By Frank Iannamico

There were many factors that contributed to the Allies’ eventual triumph over the Axis powers in WWII. One very important and often overlooked element was the Allie’s ability to develop and manufacture tremendous quantities of weapons. This was especially true for the United States, which had the distinct advantage of having its factories located far from the range of enemy bombers. The United States would become known as the “Arsenal of Democracy” for the amount of weapons supplied to friendly forces for the war effort. One other advantage the United States held was a large pool of designers and engineers. These talented men and women helped the allied forces field some of the best weapons of the war, and just as importantly, in the quantities needed.

Because of its manufacturing and designing capabilities, the United States was able to equip its troops with one of the few successful semi-automatic service rifles of the era, the M1 Garand. In addition to the Garand, the U.S. produced the semi-automatic M1 carbine in even greater numbers. There was a third semi-automatic weapon fielded by the United States, that although it saw very limited use, was believed by many to be superior to the Garand. That weapon was the 30’06 M1941 Johnson Rifle.

The Johnson rifle was designed by Marine Reserve Captain Melvin M. Johnson Jr., a Harvard educated attorney. Captain Johnson’s idea was “To place in the hands of the individual the maximum power or force which can be easily be operated, controlled and transported by one man one two feet.” Melvin Johnson was assigned to the Springfield Armory as an observer during the development and testing of the M1 rifle. It was during this duty that Captain Johnson saw the problems and shortcomings of the M1 design and difficulties encountered in its manufacture. In 1935 Johnson began work on his own service rifle concept.

Johnson had several prototypes that all shared a similar recoil operated action. In 1937, with assistance from the Marlin Arms Company, Johnson’s design was nearly perfected. A demonstration was given at Fort Benning, Georgia in 1938 to several ordnance officers. The unofficial test was successful enough to warrant further testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. The Aberdeen testing only proved that the Johnson rifle was not superior to the Garand that already was in production.

In 1940 a few minor serviceability problems with the M1 Garand began to surface. These problems quickly became very controversial, especially after the Ordnance Department denied that any problems existed. This controversy gave the Johnson rifle a second opportunity to prove that it was the better weapon. A head to head test was scheduled to compare the Johnson rifle against the Garand. The testing proved that both rifles were capable, but since the M1 Garand was already in production, it would remain the service rifle of the United States Army.

The Johnson design was unique for a major caliber rifle because it was recoil operated. This eliminated the need for a conventional gas system, making the rifle easy to manufacture and less prone to gas fouling. The weapon also featured an integral 10 round rotary magazine that could be easily topped off with additional rounds even while the weapon had a cartridge in the chamber. The magazine could be quickly recharged using the same stripper clips as the M1903 rifle. Some earlier prototypes of the Johnson rifle were designed for a conventional box style magazine. The Garand was handicapped with an eight round enbloc clip that could not be replenished unless the clip was removed from the weapon. In addition, the ejection of the Garand’s 8 round spring steel clip made a rather loud, unique noise signaling to the enemy that the soldier firing the rifle had to reload.

The Johnson however, also had a few undesirable features. One of the characteristics the Ordnance Department didn’t like about the Johnson was it could not mount an effective bayonet, because of the recoiling barrel. Too large of a bayonet interfered with barrel recoil, hampering the weapon’s operation. The second problem was that a bayonet thrust at a target could unlock the action, rendering the weapon momentarily unable to fire. The exposed portion of the barrel also caused some concern. It was feared that an overheated barrel could possibly burn the operator.

The first attempt to address the bayonet problem was by using a long 17-inch sword type bayonet. The .9 pound bayonet was attached to the forearm of the stock. The barrel offered only lateral support, and the barrel moved freely while the bayonet remained stationary. This design was eventually discarded. A small, light bayonet that attached to a lug on the barrel was used. The bayonet was extremely light at .35 pounds and had a triangular 8” blade. The small bayonet allowed the Johnson rifle to function without any problems, and was offered as an accessory.

After several unsuccessful attempts to interest the U.S. military in the Johnson rifle, Johnson’s company began seeking foreign contracts. In 1941 the Netherlands ordered 70,000 of the M1941 Johnson semi-auto rifles for the Dutch East Indies Defense Force. In order to fill such a large order a new manufacturing facility would be needed. The Johnson Automatics Company subcontracted with the Universal Windings Company to manufacture the weapons at their factory complex located in Cranston, Rhode Island. The company would be known as the Cranston Arms Company. Soon after the weapons were in mass production the Japanese overran the Dutch East Indies and the order was terminated. It is believed that only 30,000 Johnsons were manufactured before production ceased in early 1943. The only other sizable foreign order for the M1941 rifle was from Chile in the early 1940s. A small lot of 1,000 rifles were purchased. Chile ordered the rifles chambered for the 7mm Mauser cartridge. A subcontractor in Mexico manufactured the 7mm barrels for Cranston Arms Co.

The Marine Corps had begun testing semi-automatic rifles in late 1940. Although the Marines had also chosen the M1 Garand over the Johnson rifle in 1941, few M1s were available as demand far exceeded the supply. This caused the Marine Corps to take a second look at the Johnson. One feature that the Marines liked about the Johnson was that the weapon could be easily broken down for transporting. The Marines felt that this would be an asset for their newly formed paratrooper battalions where the rifles could be easily carried when disassembled. The Marines procured a limited number of the Johnson rifle for issue to the 1st Parachute Battalion in 1942. It is believed that the Johnson rifles obtained by the Marine Corps were those remaining from the canceled Dutch contract. The Johnson rifles used by the Paramarines can sometimes be identified by the front sight protection ears, which were often filed down. The purpose was to create a better sight picture, and keep the long sight ears from snagging on their jump cases.

A few years after the war ended, the Winfield Arms Company of Canada purchased all of the embargoed Dutch contract guns. Most of the remaining Johnson spare parts were purchased by Numrich Arms (Gun Parts Corporation.). Many of these parts were eventually purchased by Winfield Arms and used to build or repair the rifles obtained from the Dutch contract. The company sporterized many of the Johnsons and sold them as hunting rifles. They were offered in several configurations that included the original 30’06, as well as 7mm and .270 calibers.

The semi-automatic Johnson rifles today have far surpassed the average M1 Garand in price. An original military configuration Johnson rifle today is a highly prized collector’s item. All of the military Johnsons had a Parkerized finish, except for the bolt, which was left in the white. The aperture style rear sight is adjustable and graduated in meters. There are no military or U.S. Ordnance markings to distinguish a Marine Corps issued rifle. All the weapons are marked on the right side of the receiver “ Cranston Arms Co.” inside of an inverted triangle, and “Johnson Automatics Model of 1941” on top of the receiver. The first block of serial numbers of the rifles ascends up to 9,999. Subsequent number blocks begin with a letter A or B prefix. As previously mentioned, it is believed that fewer than 30,000 of the rifles were made. Although many of the parts on the M1941 Johnson rifles are numbered, an “all matching rifle” is quite a rarity. Original Johnson bayonets and leather sheaths are especially rare, as are original manuals. Both items command a premium when they can be located.

The recoil action of the Johnson is a very interesting design. When the weapon is fired, the barrel moves rearward approximately one-half inch. The barrel is supported only by the receiver. A rotary bolt moves rearward, locked to the barrel until it is unlocked by being rotated 20 degrees by a camming action between the receiver and bolt. The barrel’s rearward movement is stopped by a shoulder in the receiver, while the bolt continues rearward far enough to pick up a fresh round from the magazine before being pushed forward by the recoil spring. The rotating bolt head is locked to the barrel by eight lugs. The recoil spring and buffer are located in the stock.

There was also a Model 1941 and a Model 1944 Johnson light machine gun produced, which featured a similar recoil operated action. The Marine Corps used the magazine fed weapon in limited numbers during WWII. The weapon had a few advantages over the BAR, it was lighter and the barrel could be easily replaced in the field. An improved model, the 1944 LMG, was later introduced and manufactured in limited numbers. Special thanks to Jim Pullen. Jim has an excellent web site on the Johnson Rifle at www.johnsonautomatics.com.

Next: The Johnson Light Machine Guns…

By Dan Szatkowski

The War in the Pacific

More than half a century after the momentous events of the war in the Pacific, it is difficult to come to terms with the sheer size of the war and its overwhelming geography. It was more than just a war between Imperial Japan and the United States, it was a vast war in which Japan continued the European struggle to dominate China. It was a war to displace European colonialism and condescension, a war to allocate the wreckage of French, Dutch, German and British imperialism. It was a war of little wars within the global struggle. While the European powers were locked in battle with Japan’s Nazi allies, Thailand went to war against a weakened France. The Australians saw their manpower and equipment drawn off by a desperate England. The Filipinos saw the opportunity to displace a decadent foreign army of occupation, as did the Indonesians, Malaysians, Indo-Chinese, and other subject peoples. Between 1941 and 1945, the years of American involvement, enormous political as well as technical changes altered the world forever.

More than anything else, the Pacific war was a war of logistics. The focus of Western powers on the war in Europe led to an amazing variety of weapons in the Pacific theater. The sheer number of governments involved, and the level of desperation late in 1941, assured a remarkable variety of armaments for the modern researcher to discover. As the war progressed, the impact of logistics was overpowering; Garrisoned stores throughout the theater were swept away by the early Japanese advances. Only the US Navy and Japanese Imperial Navy could move arms and men into battle; all other players were pushed to the sidelines. There was near-total change after 1942. Old World War I weapons inventories swept away by Japanese success were replaced by newly manufactured tools of war, and the overwhelming effectiveness and massive availability of new American equipment after Guadalcanal ensured the decline of British and European influence.

Searching for Reliable History

At this distance in time, the interested student of Pacific war weapons has limited options for truly understanding the war. The region is so vast that a lifetime could be spent exploring the battlefields, and many are accessible only by submarine and helicopter. New governments have arisen, and the ardent researcher is apt to find himself in the middle of a shooting war, if he is not careful. Most of us are limited to researching literature, museum and private collections, and talking to old soldiers. Inexorable demography is reducing the number of veterans able to tell the tale first-hand, and, as one Okinawa veteran put it, you have to decide whether you prefer the “good” story or the “true” one. Private collectors tend to follow a theme to the exclusion of competing points of view, and it’s up to you to sort out the bias, omission, and fact. Museums are little better for reliability, infected as they can be by revisionist, politically active “interpreters.” Equally distressing is the incredible volume of printed material claiming to describe the war in the Pacific, since the paper refuses no ink…

Artifacts can speak for themselves, but they are often not allowed to. Recognizing and dealing with revisionist historians is a major problem for the student of Pacific war arms. We must realize that the wonderful Smithsonian collection is lost to us for now, and revisionism, as seen in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry might lead you to think that the war never happened at all!

Three East Coast museums stand out from the politically correct crowd, the Marine Air-Ground Museum at Quantico, Virginia; the NRA National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia; and the US Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen, Maryland. In these repositories of history, you can see and examine unmolested artifacts without the drumbeat of Clinton-era distortion.

The Participants, a Thumbnail Sketch

Whole books have been written about each of the weapons, battles and politics of the combatants in the Pacific theater. For perspective, I will only touch upon the equipment of the major participants. All began the war with doctrines and equipment largely left over from the Great War. By late 1942, new American technology began to appear in the field, and new tactics arose to match the “island-hopping” allied strategy for victory. Nearly all of the weapons of late 1941 were passé by the end of the war in 1945. These facts may seem trivial to many readers, but there are now whole generations of Americans, victims of America’s cultural wars, who have not the faintest grasp of who and what were involved in World War II.

Great Britain lost much of her military hardware on the beaches of Dunkirk in the summer of 1940, and she was loathe to share much of what remained with the Far East. With an Army doctrine based on World War I SMLE rifles and Vickers water-cooled machine guns, the British were ill prepared to face the onslaught of their former Japanese allies. A few Brens and Stens went east before December 8, 1941, but most garrisons fought with whatever leftovers they had.. While “British” troops manned twenty-year-old Lewis guns, Indian troops were saddled with inferior weapons like the Vickers-Berthier, and a remarkable quantity of Boys anti-tank rifles found their way to Australia after finding no friends in North Africa. No heavy machine guns and precious little artillery were available

Australia felt abandoned, for good reason, and rushed to produce the inferior Austen and the remarkable Owen submachine guns. “Gangster Guns” had gained acceptance, if not respectability. America, home of the “Chicago Piano,” used the giant island as a huge ammo dump, and American largesse captured the Australian heart. British hardware returned after the crisis passed, but the Australians were never again quite so sure of the British. ’03 Springfields and M1917 Lee Enfields weren’t the cat’s pajamas, but they were very welcome in the dark days of 1942, even if they didn’t share the Empire’s standard .303 ammunition

The Netherlands East Indies met the Japanese invasion with turn-bolt Mannlicher rifles and Schwarzlose machine guns, but too few of either. Sauer pistols and cheap Imperial German surplus items were joined by motley “desperation buys” of United Defense, S&W, Thompson, Mauser, and various sporting guns. It was all too little and too late.

France fought Thailand in 1940 with many of her latest weapons, and modern pieces like the MAS 38 submachine gun would later reappear in the hand of the Viet Cong. Hotchkiss, Chatellerault, and Lebel joined the MAS 36 against the Japanese, but with no more success than against the Germans. Oddly enough, the Chauchat, pressed upon the Americans in 1918 in return for our Marines’ Lewis guns, had disappeared from the French order of battle.

China, dogged by corruption and collapse under foreign intrigue, could field only uncoordinated purchases by independent warlords. A few of everything have been encountered by researchers over the years, but the infatuation with the Mauser broomhandle endured and seemed to be transferred to the Japanese. Several Chinese Mausers appeared on Okinawa late in the war.

The major combatants, Japan and the United States, entered the war with remarkably parallel doctrines based on massed rifle-armed infantry. The Japanese approach was deeply enmeshed with cultural values, and the tactics and Mauser technology were well proved against the Russians and Chinese. Supported by organic mortar and light artillery, the Japanese soldiers applied an unprecedented confidence that was publicized in the West as the Bushido code and Banzai-fanatic mentality. However, the Japanese war machine was ground slowly under heel by American logistic might and new technology. America’s allies in the Pacific at first received largely obsolete World War I equipment via Lend-Lease. The Japanese army and navy went to war in 1941 with similar 1918 technology. When American 1942 technology arrived en masse, the outcome of the war was only a matter of time and blood.

Obsolete Murata 11mm rifles were replaced by 1941 for the most part by Mauser-style Arisaka 6.5mm and 7.7mm rifles and carbines. Hotchkiss-derived portatives also in 6.5mm and 7.7mm accompanied the troops. Small mortars, common in the Japanese army, amazed the Americans, as did the Japanese cultural dislike of pistols. Similarly, subguns like the SIG-made Bergmann MP18 and the home-grown Type 100 were rarely encountered. The impact of the M-1 Garand rifle cannot be overstated, and the Japanese attempt to copy it has left a few amazing examples for examination.

The American army, after 40 years in garrison as foreign occupiers, was slow to rise from its lethargy. Massive underestimation of Japanese resolve and ability led to enormous losses in the Philippines. Generally equipped with World War I vintage Springfield 1903s and water-cooled Browning M1917 machine guns, the American army had poorly integrated light artillery, and the Browning .50 caliber machine gun remained scarce. The Winchester trench shotgun and Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR M1918) were to become firm favorites of the American infantry, too many of whom would be sacrificed on Bataan. A remarkable collection of miscellaneous weapons had been passed down to the Filipino National Guard units, including trap-door Springfields, .30-40 Krags, Navy Lee rifles, and various Spanish leftovers and hunting guns. All would prove inadequate in 1942.

Like the heavy M2 Brownings, the M1 Garands were late in arriving. Once the Army got over its distaste for “ammunition-eaters,” the M1 would join the formerly despised Thompson to transform infantry tactics. Moving ever closer to modern assault-rifle doctrine, the relatively puny M1 carbine and air-cooled Brownings would gain lasting popularity with the troops. Oddly enough, the M3 submachine gun would never engender the affection soldiers and sailors developed for the Tommygun. Like the MAS 38, Thompsons would be found much later in Viet Cong hands, but the M3 was hard even to give away, despite its effectiveness.

In contrast to the polo club-style army preferred by the MacArthurs, father and son, the US Marines had a peculiar make-do culture developed by years at the end of the budget food-chain. Their innovative use of the BAR and Boys rifle revolutionized amphibious assault, when used in combined arms with amphibious armored vehicles, organic artillery, and novel applications of existing weapons. When supplies of the M1, arguably the best battle rifle in the world in 1941, lagged, the Marines made do with the less desirable Johnson. In addition to Boys rifles “obtained” in Australia, the Marines recreated French .75s and Army pack howitzers for the unique conditions on Guadalcanal. Stung by the failure of the Reising as an assault rifle, the Marines embraced the M1, M1A and the soon-to-be universal squad support air-cooled Browning .30s and .50s as they became available. Both the Marines and the Army rapidly recognized the new need for mortars in terrain and jungles that frequently defeated armor.

Finding History for Yourself

The accompanying photographs show a few of the many surviving publicly accessible artifacts of the Pacific war. Their variety and massive scope are far too great for a mere magazine article, but these collections make for rewarding research opportunities, both formal and casual.
The museums I visited display the guns in glass cases and in the open, allowing close examination. All have curators willing to assist the genuine researcher. All are under relentless cultural attack, and welcome honest students of history and support.

I alternated visits to the museums with discussions with local veterans. In the Washington, DC area old warriors are a dime a dozen, but the student of the Pacific War must search for Pacific War survivors. Time is rapidly claiming these heroes, so don’t wait to pursue an interest. There were more participants than most Americans realize, and the inexorable loss of first-hand knowledge reinforces the importance of the non-interpreted, genuine artifacts found in these three museums. The veterans can provide true depth to your understanding and illuminate the greatness of the country’s achievement, but don’t delay. I have yet to find a man without a story to tell.

The U.S. Rifle Caliber .30 M1903- We have them only because we had no other vehicle on which to mount the anti-tank launchers and the remarks with regard to that weapon are the conventional ones-utterly dependable, extremely accurate, very valuable.

The Carbine- My organization being parachutist was equipped with the carbine folding stock, and we found it to be a most effective weapon. It is of sufficiently high velocity to drive its way through the heavy jungle foliage. It is accurate, and most of all, it is light and comfortable, 75 rounds of it on your person leaves you entirely free to carry anything you wish. You don’t even know you have it. The men have confidence in it and it works well. It works extremely well under arduous conditions. I understand that there have been adverse comments on this weapon from the European Theatre to the extent that it lacks precision at ranges in excess of 400 yards. I am entirely ignorant of such circumstances because I have never seen one fired at over 50 yards, at which range they are a splendid weapon. There is a need for carbine tracer ammunition, at first I was required to arm all squad leaders with rifles so that they could use .30 tracer for target designation. If we had carbine tracer, they would have naturally been armed with a carbine, thereby giving them a good deal more mobility. I am told such a thing exists but that the requirement has been rather low, I cannot see why, and I only urge that some thought be given to the distribution. You know that people in the field sometimes do not know what is going on. I didn’t know such a thing existed; and therefore never asked for any. If it had been even hinted that such a thing existed, I dare say, many jungle units would ask for caliber .30 carbine tracer ammunition.

The Bazooka- We used it as an anti-barge weapon against Jap landing barges. I reckon you look upon that as makeshift, but it did an extremely credible job. One round of bazooka ammunition in a Jap landing barge and its all over. Unfortunately you have to get pretty close as they are armed with twin 50’s and on some occasions with twin 20’s, and they take effective measures sometimes to prevent you from getting close. We also use it against pill boxes and bunkers in the embrasure attack, and it is, as you may guess, quite as effective as the M9A1 Grenade and a bit more accurate at ranges exceeding 50 yards. But we condemned it in principal for that particular task for the reason that when do not use it as a bazooka you do not use it at all. Now with the anti-tank grenade on the rifle you still have an effective small arms weapon. We used them (bazookas) but the next time we will leave them behind.

At this moment I would like to interject that weight, even down to ounces, is a critical thing. The men are taxed to their physical utmost to the extent unless they are highly disciplined they will throw essentials away. On occasion it is pretty hard to set yourself to the task of coercing a man to hang onto something that you yourself feel he is not going to use.

It has come to my mind at the moment that I have done Mr. Browning a dreadful injustice in omitting one of the finest pieces of ordnance that has ever been designed, and that is the 1919A4 Light Machine Gun, which we used to prodigious effect. It is the most dependable weapon that ever came down the road. My only comments are those of humility. I am a member of the determined and belligerent school, which says, I repeat, which says we have no need for a water-cooled machine gun so long as we have that splendid weapon (1919A4) in our possession”.

General Barnes: “Any comments, questions? (None) Thank you very much Colonel Krulak”.