You are, in the field of firearms history what is known as a BS Artist. Japanese machine guns during the battle of Guadalcanal weren't "crappy". They were odd-looking to Western eyes but they were good, serviceable designs that acquitted themselves well - too well. The Type 92 and the Type 96 "Nambu" in particular were deadly and reliable. Japanese pistols were good designs too but in an ineffective caliber compared to the .45. The Imperial Japanese Army had excellent light howitzers and best of all, the 50mm grenade projector also known as the "Knee Mortar". According to analysis made after the war, it accounted for 60% of all of our infantry casualties against the Japanese in WW II.
Pump shotguns had zero to negligible effect during any of the battles.
The difference was that the US forces seized the key terrain around the airfield and organized effective defenses. The Japanese underestimated the numbers and quality of the US forces and expended their men in futile and wasteful mass attacks. The 37mm canister round was particularly useful during these attacks.
Both sides had high-quality troops but the Americans had the ground and the enemy had to punch through long reaches of very tough terrain to get to our defenses and by the time they reached our perimeters, they were unable to effectively coordinate their actions and breach the defenses. We were also supported by excellent artillery made up of 75mm and 105mm howitzers that were well directed and courageously served. In the end, disease and starvation thinned the rest of them out and we held the field.
Try not to make simplistic statements about weapons - without first doing the research.
Turns out I have other matters to attend to in life. But as you feel slighted, I'll do what I can with your additional statements.
You are, in the field of firearms history what is known as a BS Artist.
Hmmm, I'm starting to feel that you might be an expert on BS artists, with inside perspective. I've been a collector for 20 years, held many positions in organizations dedicated to historical firearms, but I haven't held the BS artist position yet. I'll look into it.
Japanese machine guns during the battle of Guadalcanal weren't "crappy". They were odd-looking to Western eyes but they were good, serviceable designs that acquitted themselves well - too well. The Type 92 and the Type 96 "Nambu" in particular were deadly and reliable.
Being a copy of the French Hotchkiss M1914, I don't know why it would look weird to an army that had used the Hotchkiss 20 years prior. However, like the Hotchkiss, the Type 92 used the stiff clip feed, that hindered its sustained fire role, led to jamming, and required constant attention from another gun handler. It prevented it from being used effectively while on the move, like the MG42 or even the M1919. The Japanese tried to solve the jamming issue by adding an integral oiler that brused each round, something that might work at the range, but only added to problem in a dirty environment.
The Type 96 was an adequate weapon, generally superior to the BAR, but it wasn't a heavy machine gun. Having a box magazine, it was functionally more of a squad automatic weapon.
Japanese pistols were good designs too but in an ineffective caliber compared to the .45.
Hah! That's funny. One of the model 94s more noteworthy failings is an exposed sear release that is prone to firing the pistol when the slide it touched from the side, like holstering it. To say that the chambering was ineffective is to dismiss a primary weaknes and undersells the fact that a heavier chambering would destroy the weak design.
The Imperial Japanese Army had excellent light howitzers and best of all, the 50mm grenade projector also known as the "Knee Mortar". According to analysis made after the war, it accounted for 60% of all of our infantry casualties against the Japanese in WW II.
Artillery always accounted for the lion share of battlefield casualties in WW2. And although light howitzers and mortors are handy in the jungle, the lack of heavy artillery was a major failing, especially on Okinawa.
Pump shotguns had zero to negligible effect during any of the battles.
Nice job mistating was I said. I didn't say they were a major factor in victory. I said that they were one of the few weapons on Guadalcanal that reliably went bang after 3 days in the jungle. If my great uncle were still alive, I'd let him know that you find his personal accounts of U.S. infantry weapons running from Guadalcanal to Okinawa to be video game derived BS.
The difference was that the US forces seized the key terrain around the airfield and organized effective defenses. The Japanese underestimated the numbers and quality of the US forces and expended their men in futile and wasteful mass attacks. The 37mm canister round was particularly useful during these attacks.
The Japanese held it first, and they too defended it. You've stated an outcome, not a strategy or tactic.
Both sides had high-quality troops but the Americans had the ground and the enemy had to punch through long reaches of very tough terrain to get to our defenses and by the time they reached our perimeters, they were unable to effectively coordinate their actions and breach the defenses. We were also supported by excellent artillery made up of 75mm and 105mm howitzers that were well directed and courageously served. In the end, disease and starvation thinned the rest of them out and we held the field.
I think you are now making my point.
Try not to make simplistic statements about weapons - without first doing the research.
If you don't own a mirror, purchase one today.