japanese and american weapons?

Question

what are the difference of the american and japanese weapons used during the WW2, especially on its size and shape? and what are the importance of these differences?


please indicate the site if any. and i am thanking all of you in advance!

Answer 1

Just off the top of my head heres a few

Tanks = huge difference and big advantage for the U.S.

U.S. Tanks were heavily armoured, whereas Japanese Tanks were lightly armoured and could often be taken out by machine gun fire. This was due to the lack of steel in Japan.

Airplanes = about even

U.S. emphasised more on pilot protection with steel constuction and a steel plate behind the pilot to prevent them from being shot in the back. Thus a slower aircraft able to take more punishment. The Japanese aircraft were mostly comprised of wood, thus lighter, faster, and more manueverable, but, more suseptable to damage if hit, and protected the pilot less. ALso, Japan did not ahve a long range bomber, as the Americans did.

Seapower was fairly similar, although the caliber of the weapon systems on Destroyers, cruisers, and Battleships often differed from the Americans who typically had set standards for warship size. One major difference was the super structures on both battleships and aircraft carriers by the Japanese were often elaborate pagota designs, which looked nice, but were more suseptible to damage from battles.

As far as small arms weapon systems, obviously different standard issue rifles for each side, and of course, different types of crew served weapons as well.

Theres tons of sites I am sure you can look for, but try the Book series "Janes" there are many titles to search for such as Janes fighting ships of WWII, or Janes Aircraft of World WarII, I think you get the idea. Good Luck.

Answer 2

The IJA was by a huge margin an infantry army. The older Arisaka rifle in 6.5mm was a bit small. They, the Italians, and quite a few other countries (but not Sweden) had made some attempt before the war to switch to larger calibers, though the 6.5 remained the main weapon. The newer 7.7mm was more similar to the US 30-06, but the Arisaka was a very long (especially for the average Japanese soldier's height) bolt action rifle, where the primary weapon of the US serviceman was the M1 Garand, a semi-automatic, or self-loading, rifle of superior design. The 30 caliber Browning machine gun was a heavy, cumbersome, and outmoded weapon that was still miles ahead of the Japanese counterpart. Japanese grenades were offensive stick grenades of limited power, vs. the defensive fragmentation grenades, not to mention the other types, issued to GI's. The 40 mm Japanese "knee mortar" (really just a small grenade launcher) had no US equivalent, but neither in the other direction did the US rocket launcher (bazooka) or flamethrower. The Japanese light tank was lighter than the American Stuart in armor and armament, and not as nimble, and the Japanese had no medium tank to counter the M4 Sherman. Artillery tubes of all sizes was roughly equal, but the US had many more, they were much more mobile, and US fire control was immeasurably better.
The Japanese had a torpedo plane/bomber that was probably overall somewhat better than the one that President Bush flew. And the Japanese fighter planes were better at the beginning of the war, faster and more maneuverable but with less pilot protection compared to the American, but the former did almost no upgrading during the war and the latter were quickly to get more and better planes. And the Japanese had no heavy bomber equivalent to the B17 or B24, much less the B29. Naval weaponry differences were not so great, but doctrine (especially with the submarine forces) and leadership, not to mention industrial productivity, gave the US a significant edge.

Answer 3

The types of weapons used during the war were similiar, at least at the start. The best fighter aircraft was the Japanese Zero, the best torpedo was the Japanese long lance. For small arms, the Garand rifle was far superior to the bolt action Ariska rifles. From the middle to the end of the war, Americans used radar on ships and planes, the Japanese did not. This gave the Americans a superior tactical edge, especially fighting at night. American fighter and bomber aircraft ability later exceeded the Zero and one other factor about aircraft caused many Japanese losses - the Japanese aircraft didn't have self sealing fuel tanks, so almost any hit lead to a fire, nor did their pilots have parachutes. Toward the end of the war, the number of aircraft carriers (US) far exceeded the number of Imperial carriers and the Japanese didn't have the industrial capacity to build new carriers. Of course, at the end, the US had the atomic weapon. Japan's development was very far behind.
A big factor in the war was intelligence, the US could read, after the war started, the Japanese codes and this lead to their defeat at Midway and the killing of Adm. Yamamoto in 1943. Midway was the turning point of the war and placed the Japanese on the defensive instead of offensive tactics.
Another factor that lead to many Japanese casualities was their refusal to surrender and to fight to the death. This idea of warfare caused the death of thousands of Japanese men that could not be replaced at the front.

Answer 4

The Japanese infantry weapons were typically of smaller caliber than American ones. They were also generally less reliable. These smaller caliber weapons (bullet size was smaller) also had a smaller cartridge (the gunpowder amount was reduced). This meant that the weapon lacked the power that American ones had. The rifles and machines guns were also usually a bit smaller and lighter than American guns.
In terms of aircraft, the Japanese usually used lighter, less armored planes than the Americans. During the first years of the war the Japanese planes could outperform (maneuver better, better speed) the American ones. The American planes were better protected and could take more damage. As the war progressed ,American planes began to catch up in performance with the Japanese planes while still retaining their original toughness.

The other answers are correct on tanks.

Answer 5

Nonsense. a million - of path they have been hydrogen explosions. Nuclear explosions, even on the smallest achieveable scale, do no longer purely injury one development. they might have obliterated the finished plant, no longer knock over a development. 2 - Stuxnet replace into centred at Iran, and it attacked centrifuges, no longer cooling platforms. 3 - The administration rods have been inserted, however the gasoline rods have been nonetheless particularly warm. additionally they nonetheless produce radiation without fission. Coupled with the destruction of the backup turbines, the cooling device would desire to no longer cool the gasoline. 4 - Nonsense. As mentioned above, a nuclear weapon would have obliterated the plant and the encircling section. 5 -So? that's little greater efficient than basically blaming 'the Jews'. 6 - synthetic earthquakes, interior the snese which you recommend, are impossible to create. A nuclear explosion on the seabed would have been patently obvious. in spite of everything, the earthquake replace into measured via seismologists to have occured deep interior the subduction zone, no longer on the seafloor.

Answer 6

~At the end, the US become the only nation (an "honor" still claimed to this date) to use nukes and the Japanese could only counter with suicide pilots and TNT, much like the Muslims of today. As to sites, I can only commend your attention to Iwo Jima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima and the World Trade Center.

Answer 7

wikipedia

Answer 8

I think the japanese study harder and longer.
I also think that they watch americans and learn from their mistakes. like fro example in china everyone there carry more then one phone and they have more high tech phones than america