Mystery photo..

[akdreemer]

A photo taken in 1942.. be careful because it might not be what you think it is... there is a point to all this beleive me...[:D]

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

A photo taken in 1942.. be careful because it might not be what you think it is... there is a point to all this beleive me...[:D]

What, no bites...
The photo caption reads:
"Souvenir hunters (US Army?) inspect a Japanese anitaircraft gun just north of Fighter Two (Guadalcanal), late 1942." Strange thing about it is that it appears to be a 40mm Bofors! The caption is no quite a correct statement unless, of course, the Japanese really did have 40mm Bofors? Found in a book titled "Lightening over Boufainville", an anthology edited by R. Cargil Hall, in between pages 80 and 81...

My point in all this is that examine what we read with a bit of skepticism. Errors like this can call to question the veracity of the entire work.

[JeffroK]

Shouldnt be hard for the Japs to have Bofors on G'canal. They could have purchased them from Sweden or captured them in Malaya or at Rabaul.

They moved some CD Guns from Singapore and sent them to Tarawa!

[el cid again]

Strange thing about it is that it appears to be a 40mm Bofors! The caption is no quite a correct statement unless, of course, the Japanese really did have 40mm Bofors?

Actually, Japan DID have 40mm Bofors. It also had an earlier 40mm it had imported - then licence produced - on a medium scale in the 1930s.
The actual 40mm Bofors was captured in some numbers when Singapore surrendered. This was studied and improved slightly and put into production in Japan - but they took far too long to do that. It is found on a fine patrol sub chaser late in the war, for example. I think it is possible that some of the guns captured at Singapore were used at other sites, particularly because they also captured ammunition at the same time.
Note, however, that the Bofors was never a major component of Imperial forces. This was their mistake - it could have been - but instead of a direct copy ASAP with major resources committed to producing it - they spent 2 years modifying it ever so slightly - and then only put it in limited production.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

40cm/60 Type 5 - limited production started in 1943.

[Ron Saueracker]

Geez, gotta love countries that produce and export weapons for all comers but declare their neutrality.[:D]

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Geez, gotta love countries that produce and export weapons for all comers but declare their neutrality.[:D]

Actually the various Bofors models were mostly license-build by the countries that had acquired (bought) a license (like the US or the UK). Same story as with the Oerlikon guns (would have been even more difficult to ship Oerlikons from Switzerland to the US or the UK, wouldn't it?).

But discussing the true extend of Swedish "neutrality" here would be somewhat OT anyway (quite similar to US "neutrality" between 1939 and Dec 1941, but benefitting the Axis in this case).

[akdreemer]

Indeed I like how the interpretation came from off the hip. Fighter 2 was built near the coast 1 1/2 miles west of Hendersonin late 1942. It was from this airstrip that the P-38 Lightnings took off to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto over southern Bougainville in April 1943.

I doubt that a) the Japanese even had an AA presence on the Island when the Marines stormed ashore and b) if the had placing AA guns in the middle of the jungle served no purpose and c) even if they had some 40mm there was a lot more vital targets for them to defend than an incomplete airbase. So the most logical answer is that it was an abondoned, most likely damaged or wore out, Marine or Army weapon. I have seen zero evidence that the Japanese used 40mm Bofors operationally before 1944.