using the saber for low and high thrusts and cuts. Their riding was better that I expected. Their seat was very good. The Japanese invariably yell wether striking with a saber, or bayonet and a drill of a hundred or so men is a noisy affair. Cavalry men serve for 3 years which the officers say is just long enough to make fair soldiers.
Military attaché report: Inspection of troops of the 2nd Division, Japanese Army. Dated 1918-05-07. This report was written while the Great War was still going on and briefly touches upon the cavalry use of the Type Year 32.
How the Type 32 Sword was born
.
Bookmarks