Legally rebutting the existence of a Type 3 Army Officer's Sword

[Nick Komiya]

The only excuse given to support the designation of "Type 3 Army Officer's Sword" by its proponents has been to say that "an edict was issued in 1943, but somehow got lost".

I already explained that even if the original copy of the edict could have been mislaid in the archives, Government Gazettes would have announced it, and all gazettes issues are still available. So if there were such a thing as a Type 3 sword announced, it would surely show in one of the gazette issues of 1943.

A total of 300 issues of government gazettes were released in 1943, and only 4 issues out of that announced changes in the Army Uniform Regulations (Gunto was part of the uniform regulations). The 4 announcements were----

1. 1st April 1943 Army Ordinance 23 regarding alternative materials allowed in uniform related production
2. 19th August 1943 Army Ordinance 66 regarding arm patch insignia
3. 13th October 1943 Edict 774 announcing the Type 3 uniforms
4. 10th December 1943 Army Ordinance 99 regarding further alternative materials allowed in uniform related production

Thus all 300 issues for 1943 has been checked to verify the Type 3 Gunto claim, which only served to prove that there never was such a designation as a "Type 3" for the simplified contingency spec alternative to the Type 98 Gunto.

[Bruce Pennington]

I finally found the source of the "Type 3"name! It's in Ohmura's discussion of the model here: 三式軍刀制定

He said it came in the "Raguru Magazine". The page is in Japanese, but the Google translate gives that name. The page states that the idea of the model was originally called "temporary" or "for the time being", but later became a "revision". By 1943 there was a order making it official (my words) without making it a 'Type' from Imperial edict. The order talked of the "revised exterior" for the 98. But he says it never made it into the 1943 Uniform revisioin. Much discussion about it being a "decisive battle weapon" but not a "formal" replacement for the Type 98.

[Nick Komiya]

Bruce, I have been aware of that source of the Type 3 name for years. "Ranru" was just a magazine catering to antique lovers and no publication with any authority. Ohmura-san simply has no knowledge about army weapons development lingo, that is all.

Specifically, he does not know the difference between the term "仮制式 Kari-Seishiki (Provisional Standard)" and "臨時制式 Rinji-Seishiki (Contingency Spec)". He thinks both these terms mean the same thing and mixes them up.

Weapons that need extended field tryouts are tentatively launched as Kari-Seishiki (So the Type 14 pistol was launched as the Kari-Seishiki Type 14) and after some years of building up a track record and reputation in the field, they would remove the "Kari-Seishiki" preface, at which time, it becomes a fullfleged "Type".

"Rinji-Seishiki" on the other hand is a term meaning "Temporary Stand-in Spec", when for some reason the true "Type" cannot be produced, etc. It is not meant to supplant the official model, so once the problems are set aside, it gets phased out and hands the crown back to the official type.

The sword in question was introduced as a temporary stand-in for the Type 98 sword, but Ohmura-san is badly confused and claims that it was introduced as a Provisional Type destined to become an official Type, if satisfactory. He just does not know that Kari-Seishiki and Rinji-Seishiki have totally different status in army lingo. Unfortunately both words share the same nature of not being "Official" but temporary or tentative, which may sound like synonyms to the uninitiated, so to a layman like Ohmura-san they end up indistinguishable.

This might be a good occasion to officially introduce you to the government gazette publication. See here for how the legal process works in Japan and gets publicized in the Gazette National Printing Bureau - Official Gazette Overview

or here is Wikipedia Kanpō (Japanese government gazette) - Wikipedia


Here's also a comparison of both words in the dictionary.

仮 - English translation – Linguee
臨時 - English translation – Linguee

[Bruce Pennington]

That’s really good to know, thanks Nick! I suppose if there were an abundance of swords during the war, the changes being tried out with the Rinji-seishiki would have either been incorporated into the Type 98, or the temp model would have phased out. But I am guessing because of the shortage of swords, the model was never phased out.

[Nick Komiya]

Unfortunately the original thread on the Rinji-Seishiki Sword is closed, so I will add this here.

In the original post I showed the original development mandate of 16th Feb. 1938 in post 1. Further in post 3 of that thread, I gave details of the reply to that mandate as given by the army weapon developers two years later.

I now show that official reply below. Based on this report to Tojo, the army made the press release on the new sword that various newspapers picked up in their mid-January 1941 issues. Although the mandate had anticipated 80 Yen for the whole sword, it was now anticipated to be 110 Yen. (I noticed Bruce giving the old figure of 80 Yen in another forum).

Newspapers obediently reported production for 1941 onward to be 3000/year, but there the army hit a snag and they failed to achieve this, requiring them to introduce sword rental schemes by late 1941.

[Gunto]

What about year 41 or 42?

[Nick Komiya]

What about year 41 or 42?

Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking could there have been an Emperor's Edict in 41 or 42? No, no such edict ever came, as the Minister of the Army was fully empowered to introduce Rinji specs. So Tojo's approval given on 17th August 1940 had the same effect as an edict and served as the green light for launch. Besides, as already mentioned, the army obviously held a press conference in January 1941 to promote the Rinji-Seishiki Sword, and if it had been an item requiring the Emperor's approval in the form of an edict, the edict had to be issued in December or January BEFORE a press launch. That would have made the sword a Type 0 or Type 1 and no Type 3.

Why did the Army stage a press launch back then? That is, because something launched without an edict is not made public in the form of a gazette announcement, and being a voluntary purchase choice between a Type 98 and the shabby looking Rinji Model, they badly needed to generate a lot of positive spin to promote sales of the Rinji model.

Or were you asking why didn't they really sell the Rinji Sword until 1943, what held up production in 1941 and 1942? So far, no army documents spell out an answer to that question. The truth may even be as simple as the shabby looks simply didn't generate demand, but by 1943 restrictions on using materials like copper and brass on Type 98 swords got so tight that production simply needed to switch to the Rinji model.

[Nick Komiya]

"Why didn't the Rinji-Seishiki Sword take off till 1943" seems to be a topic of concern to many collectors. So let me give you a few facts that would have made it an unattractive purchase for officers.

1. It was clearly announced in the press that it was Not an Emperor-endorsed regulation sword. The army did not spill the beans by frankly admitting that it was a temporary stop-gap Rinji-Seishiki model, but all the papers made it sound like an experimental model that might have the chance of becoming an official Type later. A conservative army officer would not have wanted to buy something half legitimate that had limited validity, when a Type 98 sword was 100% kosher with the Emperor's stamp of approval and valid after the war as well.

2. Back then, as of May 1941, uniform purchase subsidies to officers fully supported a full Gunto and a Ceremonial Sword purchase by a newly appointed officer, but those who wanted a second sword or a replacement only got an annual Gunto allowance of 1/10. By February 1944, this additional Gunto allowance got further reduced to 1/20. Thus your first sword was fully supported, but further purchases were outright discouraged by the system. Shown below is the subsidy scale announced on 30th May 1941. Items marked by a small circle (Gunto and Ceremonial Saber) on top indicate items that required a signed purchase permit from the unit commander.

All in all not many would have wanted to gamble with their first sword purchase.

[Nagoya10]

"Why didn't the Rinji-Seishiki Sword take off till 1943" seems to be a topic of concern to many collectors. So let me give you a few facts that would have made it an unattractive purchase for officers.

1. It was clearly announced in the press that it was Not an Emperor-endorsed regulation sword. The army did not spill the beans by frankly admitting that it was a temporary stop-gap Rinji-Seishiki model, but all the papers made it sound like an experimental model that might have the chance of becoming an official Type later. A conservative army officer would not have wanted to buy something half legitimate that had limited validity, when a Type 98 sword was 100% kosher with the Emperor's stamp of approval and valid after the war as well.

2. Back then, as of May 1941, uniform purchase subsidies to officers fully supported a full Gunto and a Ceremonial Sword purchase by a newly appointed officer, but those who wanted a second sword or a replacement only got an annual Gunto allowance of 1/10. By February 1944, this additional Gunto allowance got further reduced to 1/20. Thus your first sword was fully supported, but further purchases were outright discouraged by the system. Shown below is the subsidy scale announced on 30th May 1941. Items marked by a small circle (Gunto and Ceremonial Saber) on top indicate items that required a signed purchase permit from the unit commander.

All in all not many would have wanted to gamble with their first sword purchase.

The Subsidy Scale you posted a photo of, is one of the columns showing the Subsidy for a pistol or handgun purchase? If so, which column would it be? Thanks

[Nick Komiya]

No, handguns were weapons and not a uniform item. The officer's sword was a uniform item, but the NCO Type 95 was a weapon. Uniform items could not be established without the Emperor's signature, but weapons only needed the Minister of the Army to sign.