I enjoyed reading this thread Nick, i must say i appreciate you taking the time on one of your "non interest" topics to reveal more from the archives.
Thanks to you and all others who have added to this thread and made it what it is.
I have a few questions i will ask later on when i get some more time.
Thought i would add some pictures of the Early handle casts to this thread if you don't mind.
Ernie, thanks for joining the thread with those fantastic photos.
All the spec change tracking documents I put up were documents that accompanied detailed manufacturing drawings, which incorporated those latest changes, so they were meant to be read with those drawings at one's side to refer to. I thought those changes would become clear by looking at the end products, but I suppose it's not that easy. Anyway, it was worth a try.
There were as many as 174 sets of those drawings distributed within the Army to keep files updated, so there might be surviving examples somewhere. I don't know whether they were too big to be digitized or simply missing from the archives.
Even during the time when the handle was in copper, there was at least one spec change on 4th December 1935. But unlike the later changes, they documented no details of the changes, only which drawings had to be replaced with the attached new ones. The drawings to be replaced were of the grip and a ring thereof. What survives of that spec update looks like below.
By the way, the June 1939 change says about the Mekugi Screw, " In order to ensure a snug fit to the handle, the shape of the nut was changed and the threading on the body was shortened by 0.5mm". This sounds like it is referring to the head of the screw being countersunk at that time.
Here's another piece in the Type 95 Sword historical document patchwork.
It appears the Emperor got to see the Type 95 sword for the first time in September of 1935. The Army made an exhibit of all its new weapons at its technical center. The demonstration included driving demonstrations of the new Type 95 Heavy Tank and many other Type 95 items like the Type 95 gas mask.
A lot of valuable knowledge
Nice to see you Ern! Great pics and insight as always.
May I suggest that the change to the tsuka ring may have been referring to the sarute, which changed from a leather loop to copper wire. There are very few original leather sarute remaining and if the handle is disassembled it is likely to damage them if extreme care is not taken. That would have made repair and retrofitting difficult, not to mention leather being a rather flimsy choice.by nick komiya
The change to the tsuka... not as certain. I cannot say I have noticed any great difference between the copper handles from early to later designs.
I believe you're quite right on the countersunk screw Nick. Ernie and I both have early aluminium handled swords where the nut on the mekugi-ana bolt is snapped off. It seems that changing the screw and adding additonal protection via countersinking would have been a logical step.
The Sarute change is clearly documented as occurring later on 5th July 1938, as per the spreadsheet shown in post 19. It says under the heading Sarute, " In order to enhance durability, the Sarute is being changed to untempered steel from 褐色多脂牛革 (tan rich oil cowhide)". I suppose that grade of leather is similar to "harness leather".
Hi Nick,
One observation i made about your post #16
Army Ordnance 2110 (6 April 1942) shows how to fix the tassel (knot) with the introduction of the new Tsuba with slot omitted.
The drawing shows what appears to be a brass shaped tsuba with no slot, however i have never seen any such tsuba even in photographs.
Is it possible they went straight to the iron tsuba and did not update the drawing for acurracy?- (as the point being made with the photo was for the fixing of the knot only)
'Transitional' iron Tsuba's do exist where the slot for the locking mechanism is made for both the 'top' and 'side' locking mechanisms, although only the top lock mechanism is generally fitted.
These examples also have a fourth fuchi stamp- the Jinsen acceptance stamp.
I would only guess at these being samples to the Arsenal for production purposes as the slot on the side serves no apparent use except for trial of the new locking mechanism.
BTW- I'm glad you liked the photos, i'll try to add some more to cover the rest of the aluminium tsuka from different subcontractors
I will give you a theory based on documented evidence on your question about iron tsubas.
Iron Tsubas, as mentioned earlier, appear nowhere in documents, although many spec documents exist for 1941/42, making it hard to believe that the documents introducing it simply got lost.
Also, neither of the two knot related decrees feature that type of Tsuba in photos or drawings, though both were issued after the assumed 1941 launch of the iron tsuba. Furthermore, the 1944 inspection manual drawings also do not show any iron tsuba nor wooden handle.
Taking all that together, I am pretty sure that the iron tsuba was never an official spec, but only a Rinji spec during the materials shortage. If they were only Rinji specs, it is natural for the official drawings to continue showing only the brass Tsubas.
Also, regarding use of these Rinji materials, the exhaustive list issued in January 1941 (post 24) does not mention the Tsubas but only the two other brass parts to be converted to nickel-plated iron. Iron tsubas would have made enough sense to have made it into that list, but I suppose the issue of spec harmony with the officer's Type 98 sword prevented the Type 95 from choosing that path first.
However, due to the big press launch of the officer's new Rinji Seishiki Sword, which adopted the simple Tsuba design, by mid January 1941 there would have been a green light given for the NCO sword to adopt the iron tsubas as well. So although no documents say it, I feel it is totally plausible that they came out in 1941, after the launch of the officer's version.
Then on 23rd April 1941, Army Regular notice 2962 changed the official spec of the brass tsuba by taking the slot for the knot attachment out. Unfortunately this particular memo is missing from the archives, but new official drawings of the brass tsubas would have been issued at that time. However, if the iron tsubas, as temporary replacement specs, had already been launched by that time and had gained enough sway to halt brass tsuba production, it could very well be that the brass Tsuba without the slot only existed on paper.
The Army caused a bit of a confusion when on 10th December 1941 (post 15) they issued instructions on how to attach the leather knot to the Tsubas. They had already deleted the Tsuba slot eight months earlier, so the December 1941 knot instructions only applied to pre-April production swords.
And by April 1942, enough post April 1941 production Type 95s would have been issued, which now called for another knot attachment notice issued on 6th April 1942. This ordinance did belatedly admit that the earlier knot notice of 10th December 1941 only applied to pre-April '41 spec swords. Both knot notices ignore the iron tsubas, which would have been quite natural, if that was the NCO version of Rinji Seishiki.
In Summary, just like there was a Rinji Seishiki officer's sword (erroneously called Type 3), a contingency special edition NCO sword ended up being created in 1941 as well (please do not make things worse by calling them Type 3 NCO swords).
Rinji Seishiki items were launched in a lot more casual manner with minimal paperwork, so those documents not having made it into files high-level enough to go into the national archives is quite understandable.
By the way, the common collector's belief that iron Tsubas came out in 1941, what has led collectors to that conclusion? Anyone know where that date came from? Are they dated through photos of known dates or something?
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 08-01-2017 at 04:31 PM.
Hello...
I know that Warrant Officer was the lowest rank of japanese commissioned officers, and as normal Officers they had Kyu Guntò before and then 94 and/or 98. Is it wrong ?Though commonly called an NCO sword, wear was actually limited to senior NCOs, namely Sergeant Major and Warrant Officers. Thus Corporals and Sergeants normally could not wear Type 95 swords unless they were attached to regimental HQ or when they belonged to the mounted branches (Cavalry, Transport or MP).
They received swords by Army administration instead to pay those by themselves ?
Why ?
Thanx for your answers.
The rank you refer to was traditionally regarded as an NCO rank, but gradually joined the rank of officers toward the late 30s. Thus their status regarding equipment shifted over time. I have discussed this in the dog tag story as well as the Golden kite story. See post 45 of this Story of the Golden Kite
By 1937 they were entitled to wear officer's swords, but this was the time when huge shortages of swords and pistols plagued the Army, so a decision was made in July 1937 to sell officers (including warrant officers) Type 95 senior NCO swords from Kokura Arsenal for the price of 33 Yen.
By the way, there is no sword type called a Kyugun-to, though it's a mistake I see often. That is only the antonym of Shingun-to Shin meaning new and Kyu meaning old. So a type 94 was a Kyugun-to already when type 98s were the norm and all military swords are now called kyugunto.
Last edited by Nick Komiya; 09-09-2017 at 03:23 PM.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks