The Evolution of the Japanese Imperial Army Backpacks (1874-1945)
Article about: The Evolution of the Japanese Imperial Army Backpacks (1874-1945) This article is being re-uploaded, as it was inadvertently erased during recent recovery work from bugs in the forum. Forewo
The Evolution of the Japanese Imperial Army Backpacks (1874-1945)
The Evolution of the Japanese Imperial Army Backpacks (1874-1945)
This article is being re-uploaded, as it was inadvertently erased during recent recovery work from bugs in the forum.
Foreword
Somehow I always held back a bit from military backpacks, compared to other smaller items of the soldier’s gear. I suppose, to a large extent, it was because they were so obviously “organic”, the fur covered flaps reminding me of a stuffed animal. That imagination puts me off, along with the collector nightmares of possible insect infestations, defoliating hair and dust accumulation that come with that territory, making them rather unwieldy as a collection piece. They were called an Affe (Ape) in German military slang, and they indeed literally become real “monkeys on one’s back” to collectors, who are neurotic about “artifact preservation”.
It was a bother for the IJA itself for the same reasons, but they simply couldn’t overcome the rain-proofing problem for a long time without using animal fur.
So the collector side of me had seen backpacks as a necessary evil, and frankly I have been putting this subject off. But undeniably packs did represent the soldier’s household possessions and means of sustenance in the field, so my field gear evolution series cannot possibly scoot around the topic anymore.
Part 1: Evolution of the IJA enlisted men’s backpack
Genesis
French military advisor’s like Albert Charles du Bousquet (1837-1882) were already in Japan from the last days of the Shogunate, so French style fur-covered packs were used from the inception of the IJA, but it is only from 1874 that archive documents start to discuss them.
Back then, the army did not yet have a central depot for equipment, but each Regional Army Garrison (Chindai) was responsible for procuring its own equipment and uniforms from local sources based on a sample provided by HQ in Tokyo. So there seem to be no technical illustrations of this first model IJA pack.
The reason these packs start to come up for discussions from 1874 has to do with the fact that continued self-sustenance in the field became a practical need from the 1874 War that sent IJA troops to Taiwan.
As a matter of fact, the IJA had regarded backpacks as something to issue only at times when the army needed to go out on long campaigns, basically the same way we pull suitcases out of closets for trips abroad. Thus though they already existed, the practice was that they were not actually being issued to soldiers during peacetime.
Anyway, with Taiwan in mind, they had to decide what to pack and what to leave to the transport troops. Thus listings like the one shown below dated 7th October 1874 started to appear during the Taiwan campaign defining what and how much in weight needed to be carried by individual soldiers in and on their backpacks at that time. An Infantry NCO needed to carry 13.34 kgs on his back while an enlisted man carried 13.14 kgs. These personal load studies were done for all branches and for various field situation scenarios, depending on how much of the load could be delegated to transport troops. Based on these parameters, they grasped how much marching mileage to expect per day, etc.
Already in these early days, the army was seeking alternatives other than fur for rain-proofing solutions and had been issuing lacquered leather and rubberized versions, since September 1874, on a trial basis, in addition to the standard fur-covered packs. However, this trial obviously failed and fur will continue to be used until the 1930s.
1884, Proposal for a new backpack, better suited to the Japanese Physique
On 12th April 1884, Aritomo Yamagata, the founder of the IJA, wrote to Tsugumichi Saigo, aide to Minister of the Army, Iwao Oyama about the need for a lighter and more mobile infantryman. He said that the IJA had been blindly imitating the French up till that time, and therefore the backpack specs and kit composition had also been borrowed directly from the French. However, Yamagata pointed out that the average Japanese soldier was much more petite than a typical Frenchman, so everything made in French proportions evidently was proving to be oversized and overweight to allow Japanese soldiers agile movement in the field.
He said they needed to seek a better solution to having the soldier carry all his essential items, yet keeping the load light enough to get more mobility on the battlefield as well as more marching mileage without overexerting the troops.
He further claimed that even in France, they were starting to think that the load of an infantryman needed to be reduced. So if it was too heavy even for a Frenchman, it followed without saying that the Japanese soldier was completely overburden.
For this reason, his department had reviewed the composition of the individual’s kit as well as tried to make the pack itself more compact and lighter.
He further provided a spreadsheet comparing weights and costs (which is unfortunately missing) and pointed out that the higher quality and craftsmanship demanded by the new model made it somewhat more pricey compared to their current pack, but most of the cost difference would translate into higher durability, which would significantly reduce the cost gap when considering the long run.
He ended by proposing prototype packs to be first tried out by the 12th Infantry Battalion and was providing a sample for the ministry’s consideration. He added that the particular model was developed specifically for the infantry and some modifications may be called for to adapt it for engineer use, in which case, closing off the top of the inner box might be an alternative.
1886 December, Field testing completed
It took another 2.5 years of field testing to try out Yamagata’s idea, but by December 1886, verdicts were in from the various field units. Reactions were generally positive towards the compact size, which one response praised as having been accomplished without sacrificing practical carry space.
But all requested that a hanging loop be revived at the top of the pack to hang packs on the wall in the way they did with the previous model. Another point, echoed by many, was that the shoulder straps were too narrow and top and bottom fixing points needed to have their spacing better adjusted to keep the center of gravity optimized.
Those familiar with German equipment of those times pointed out that the hooking ends of the shoulder straps that catch the belt should hook the belt from beneath the belt instead of from the outside, so that the belt resting over the hook would prevent them from getting unhooked. As seen in the comparison between German and Japanese bread-bag hanging hooks, the IJA tended to have hooks hanging onto the belt from the front.
A feeling of constriction during long marches was also to be relieved by giving the rear bottom edge a more tightly curved profile that matched the curve of the torso better without biting in and causing pain at the pressure point.
By this time, smokeless powder had become standard for rifles, and concealment of one’s position became tactical common sense, which naturally required more shooting to be done in a prone lying position. This affected dynamics between the gear on one’s back and the ease with which one could assume a comfortable shooting posture. Blankets and shelter halves piled high on the pack was now becoming a “No-No”.
1887 September, Second Generation Fur-covered pack launched
In this way, the development process started in April 1884 finally bore fruit on 7th September 1887 when Army Ordinance number 103 launched the first IJA backpack designed to match the Japanese physique.
At this time, they had not yet been able to streamline the needs of the various branches into one single style of pack, so the pack came in three basic configurations one for infantry, another for artillery and a further variant for engineers.
The infantry and engineer versions had an ammunition drawer at the top, which could be used by opening a small side-flap at the drawer. Artillery models had this tin drawer deleted as well as the straps on the left and right sides.
A horseshoe style blanket attachment would, however, deny access to the drawer when completely strapped down to the pack. So the side with the drawer only got one tie-down strap for the blanket, so that only one strap needed to be undone to lift one leg of the drooped blanket to access the drawer. In comparison, the other side had two straps, and this asymmetric strap arrangement will remain the norm until WW2.
The engineer versions had longer straps and a higher attachment position for the mess tin strap.
The inside had a wooden frame shaped ergonomically in curves rather than the later simple angular box structure. This complexly shaped frame was entirely covered with cloth and lacquered over to provide a robust, but light structure.
1887 December: Backpack marking regulations established
3 months after the launch of this second model IJA backpack, on 12th December 1887, the IJA announced marking regulations for the pack, which was to be positioned on the rear side of the back flap.
Since 1886, the jacket, pants and overcoat were subject to manufacturing and issue markings, consisting of (1) “Regiment Designation” and (2) “Date, Month and Year of Manufacture” (3) “ Battalion Designation” (4) “ Company Designation” (5) “Month/Year of Issue” (6) “Full Name of the Individual” . This information was to be sewn onto uniform items as a patch upon issuance, but backpacks were made an exception by having the boxed columns directly ink-stamped onto the flap.
At the time of introduction of the backpack, they were only issued in times of war and not during peacetime, but from 23rd January 1888 it was decreed that they would be issued in peacetime as well.
The 1887 backpacks were used for both the Sino-Japanese as well as the Russo-Japanese wars largely unchanged, for as long as 25 years.
However, it was as early as in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894/95 that a long-lasting rivalry was established between the backpack and the tube pack, which most collectors today probably regard as a last ditch alternative to a backpack as developed in WW2.
Actually, the tube pack had been in use in Japan since the Samurai times, and the 5th Division sent to Korea in the Sino-Japanese war favored tube packs and kept their backpacks deposited at the depots. This frontline practice caused the replacement units in Japan to inquire on 8th November 1894, whether they could also be allowed to discontinue backpacks and switch all soldiers to simple tube packs.
The official army reply was given to this on 17th November to the effect that it was totally premature to propose discontinuation of such a fundamental piece of equipment in the middle of a war. Though field conditions may often favor the use of tube packs instead of backpacks, whether tube packs could totally take over could only be decided after doing a proper study.
However, from this point onwards, there will be constant rivalry between the traditional Japanese style pack and the western style pack that will continue into WW2 without seeing a definite winner.
This debate was destined to come back again in the Russo-Japanese War, as a frontline commander telegrammed Japan, on 22nd December 1904, that replacement units should leave their back packs behind and come with only tube packs instead. Army HQ replied on 24th December that both should be carried to the continent until an official conclusion could be reached at a later date.
This final and official conclusion was issued by the army on 6th February 1905, which said that soldiers would surely face difficulty in rain and snow, if they only had tube packs that had limited water repellency. So the army could not afford to drop the backpacks. However, if wear comfort was the problem, soldiers were offered a compromise of being allowed to remove the wooden frame when needed.
For the army as a whole, there will be no further “either or” questions, but at the unit or branch level this question continued to be relevant.
One outcome was that in 1924, artillerymen would have backpacks discontinued from their issue list. This was because such troops mounted their packs on gun carriages anyway, not on their backs, so they merely needed a container. This, however, did not apply to horse-mounted personnel or to mountain artillery units who had different habits. At that time, tube packs cost the army only 1.9 Yen while backpacks cost as much as 9.7 Yen a piece, so it was a great expense saver at a time when post-WW1 demilitarization always brought waves of budget slashes.
As I mentioned at the start, the army was also bothered by humidity and insect infections damaging the backpacks, and experimented in 1902 and 1903 with an alternative that would provide adequate water-proofing that hopefully could replace fur.
What they tried out was a lacquer finish called Myouchin lacquer 明珍塗named after a famous Samurai armor artisan, who applied this black lacquer to steel plates, etc. Water-proofing was satisfactory, but they discovered that temperatures below minus 5 centigrade caused this finish to crack up. So they had to abandon that idea.
Next they thought chrome-tanned leather, a German invented method of tanning leather with chemicals instead of plant-based tannic acid, might help with better water-proofing. But a letter dated 5th November 1903 from the central uniform depot to the Minister of the Army was already rather pessimistic and said they had no practical alternative to fur in the meanwhile.
However, that letter did offer some positive news about the possibility of being able to reduce the number of backpack configuration variants to two styles instead of the three that existed since 1887.
The letter pointed out that as the infantry version pack had the cartridge tray discontinued in the meanwhile (when this change actually took place, I could not find out), the only difference remaining from the artillery version were side fixing straps. By making these side straps removable slide-on straps, just removing them would beget an artillery pack only leaving the engineer packs as a necessary variant.
Another proposal in the same letter was to change all the black leather used for trimming and straps to natural tan leather. The black finish effectively hid blemishes in leather of substandard quality and the paint finish itself contained chemicals that had an eroding effect to leather over time. The black finish also was subject to fading and required constant care during storage. Moreover, in hot summers, the black finish would liquefy and left smudges on uniforms.
It further suggested that hardware used on the backpack should now all be steel instead of a mixed lot of steel and brass parts. All hardware was now to be painted in a uniform brown paint finish.
These changes were officially introduced on 4th February 1904 as Army Ordinance 8, but by that time they also figured out that only one pack design was necessary, and that an engineer’s version could also be achieved simply by issuing them a longer detachable side strap for their gear.
1905 All Canvass Ersatz Backpack for the Russo-Japanese War
General Nogi’s old Prussian style assault tactics sent waves of infantrymen at the Russian strongholds merely to get them mowed down by enemy fire, resulting in excessive losses in men and supplies. So soon after the Russian fortress at Port Arthur finally fell to the IJA, on 1st February 1905, Army Ordinance 6 announced that khaki-colored sail canvass backpacks were to be issued to enlisted ranks as Ersatz for a while.
This looks surprisingly close to the all-canvass Type 99 packs that became standard for WW2, but at this time these still came with a wooden frame inside. Canvass was used simply, because of material shortages, not that they had been able to make any breakthrough in making canvass waterproof.
As a matter of fact, they were still so far from finding a lasting solution to keeping canvass water repellant that in April of 1905, the IJA had to send a team of fabric workers to the continent to re-dye and re-waterproof as many as 280,000 shelter-halves at a pace of 2,000 pieces per day.
Eight years after switching leather trimming on the backpacks to tan, the pack went through another design revamp announced on 12th February 1912 as Army Ordinance 7.
They counted 3 advantages for this new model in the introduction announcement.
1. A thorough survey of use by engineers revealed that the same side straps used by infantry were sufficient also for engineer gear, so longer straps were no longer required.
2. The mess tin strap was now to straddle over the coat and shelter half roll on top, so this strap was extended by 6 cm. ( I suppose this was meant to hold the bulk of the coat and shelter half down at that point not to push against the head in a prone shooting position.)
3. Number of holes in straps were optimized
In addition to the above, the inner frame was now a much simpler square with only the 4 corner posts reinforced with cloth with a lacquer coating.
1913-1914: Interim Changes relating to the Model 1912 Backpack
Japan went through WW1 and the Siberian Intervention carrying the Model 1912 Backpack, which remained unchanged until they launched the “5th Year of Showa” model of 1930. However, there were some updates made around the time of WW1.
1913, 6th May: Old 1904 Model Inventory to be modified
In 1912, when the new backpack was introduced, it was decided that the old 1904 style packs would also continue to be used as long as inventory remained. This old model, however, had a drawback of the buckle for the mess tin strap being located at the bottom of the pack, which had the habit of scratching the lid of the ammunition pouch worn on the back just below the pack. So it was decided in May of 1913 to modify all the old models to have the same mess kit strap arrangement as the new 1912 model packs.
The problem of the bottom of the backpack and the rear ammunition pouch coming into contact in this way couldn’t have been anything new, but a problem that became more noticeable, because of the more frequent need to shoot in a prone position that caused the two kits on the back to bunch together.
1913, 29th May: 1912 Model Pack Drawing Changed
Further studies on how Infantry and Engineers should attach their gear to the pack revealed that the direction of inserting the top two straps should be reversed, so a simple drawing change was issued as army ordinance 21 along with ordinance 1741, which standardized how to attach infantry and engineer equipment to the Model 1912 pack.
1914, April: New Marking System Employed
From 21st April, 1914 they switched generally to a system of markings that got directly stamped onto the item instead of sewing on as a patch, but as direct stamping was already in practice for backpacks since December 1887, what was new was the simplified format and columns for up to 4 owner names, when repeatedly reissued.
Back in those days, backpacks were supposed to have 15 years of use ( 8 years for tube packs ), before being written off, so naturally they got handed down from one recruit to the next.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 03-31-2018 at 03:19 PM.
1930, April: 4th Model Backpack launched as Sho-go Shiki 昭五式 (Type Showa 5)
On 21st April 1930, the army announced its new look, that brought wide-ranging design changes to its uniforms and field gear.
I have not been able to find any archive material discussing the development process of the individual components that went into the Type Sho-5 ensemble, but considering how things developed since then, the launch of the 5th Year of Showa series appears to have caught backpack developers in midstride, still leaving much of what they hoped to achieve unaccomplished.
The only real achievement was that they finally got rid of most of the fur, leaving it only on the side that came into contact with the soldier’s back. Why that?. As the fur served as protection against rain, I would have thought that the side in contact with the soldier’s back had least need for fur. I will later provide my version of the explanation as to why they did such a half-cocked thing, but quite clearly, they would have wanted to be rid of fur completely, if they could.
By 1912, they were able to achieve satisfactory degrees of water repellency in shelter halves by tweaking the weaving patterns and working on the dyes, so it is quite clear that the breakthrough achieved with the shelter half was now having a knock-on effect in ridding fur from the pack.
Other than fur being replaced by canvass for the most part, I can only point to the simplification to the inner frame as something new, for which they no longer applied any lacquer-coated cloth reinforcements to the 4 posts.
1934 May: Rucksack style Prototype Backpacks go into field tests
The Type Sho-5 backpack was clearly a half-cocked creation that only got launched as an interim solution, as the army developers had something more radical already in the works at that, but not ready yet to see the light of day.
Hence already on 14th October 1930, only 6 months after the Sho-5 launch, first prototype specs for a cloth pack came off the drawing board to be tested. They seemed determined to take backpacks to their final stage of evolution to what official documents described as a “rucksack type リュックサック式”.
Technically, this consisted of two main challenges. One was to rid the pack of the remaining fur and along with it all the leather straps. The other challenge was to drop the wooden frame that gave the pack a suitcase like rigidity that could cause a hard edge to bite into the back, causing discomfort and fatigue in long marches.
This was put to field tests at least from 1932, and on 31st May 1934, another letter went out to troops in Manchuria requesting a new round of tests of backpacks in rucksack configurations to be tested from mid June 1934 until late March 1935.
375 pieces of enlisted men’s rucksacks, 20 pieces of an officer’s version, and a further 100 pieces of rucksack style tube packs for transport troop use were supplied for this round of tests in Northern Manchuria. Feedback sought was (1) Ease of movement in combat, and implications to long marches, (2) Degree of water repellency in rain, (3) Whether contents were sufficiently protected from damage, (4) Durability and (5) Ease and comfort of wearing.
The men’s rucksacks were improved from earlier 1932 prototypes in the following aspects.
1. Redesigned to raise the center of gravity higher
2. Making attaching and detaching of mess tins easier
3. Improved water repellency
This rucksack configuration, at least for men’s backpacks seemed to show promise to the extent that, in January, 1939 as many as 20,000 pieces were delivered to troops in Manchuria. And army ordinance 1389 dated 1st May 1939 switched all replacement supplies to troops exclusively to the rucksack design. (This same ordinance restricted the issue of felt field caps only to inland troops as well as those stationed in Taiwan and Korea, not to combat troops in Manchuria and China, who were to be issued the proper wool field caps.).
Because of the severe material shortages brought on by the outbreak of the China Incident of 1937, the Rucksacks virtually became contingency specs in the same league as rubberized canvass ammo pouches and felt field caps.
The main body of this cloth pack was 30 cm wide, 30 cm high and 10 cm thick. The cloth was in two layers, the inside being white. 10 metal rings of 20 mm diameter were sewn onto the outside and the equipment got tied onto these rings using canvass straps. The lid flap was closed with two buttons and the mess tin was attached to the front.
In this way, the rucksack designs, which entered testing in Northern Manchuria in 1932 had virtually become the standard backpack for the entire army by May 1939, but they continued to be described as prototypes, as the army still had ambitions to take the design another step further, as the Type 99 Backpack, launched later that year.
Thus many examples of these rucksack prototypes exist with manufacturing dates of 1938 and 1939. By that time, some of the straps, now in canvass instead of tan leather, came with metal-covered tips identical to what was used in the 1938 Type bread bags introduced in April 1938.
The Evolution of the Japanese Imperial Army Backpacks (1874-1945)
.
Bookmarks