So you are in fact an expert in firearms and firearms history? Great... So let's get cracking.
The Type 92 machinegun had a reputation for being very reliable and the training of the Japanese assistant gunners offset the weakness of using the stiff and short-winded Hotchkiss style clips. The key metrics were that it worked very reliably throughout the war and like any other machine gun that worked well, it was feared. The Type 96 had an almost cult following, with the high-pitched crack of it 6.5mm caliber and the nearly smokeless/flashless powder. It was a favorite souvenir when it could be captured. Once again, it was known to be effective, dependable, and was used throughout the Pacific war.
Japanese pistols were adequate for what pistols do in combat: work as essentially a semiautomatic knife for very close combat. Both the Type 94 and the Type 14 were rugged and reliable pistols. The Type 94 is supremely ugly and usually crude but it works fine. The exposed sear bar doesn't make the pistol "go off when you put it in the holster" - it takes a firm squeeze to fire the pistol using the sear bar which is recessed below the surface of the slide. Pistols don't make very much difference in combat. As the joke goes, they're for officers to use on themselves when they screw up.
You gloss over the role of the Type 98 50mm Grenade Projector - it isn't just part of the artillery and mortar heap you assign it to. It was a squad infantry weapon which used a 50mm HE point detonating projectile accurately out to 300 yards or standard infantry grenades with a small propellant cup out to 120 yards. Each projectile contained almost a pound of TNT and it was an excellent fragmenter - it was a machine gun killer by design. It's employment envelope corresponded exactly to the operating range of most machine guns and had the precision to nail one with a first shot in the hands of an experienced gunner. Like I said before, that particular weapon was the main source of our casualties in the Pacific.
You are incorrect about the Japanese "defending the airfield": they didn't the few combat troops and majority construction troops fled when the 1st MarDiv landed. The Marines seized the airfield immediately and intact including all of the Japanese supplies, facilities and construction equipment and radios and even the icemaker and then set up the first of several defensive perimeters. Once the Marines were in place the Japanese hid in the jungle until the reinforcing forces under Col Ishiki arrived and the Col. Ishiki made the fatal mistake of attacking immediately across the Ilu River and getting his forces annihilated. Primarily by M1919s, by the way.
We could talk for days, I'm sure but we both knew veterans of that fight. I have the additional advantage of having spent decades actually using infantry weapons and supporting arms for real and in training. And some 13 years developing new ones for the Marine Corps.
Blanket statements like "the Japanese machine guns were crappy" attract my attention, every time.
You are now a waste of my time. The worst type of bloviator and everything you are charging others as being.
My previous responses stand as adequate proof to anyone reading this thread, that you are ignorant of the weapons you propose to lecture on. Quickly retreating from stating Japanese pistols were excellent, to stating that pistols don’t matter.
Once again I have better things to do than repeatedly disprove your unsubstantiated assertions. Like the know-it-all at the end of the bar, I’ll leave you to stand in the room alone, declaring that everyone else’s lack of interest makes you the victor.