Here is finally proof that Type 32s continued to be converted into Type 95s as late as 1944. 1940 and 1944 Weapons price lists both show 2 versions of Type 95 prices
Here is finally proof that Type 32s continued to be converted into Type 95s as late as 1944. 1940 and 1944 Weapons price lists both show 2 versions of Type 95 prices
.... Which answers the question as to why you get converted blades with later war type tsuka.
Still puzzled by the traditional style tsuba though on the one example though.
Assuming the round steel tsuba was late-war, wouldn't the 1940 conversions have the sculpted tsuba?by DaveR
According to Fuller & Gregories chart, though, the steel tsuba was seemingly randomly used thoughout the years.
That one 阪 appears on officer's swords. I do not recall seeing it on an NCO sword.Please refresh my memory, where was this one used? 阪 can't be bothered to look it up at the moment
I too have noticed that about the Jinsen ㊁ inspection marks. It does appear that they used a two step stamping process. Possibly to cut down on die stamp breakage? This rises the question what if they forgot to stamp one of the two components of the stamp! Also, as you pointed out about ◯, a 二 struck at an angle could appear as a 一.
As an aside, Type 95s do not have a fuchi, but a ferrule 柄環. This part has four other components to it. A 駐爪 latch, 駐爪ばね spring, 駐爪鋲 rivet, and finally a 駐環 which literally translates as stop ring?
Last edited by Kiipu; 08-06-2020 at 05:55 PM.
What pozzles me is that the iron/steel tsuba in the one example is a traditional tsuba with a tri lobate hole at the side, a kogai hitsu-ana as well as the aperture for the retention clip....
According to the Type 95 development papers of April 1935, once they had a 8th Generation Prototype of the Type 95 done to satisfaction, from April 1934, they commenced with studies on how to convert existing stocks of Type 32s into Type 95s. In the photo below, what is called a prototype is the Type 95 made from scratch and the one below called 改修軍刀 (Kaishyu-Gunto) is the Type 32 converted to simulate Type 95 specs. This conversion model could not quite match the shearing performance of the new Type 95 sword, but in their opinion what they achieved in the conversion still represented a marked improvement over the Type32.
Thus when they sought the launch approval from the Minister of the Army, he was not shown only the Type 95 prototype, but also the converted Type 32 that simulated the Type 95 features.
Nick's recent discovery of two types of wartime specification 戦時用 Type 95 Military Swords 九五式軍刀 is important and adds to the history of this unique military sword. However, I do not think it pertains to modifications of old inventory swords. I have seen the same notations, 一般用 and 騎兵用, used for Type 99 Short Rifles 九九式短小銃 and Type 99 Light Machine Guns (LMG) 九九式軽機関銃 in ordnance documents.
The cavalry had different requirements for small arms and how they were carried and used. For example, the cavalry had their own version of the 6.5 mm caliber carbine, called the Type 44 Carbine 四四式騎銃, which had a folding bayonet attachment. Later on, the cavalry used a unique version of the Type 99 Short Rifle that had a different rear swivel and a quick release detachable sling that set it apart from the same rifle used by the other branches. The Type 99 LMG that the cavalry used came with 24 magazines instead of the 16 used by the infantry. I think the "cavalry use" Type 95 Sword falls in the same vein. The question that I am asking myself is what is the difference between the two types, general/regular use (一般用) versus cavalry use (騎兵用)? Thinking out loud, is it merely the length of the leather hanger or could it be the position of the scabbard ring? I think some more time is needed to get to the bottom of this puzzle.
The modifications pictured by Stegel-san in post 163 above are clearly not the modifications the Japanese Army had in mind. This was a modification or repair done with whatever parts were available. I tend to agree with the story provided that the swords were acquired outside of the home islands.
Last edited by Kiipu; 08-07-2020 at 11:15 PM.
I can't help but notice the title of this 19 page thread is "SHORT Development History...." Ha!
Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system!
Fabulous work guys, loving every minute of it!
Ever since post 11 of this thread, it was clear that Type 32s were converted, but back then I had not realized the scope of that undertaking. Now rereading all the Type 95 development papers with the knowledge that 改修軍刀 (modified Guto) specifically meant Type 32 conversions, and not just an alternative prototype, all the mist has finally lifted. The papers even discuss technical implications of blade and scabbard conversions necessary on the Type 32.
Here is the Type 95 proposal as discussed within Weapons HQ, before submission to the Minister of the Army. It makes it crystal clear that the army had an overwhelming need to convert old Type 32 inventory into Type 95 Clones. I provide a full translation of the paragraph boxed in red. I find it hard to accept Kiipu's theory that such conversions did not take place, when it was even the full focus of development work for a full year.
This was a full two years before the outbreak of the China Incident. Once the incident occurred, it makes sense to say that they would have just issued old Type 32s without modification. However, at least between May 1935 till July 1937, converting Type 32s into Type 95s was the obvious choice.
Regarding some key points of the Type 32 conversions, the following was said.
Blades: The converted sword needs to resemble the new sword design, so blade length and curvature need to be altered to match those of the new sword and also have a Habaki added.
Scabbard: The various Saya features will be converted to resemble that of the new sword, but because of the different thickness of the Saya, the Saya-gi wood cannot be reused. So Saya-ita panels will be newly fabricated to replace the Saya-gi in the converted swords.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 08-07-2020 at 08:13 PM.
[QUOTE
The modifications pictured by Stegel-san in post 163 above are clearly not the modifications the Japanese Army had in mind. This was a modification or repair done with whatever parts were available. I tend to agree with the story provided that the swords were acquired outside of the home islands.[/QUOTE]
I am inclined to agree with you. The repurposing of a traditional type Tsuba is not something I would expect from an official convertion done in an arsenal.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks