Talk:Type 99 light machine gun

Section in "References"

Can anyone explain why there's some stuff in References that doesn't belong? Thomas Yen (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Combat History

why the section of combat history is too short,please expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.190.218 (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Type 99 Light Machine Gun → Type 99 light machine gun – Simply per WP:CAPS. Common nouns should not be capitalised. SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – book search confirms that it is most often lowercase in sources, so we should interpret as generic, not part of a proper name. Same on the Type 96 and probably more. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good spot. I'll request the Type 96 article be moved too, and any others that I spot. SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusing statement

"larger and more powerful 7.7 mm cartridge which also had no rim, which improved cartridge handling"

So... is that "also had no rim" as in "and in addition, it had no rim" or "also had no rim" as in "like the 6.5 it was a rimless design"?

I ask, because the second part of that statement suggests that they improved cartridge handling by moving to a rimless cartridge. However, when I look at pictures of the 6.5, it appears to also be rimless. Both of these statements are confusing and require some clarity.

Pinging @Meeepmep: as one of the major authors. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

About rate of fire

In the section of Specifications, rate of fire is 800 rounds per minute. However, according to multiple reliable Japanese-side references, rate of fire was about 500-550 rpm.

However, I'm ignorant about Wikipedia's rule and I don't know how to add reference. Would you please tell me this is "original research" or not?

Reference 1

According to the book, required rate of fire was 500 rpm.

「設計の主要条件は、故障の絶無を期す。重量は十一キロいないとし、できるだけ軽量化する。発射速度は一分間概ね五〇〇発を標準とする。」(狭山 2000, p.334)

translation: "The main requirement of the design is to ensure that no failure will occur. The weight shall not exceed 11 kilograms and shall be as light as possible. The standard rate of fire shall be approximately 500 rounds per minute." (Sayama 2000, p.334)

Also, according to appendix table of specification of machine guns, rate of fire of Type 99 light machine gun was 550 rpm. (Sayama, p.441)

佐山二郎(2000)「小銃 拳銃 機関銃入門」光人社, p334, 441

Sayama Jiro, 2000, "Primer of Rifle, Pistol and Machine Gun" Kojin-sha, p.334, 441

ISBN4-7698-2284-7

Reference 2

According to this document, rate of fire of Type 99 light machine gun was 550 rpm.

「８．兵器諸元表／主要兵器諸元表」JACAR（アジア歴史資料センター）Ref.C13120846500、研究機関に関する資料（含技術資料）　昭和２０．９．２０（防衛省防衛研究所）

"8. Specification table of weapons / specification table of main weapons", JACAR (Japan Center for Asian Historical Records) Ref.C13120846500, References of research institutes (including technical documents), September 20, 1945 (National Institute for Defense Studies, Ministry of Defense Japan)

https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/das/image/C13120846500 (pdf page 3)

Image of document with translation notes: https://i.imgur.com/jdOOMED.png

Reference 3

According to this document, rate of fire of Type 99 light machine gun was 550 rpm.

Note, 九九式軽機銃 is naval name of Type 99 light machine gun. In Japanese army, "machine gun" was called 機関銃 but in Japanese navy it was called 機銃 so name was different.

海軍省館山海軍砲術学校研究部, 「陸戦参考－第１号・陸戦兵器要目表」p.50

Tateyama Naval Artillery School, Ministry of Navy, ”Land Combat Reference - No. 1, Land Combat Weapon List",

https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/das/image/F0000000000000218251 (pdf page 30)

Image of document with translation notes: https://i.imgur.com/Fd7dUT9.png Aizenns (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The US field manual and Modern Firearms references both give a figure of 800 RPM, and as the latter is a WP:SECONDARY source, then I would suggesting leaving the figure as it currently is. Loafiewa (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm wrong, but aren't Japanese secondary sources by native-speaker very well-known researcher who investigated them based on primary sources written by Japanese army and navy more reliable than the U.S. army's sources and English books which will refer to it? (I've never read modern firearms so I don't know how author of it researched it)

Also, in case of this issue, doesn't it apply "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."? Its just a rate of fire of the machine gun. Aizenns (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Postscript: In this case, two different Japanese primary document clearly says RoF was 550 rpm. To be honesty, in spite of it, adopt single US intelligent document’s data seems not logical.

In addition,Japanese-side secondary source also explains same data. I think this should be considered. Aizenns (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)