[Nagoya10]

Just got my copy today from Doss White and am quite happy with it. I see that Doss did the bayonet section as it shows just 2 bayonets, a hook guard and straight guard. Found lots of great info. You guys did a remarkable job and it is a WELL put together book.

One thing I wanted to discuss though was the Table 3 production chart on page 15. It shows that Nagoya 10th series production was in the 4th quarter of 1944, with 11th series production spanning 1st and 2nd quarters of 1945 with 12th series production in the 3rd quarter. This does not compute with the figures in MRoJ, on page 104 of the 5th edition. It shows that fiscal year 1945 (April 1, 1945 to end of production, probably July or August, 1945) there were 107,144 T-99 produced. If this is the case, then the 1,000 (believed) 12th series, the entire 11th series and about 6,000 of the 10th series was produced in fiscal 1945. This would put nearly all 10th series production in (actual) 1945 with just the first few thousand at the end of 1944. By my rough computations, from at least early 1944 on, a complete series at Nogoya could be completed in 3-4 months. Also, and I am sure this is only a typo, under the Toyo Kogyo production, the 34th series is left off.

Maybe the authors had access to different production info, and if that is so its great. I would believe that the heavy bombing campaign of Nagoya and other areas would disrupt supply and production, but fredh did get those numbers from Japanese sources connected with Nagoya. Judging by the accelerated crudity of the later Nagoya T-99's I cant believe that it took near the time to complete each rifle as it did from early 1944 to the beginning of production so a series should take much less time to complete, all things equal. Also fredh had mentioned in a post a while back that the rifle production buildings at Nagoya did not get hit by bombing, but were disguised as already bombed buildings.

Just my thoughts thrown out for discussion purposes. But the book is outstanding and I can't put it down.

 

[Ronin48]

Book

Good analysis. Don't think we will ever know for sure, but unless the bull is taken by the horns, as was done in this book, we really hve no starting point. In the first edition I attempted the same chart with production startind in late 39 as noted in MRoJ and "Longs produced before Shorts." Unfortuntely one or two took this as the true skinny and started posting, when asked about manufacturing dates, "your rifle was mde in the 3rhd qtr. of 1944" etc.

A second printing is scheduled in a week or so, hopefully we can catch some of the 'glitches' that appeared in the first. After you read a manuscript five or six times, you read it as it should be and not as it is, no excuse, just fact!

 

[03man]

Thanks for the comments.

The Production chart by series was the toughest part to do, and I knew it would be the most controversial.

We did have more recent data, it is footnoted and came from Edokko's and Stan's recent findings in the Japanese sources.

Using the excel chart, one had to choose a quarter to place the series, it could just as easily have been placed a quarter sooner or later- as these are only estimates.

It is only a guide, not gospel; but people always are asking 'when was my rifle made'; so I took a stab at putting the chart together.

Thanks for finding the missing 34th. I'll make a note to included it next time!

 

[Nagoya10]

You guys did a fantastic job on this book and the production chart is fine as is, as it is a good reference guide. You are right, no one right now seems to know for sure when series were made. It is one of those mysteries we may never know for sure about. If only the rifles had been year and month stamped like the pistols, then we would all know production rates!

 

[03man]

Nag10,
you are right, if they had date stamped the rifles, all would be in order.

The Jinsen data were especially challenging as Jinsen repaired as many or more rifles than they made.

 

[Nagoya10]

Yes Jinsen is a bigger mystery it seems. I have an affinity for Jinsen and want to find out as much as possible about the Arsenal but so little is available. The article in Banzai recently is the most info I have seen on Jinsen to date. I believe it was written by Stan Zielinksi? I believe it was his contention that T-99 production did not start until late 1944 upon receipt of manufacturing machinery. That would make sense since they only produced one (known) series of the T-99 and 6-8 months should be more than enough time to do it in. Although it would seem strange that there would be a down time between T-38 production and T-99 and a need for machinery. I am not a manufacturer, but I would think existing T-38 machinery could be fairly easily re-tooled for T-99 production. Maybe the T-38 machinery was shipped out when that production ended, used for something else or maybe Jinsen T-38's used mostly subcontracted parts? Maybe the upcoming T-38 book will shed light on this.

 

[03man]

I do not make the same interpretation of the data Stan presented. Perhaps there is more unpublished data, or you did not see all the Banzai data.

With Jinsen producing the T38; transition to the 99 would have been fairly easy.

Jinsen produced virtually all versions of the T99 from early to late; indicating production from at least 1942 to 1945. Their production rate was quite low.

Refer to the recent issues of Banzai where Stan reported his findings.

 

[garfield]

Nag10:

IMHO, you worry yourself overly with the "maybe's" and the "could have beens". While no one should shut their mind to newly found information, theories, unfounded in fact, stated as declatations of fact when in reality no such facts are in evidence, do nothing to advance our collective interests, i.e., did Alice really go down a rabbit hole?

 

[03man]

Like the caveman said, 'Huh'?

New facts are in evidence, and your statement or question is puzzling.

Want to post a question or rebuttal, in fact? Even a definition of 'you' would be helpful.

 

[Nagoya10]

Nag10:

IMHO, you worry yourself overly with the "maybe's" and the "could have beens". While no one should shut their mind to newly found information, theories, unfounded in fact, stated as declatations of fact when in reality no such facts are in evidence, do nothing to advance our collective interests, i.e., did Alice really go down a rabbit hole?

Its my thoughts, as stated. Without "theories, unfounded in facts" there would be little to discuss in this field. And some of these theories can end up being proven as factual. Most of the publications that we use in this hobby are full of "theories, unfounded in fact" because that is all there is to go on sometimes.

 

[garfield]

Like the caveman said, 'Huh'?

New facts are in evidence, and your statement or question is puzzling.

Want to post a question or rebuttal, in fact? Even a definition of 'you' would be helpful.

I suspected that the comment would go over your head, however, since you became a moderator, seems that you feel obligated to comment on most posts.

 

[Mike Rockhill]

I don't think he is poking at the production timetables portion of the discussion. I believe he is poking at Nag10's bit about tool up time, type 38 to 99 conversion, and machines used for this that and the other and shipped here there and where ever, Which is speculation. and to each his own but sometimes speculation can get quite carried away, and we have to make sure that these theories stay as such until proved correct or incorrect and make sure that they don't, overtime become confused with fact. The entire gun collecting culture seems to be always struggling against "facts" from long ago that were, actually speculation carried too far.

 

[sssniper]

I think what some are missing is the books are being shipped !! Really looking forward to my copy. Skid

 

[garfield]

I don't think he is poking at the production timetables portion of the discussion. I believe he is poking at Nag10's bit about tool up time, type 38 to 99 conversion, and machines used for this that and the other and shipped here there and where ever, Which is speculation. and to each his own but sometimes speculation can get quite carried away, and we have to make sure that these theories stay as such until proved correct or incorrect and make sure that they don't, overtime become confused with fact. The entire gun collecting culture seems to be always struggling against "facts" from long ago that were, actually speculation carried too far.

Thank you. Those were the very words that I was searching for.

 

[Ronin48]

Might as well kick in my one CSA cent, that's about what it's worth. (Actually CSA money was selling for BIG bucks at the recent show.) Someone presents a theory, does not label it as "fact," just his idea of what the truth may be, others "worry" with it until the clouds break and hopefully the sun (truth) shines through. As noted in a thread above there has to be a starting point if we are to find answers to the unknown.

It's like the mum defacement problem, we know both the Japanese and U. S. did it and we know why the Japanese did. We can only speculate why our side did. But from this speculation we may hit on a conclusion that could well turn out to be the truth?

But as Garfield said (hate to agree with Garfield) we should label our attempts at speculating on what happened almost 70 years ago as our best analysis of what may have happened.

 

[03man]

Garfield,
I had no idea of what you said or meant to say, and yes I do feel obligated to comment on such obtuse posts.

Only trying to keep the string understandable.

Mike,
Thanks much for your fine interpretation.

 

[garfield]

Garfield,
..... and yes I do feel obligated to comment on such obtuse posts.

Well, I reckon that is one way to jack your post count up.

 

[03man]

Well, I reckon that is one way to jack your post count up.

No more than your making them in the first place.

 

[garfield]

Garfield,
I had no idea of what you said or meant to say, and yes I do feel obligated to comment on such obtuse posts.

QUOTE]

Obtuse is, as obtuse does. With that in mind, should an occasion arise where I feel that getting my point accross is an imperative, I will attach a diagram.

 

[Edokko]

This thread, is totally amusing..... I can almost feel poetry in Bill's (Garfield's) postings.

Don, just got back from Japan a few hours ago and found your book in the stack of mail. Can't wait to delve into it. thanks very much !!