Deflating Another Myth, The Type 3 Army Officer's Sword

[Brian]

I am reposting this with permission of the author, Nick Komiya, who posted it at the Wehrmacht-Awards forum. I thought it well written, interesting, and worth sharing. Let's see what comments there are and if anyone can add anything.

 

Was there an Army Type 3 Officer’s Sword?

Short answer, no there wasn’t such a Type. It was only an emergency variation intended as a production compromise against the serious shortfall of officer swords in the commercial market. It only had the humble aim of being a less face-losing alternative than the prevailing practice of officers being forced to wear Type 95 NCO swords. The army itself did not regard it as a new model, so it should not be called a Type 3 in the first place, but if you insist on a Type designation, it is actually a Type Zero.

I don’t know why this sword became the center of such a mystery even in Japan, as it really is a no brainer and does not take a scholar to figure it out, so long as one has average Japanese reading skills. Let’s dispel this myth before another author makes it into something more fantastic and rare.

The Army Ordinance of 1938

The so-called Type 3 Army Sword was never intended to replace the Type 98, and for this reason Army Ordinance 5668 of 16th September 1938 called it a 臨時制式Contingency/Temporary Standard, not a仮制式 Provisionary Standard, which would have been used had they had the intention of making it standard after it built up a favorable track record. No, it was only meant as a poor man’s economy edition when supply simply could not fulfill the heightened demand caused by the massive mobilization in the China Incident. Perhaps the authors of the myth simply did not know the difference between Provisional Standard and Contingency Standard.

1937 An NCO sword is better than none

By 1937, many new officers found that they could not get hold of any swords to complete their outfits as per regulations. So in desperation, many of them turned to the arsenal, asking that they be allowed to purchase the Type 95 NCO swords as a contingency measure. Finally, on 29th July 1937, their request was granted and it was agreed to let them buy Type 95s at a price of 33 Yen a piece. They were to fill in the private purchase application forms as provided in the July 1937 memo and apply to Kokura or the Tokyo Arsenal directly with the money. Not only officers in the field, but also vets back home were allowed to buy these NCO swords. The army thus ended up with many officers equipped with the wrong swords.

1938 Attempt to Secure Affordable Supply

The ordinance of 1938 proposing the so-called Type 3 came in the wake of this mess, seeking to find a midway solution, and the idea was to have the arsenal make 3000 sword blades annually for direct sales to officers, which should be practical and robust. However, more importantly, the price of the completed sword needed to be below 80 Yen. For this reason, brass was not to be used to keep it strictly utilitarian. It is clear that the army was trying to correct the mess it had created for itself by offering officers who bought the Type 95 to trade up to something that looked more officer-like. In essence, the arsenal was given 47 (80-33) Yen of elbow room to come up with looks upgraded from the Type 95 and making it more like an officer’s sword, but without the bottle neck features that caused the Type 98 to fall so short in production volume. The actual sales to officers were to be through the officer’s club, Kaikosha. They were to follow due process in developing the design and apply for design approval from the Minister of the Army when ready.

1940 Birth of an Economy Version

The application for final go ahead by Army Minister, Tojo came almost a year later on 10 August 1940. The drawing that was originally attached is now missing from this document, but it said a few examples were to be manufactured already that year in 1940 and from 1941 onwards to be increased to the level of 3000 a year. Price was expected to be 110 Yen (80 Yen for the blade, 30 Yen for scabbard and fittings). The arsenal was to conduct the quality inspections and sales were to be through Kaikosha and the Gunjinkaikan. This scheme was endorsed by Tojo on 17th August. If one had to call this sword something, it should have been called the Type Zero instead of a Type 3, because 17th August 1940 was the official green light from Hideki Tojo for this sword variation. It looked fine on paper, but could they really solve the production issues that caused supply to be so restricted?

1941 Type 95 Rent-a-sword program to the Rescue

As expected, despite the forgoing rescue attempt, letting officers have proper swords continued to be a major problem, so further support had to be devised in the form of Army Ordinance 9283 of 23rd December 1941, which allowed officers who could not get their own swords to rent a Type 95 NCO Sword until they could buy one.
A memo of 12th May 1944 further reports on a plan to prepare 160,000 officer swords for sale in the above manner, but by then talk was cheap and reality was grim.

1945 Bring Your Own Samurai Sword Program

Ironically, the army’s action of selling the Type 95s to officers back in 1937 and now renting them away may have contributed in turn to a shortage of Type 95s in 1945, as in May and July, the Army had to repeatedly ease its regulation on NCO swords to the extent that they said NCOs who had family Samurai swords may wear them, so long as they returned issued ones to ease the overall shortage of swords in the army!

Cutting the Myth Down to its True Size

The sword mistakenly called the Type 3 must be rare for two reasons. Firstly, it was a poor man’s version for officers who could not afford the Type 98, so it must have been actually a bit of an embarrassment to own. And secondly, there was now a rental program for Type 95 swords, so one could just rent a NCO sword until one could afford a proper Type 98 sword.

 

Here is the July 1937 application for officers to purchase their Type 95 NCO swords. Part one was the request to buy and the other paper was a note promising to pay the 33 Yen by the date to be designated by the arsenal. One needed to have the unit commander's signature and signet or when one was a veteran that of the regimental district commander.

 

Correction, I wrote that the green light from Tojo was sought one year after the arsenal was given the task to secure production volume, but I should have written 2 years, as the task was set in September 1938, and the outcome only came in August 1940. I frankly doubt that downgrading the quality of fittings would have had much effect on production volume as long as they did not drastically simplify the production process of the blade itself. The army did not want to design a new sword, but just wanted to increase supply of the Type 98. However, it stubbornly clung to labor-intensive traditional methods. In 1940, there was also the overall reorganization of the army arsenal system, and development, production, warehousing and supply were all brought under one roof to streamline the whole flow, instead of having an arsenal and depot as separate entities. Either way, the war in China had brought all the systems in the army close to a rupture and an overall game shift was necessary.
In the same month that Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Japan had already lost its capacity to supply its officers with swords and sold them NCO swords instead. Of course one could not admit such a thing openly to the public at such a crucial time for morale, so they fabricated stories about a new super sword that could slice through a steel helmet, etc but the truth was nowhere close to that.

 

Another initiative to try and secure officer swords under the severe shortages was the Military Sword Appraisal Committee formed at the end of 1938. This was a joint program between the army’s and navy’s officer clubs Kaikosha, Suikosha and the Gunjinkaikan and was supported by the army and navy ministries. The purpose of this committee was to purchase from civilians, Samurai sword blades, which could be used to make guntos for officers.
Because of the shortage, many fraudsters peddled substandard swords to officers, ripping them off, so the committee would provide an appraisal of the blade quality and consult trusted sword dealers regarding an appropriate price to offer.
The documents setting up this committee was signed by Hideki Tojo and Isoroku Yamamoto as both Lt. Generals were chiefs of the two officer clubs as well.
The army was requested to send an officer from the Toyama School as one of the appraisers.
As I already wrote, there was a scheme to let NCOs bring their own Samurai swords in 1945, but you now see that such a system had long been in place for officers.

[SwordGuyJoe]

Brian,

Very interesting. While I cannot challenge any of this, Some of the more learned military collectors may or at least question. Did Nick provide any references? Again, I'm not questioning or attempting to disprove the above, just understanding that many who would be willing to accept this as fact, may want to verify first.

[Peter Bleed]

I am not a gunto collector,  but having seen lots of them,  the dates that are given in the quoted piece just don't add up. There was a lot of brass on swords dated before early '44. In general the prices in this quote seem high.  Likewise, there were lots of what sure look like "family blades" in gunto koshirae before '45. Photographs also clearly  show that there was a great deal of variation in Showa era gunto. A great deal of variation seems to have been  tolerated.  I am glad to have seen this piece, but I am not sure that it is the last word!.

Peter

[Daniel]

If interested here's the link to the original post.

 

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=824972

 

Would be interesting to see if people like George Trotter has something to add...

 

Regards

Daniel

[Daniel]

Hi all

 

I'm sure most of you guys here already read this page. But if you haven't, here it is.

 

http://ohmura-study.net/952.html

 

There is also another page which seems far more interesting but unfortunately it's in Japanese

 

http://ohmura-study.net/286.html#2

 

Maybe one of our Japanese speaking members would be kind and translate the page for us?

 

Kind Regards

Daniel

[george trotter]

Just a quick comment as I am busy on another long-term project and haven't got time to translate Ohmura sensei's site, but my advice is:

Unless the "myth-buster" provides the sources for his comments I would suggest you all stick with Ohmura sensei's information as he appears to be a professional researcher who does provide his sources.

Regards,

[Brian]

George,

Nick is also quite the authority on Japanese research, and I wouldn't be quick to discount this theory.

 

 

The so-called Type 3 Army Sword was never intended to replace the Type 98, and for this reason Army Ordinance 5668 of 16th September 1938 called it a 臨時制式Contingency/Temporary Standard, not a仮制式 Provisionary Standard, which would have been used had they had the intention of making it standard after it built up a favorable track record. No, it was only meant as a poor man’s economy edition when supply simply could not fulfill the heightened demand caused by the massive mobilization in the China Incident. Perhaps the authors of the myth simply did not know the difference between Provisional Standard and Contingency Standard.

 

Source is quoted I guess, just need to post it if it will help. I am sure his research was not taken lightly.

[mauser99]

I commented on Nick's post and that is how I found this fine forum.  I think what he his trying to do is Dismiss the type of sword its been named. 1st NLF  then type 3 ?  I have also heard it called a type44 by some knowledgeable collectors.  His documentation seems to back  this up.  I was shocked to see the shortages were as early as 1938.    Also  I have never seen or heard of one of these "type 3's " with a bladed dated earlier than 43. 

[george trotter]

Hi Brian,

Of course we are all open to new information, but so far it is an unsourced "claim", so let's wait and see what sources he posts.

Regards,

[reeder]

Either way, Type 3/Type 44/NLF is what collectors have identified the fittings as and what have stuck with it being an official name/designation or not. It is a variation made during the war and known as the above, correct or not.

 

Fuller and Gregory Reference the same article and note that they have seen blades dated from 1942 to 1945 in these mounts. I personally have only seen 44 and 45 dated blades in these mounts, but my sample size is much smaller than most of you long time collectors. Some others have noted seeing blades dated as early as 43 in these mounts.

 

In regards to these mounts being the "poor man's sword", I'm with Daniel, I do not know that I buy that general statement as he has noted that we have seen many good blades by good smiths in these mounts.

 

Given the amount of 42-45 dated blades I have seen out in the wild, both in type 98 and type 3 mounts, the drastic shortage does not seem consistent with my personal observations. I rarely see blades dated pre-1940. Maybe the increased production reflects the increased demand and shortage?

[george trotter]

Hi all,

I had a few moments to spare so had a quick look at some info while we wait for some clear sources to be provided.

 

I must say that Mr Komiya may be on to something here...I had another look through Omura sensei's site and it is clear that he refers to this sword as "called the Type 3" or "known as the Type 3", rather than classifying it as the Type 3.

 

On top of that I remember seeing photos dated 1940 and 1942 that showed a Colonel Namio Tatsumi holding what appears to be "a Type 3" ('Hand Cannons of Imperial Japan' 1981) and these photos are discussed in Fuller 'Jap. Mil. and Civ. Swords and Dirks' 1996 page 78. (I was the one who passed the pics on to Richard Fuller when he was writing his book as I thought then that "this photo date must be wrong" in relation to a Type 3 supposedly introduced in 1943 being in existence in 1940/42).

 

As this photo etc seems to uphold Mr Komiya's thesis, maybe now some new (or previously neglected)  information can be placed before the sword collecting fraternity that will finally clarify the "Type 3" question.? From Mr Komiya's writings it seems that the "Type 3" actually has no "Type" designation at all? I hope Mr Komiya will further clarify/show his sources.

 

Hope this helps.

 

PS Can someone post the pics in question from 'Hand Cannons of Imperial Japan' please?

[Brian]

George,

Is this the pic you are referring to?

[george trotter]

Hi Brian,

Yes that is the pic I remember. (BTW although Richard Fuller mentions two pics dated 1940 and 1942, this 1942 pic is the only one I can remember sending him).

I notice that in the pic there are two officers who have what appear to be "Type 3" gunto...that is what I brought to Richard Fuller's attention as an "anomaly"....so, maybe if this 1942 pic is correctly dated (and there is no reason to think otherwise), your friend is right about them appearing from 17 August 1940 and that they were introduced as an "Economy Version" rather than a "Official Type". I think any correcting facts about this would be of interest to collectors so hopefully he can post more detailed info with sources which confirms the commencement dates and Type name? I think it is always good to know the facts.

 

Of course, this raises the question of where Ohmura sensei got his information about the "teachings of battle" indicating a need to strengthen the gunto for combat...perhaps there is some information about this also?

 

Regards,

.

[Brian]

George,

Here is the other pic from the book, dated 1940. Can't easily see the sword, but the wrap is suspiciously close to the "Type 3" pattern?

 

[george trotter]

Oh yes, that's the pic. Well it does look like a "Type 3".  It'll be interesting to see how this matter develops.

Regards,

[pcfarrar]

I also don't recall ever seeing a "type 3" with a blade dated earlier than 1943. Does anyone have an example of a type 3 with a dated blade earlier than 43?

[Daniel]

If the translation is correct? A Sukehiro dated 1941.

 

http://www.japanesesword.com/Images/Swords/07/807/807kat11/807kat11.htm

 

Regards

Daniel

[SwordGuyJoe]

I see Showa 17 - 1942 not 1941, but still ahead of 1943.

[Daniel]

Hi

 

If interested follow this link where Nick Komiya elaborate his reasoning. I think myself and some other collectors at first reacted against the term he used "poor mans sword". If you read through the text you'll see he meant the reason for the MOUNTS were to speed up production, he also says the blades weren't bad quality. As said when I read the first post by Nick at the wehrmachtawards forum I misunderstood and thought he implied all mounts of this type and the blades were low quality. I then suggested this was about the lower quality Type 3 mounts containing Showato. But after reading the additional info provided by Nick I really think he's on the right track...

I think even the higher quality Type 3 Guntokoshirae(those usually containing Gendaito) were faster to produce than the Type 98 Guntokoshirae. Also there hasn't have to be a contradiction between making these new mounts easier/faster to produce and at the same time learn from "the teachings of the battlefield' as Ohmura san says and make them more suited for the battlefield.

 

Sorry, got a little carried away and almost forgot to attach the link :-)

 

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/deflating-another-myth-type-3-army-officer-s-sword-expanded-version-584796/

 

Kind Regards

Daniel

[Brian]

Hope Nick will take the time to add that info here to keep it all in one topic, on a forum more specific to the subject at hand.

[Kai-Gunto]

I had a "type 3" with a 1942 dated blade.

[george trotter]

I just read that follow-up by Mr Komiya which certainly clarifies the first post...it does seem to fill in the unknown areas of the "Type 3" story. It seems that the evidence and translations he provides do explain the steps in the crisis of production and why the "Provisionary Standard" fittings subsequently designed to alleviate the crisis which led to this design of sword/fittings came into being...not as a new "Type" but as a supplementary emergency pattern to cut production cost/time.

It explains why some blades (only now brought forth from some members) show dates before 1943 and why that photo from "Hand Cannons of Imperial Japan" posted by Brian show this pattern of fittings in photos dated 1940 and 1942 (although this raises the question of "why do we not see dates of 1940-41?' especially as he says these were the two crucial years where this production caught up to, and stabilised, the shortfall in Type 98 production...wouldn't we see lots of them?). He also explains that the Type 98 production continued through to 1945, which explains that old mystery we had of trying to figure out why the Type 98 continued in production if it was "superseded" by the "Type 3" which was stronger in battle and introduced to save on time/cost/brass/copper.

 

Mr Komiya's article also explains that the phrase "The teachings of battle..." actually refers to the changes to the sword inspired by the teachings of battle in the Sengoku Jidai, not in WWII (and so would  logically also be applied in this second age of infantry warfare in 1940).

 

It is great that Mr Komiya has attached the relevant documents to the article and on this point, I wonder if the "missing" drawing of the "Type 3" he refers to is actually the drawing shown on Ohmura's site?

 

All in all it seems that a rational step by step argument is now before us, so thanks to him for his effort. I would be interested in hearing comments on this information from members with this interest. 

 

Regards and thanks to Brian for bringing this to notice,