Cub Driver writes:

Rei-sen-2-2-gata-kou

this is a truncated form of:

Rei-shiki kan-jou sen-tou-ki 2-2-gata kou

(Japanese books don't use the A6M designation)

I wish they would! The Type 97, Type 99, Type 0 etc usage are
bewildering.

Hi Dan, are you still awake :-) ?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the
Japanese to adopt a Western and incorrect form of their prized
aircraft designation system grin. I really believe it comes down to
crappy translation if you get bored. There is no reason to make long
names in English as you describe below: it is simpler in English,
without the benefit of Kanji, to write alphanumerical design codes
than to give the descriptive terms the Japanese used with the benefit
of Kanji. On the other hand, why make the Japanese use some design
numbers which they know is not the designation of the plane!

the above would be in english:

Type 0 carrier fighter Model 2-2-a

(The manufacturer doesn't enter into it)

Does this gel with your understanding of the long form?

Yes, that's as I understand it. The same model in the short form would
(I bleieve) be A6M2 Model A.

This is where we differ in our understanding. You are mixing the
design name (A6M2) with the aircraft designation (truncated to Model
A), whereas the Japanese short form is 0-F-2-2-Kou (0=Rei; F=Sen)
i.e.,Reisen22kou. But I agree with you, in the interests of
`established' practice in reference to Japanese aircraft designations,
with the requisite explanation that we are mixing the design name and
the aircraft designation in order to make up our own short form, it is
easier to use A6MX. In that case I would say it is better though to
say A6M model (or Mk.) 22a, since the A6M corresponds conceptually to
the Japanese Rei-sen, and says everything we need to know about the
plane type including the manufacturer (OK, in code) which the Japanese
version doesn't contain, while the actual plane model is given by the
22a designation.

BTW, in the short form, the Val is referred to as the 99-kanbaku
(Type 99 carrier bomber) the Kate as the 97-kankou (Type 97 carrier
attack plane), similar to the 0-sen (Type 0 fighter) except that
`kan' is left off here.

Well, I think of that as the *long* form

Ahhhh :-) In Japanese, there is no calling of the plane by the A6M,
D3Y, B5N etc design designation, so their short form is the truncated
form of their long form (what could be more logical), while in english
the short form and the long form are quite different beasts, with the
short form derived from the design name and mixed with the aircraft
designation.

For comic relief:

American pilots called the Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" bomber the Flying
Zippo for its propensity to burst into flame when hit by incendiary
bullets. Using the long form, the Japanese army air crew had a very
similar name for it: Type 97 Lighter.

Obviously the Air War over Burma could be shortened by several tens of
pages by the enforced use of simplified aircraft designations! As for
the Sally, it was the Mitsubishi 97-shiki juu-baku-geki-ki (heavy
bomber). The Ki-21, the Army's design code, also was not used as a
name for the actual aircraft. Instead, the long form would be
shortened to 97-juu-baku. In English, I should think it jolly well
recommended (as you believe too) to say instead Ki-21 for all that,
and add part of the plane designation after that (model number).

But to my question: I am at a loss to understand why
`Lighter'. Initially I thought it might be a translation error (from
`light bomber') but since the Sally is a heavy bomber, am I to
understand the Japanese Army pilots referred to their plane as a
cigarette lighter? And as an aside, was the Type 1 land attack bomber
(Betty) not known too as a lighter by happy Allied pilots?

BTW, The imperial system of counting, where the year 1 is something
like 660 BC for the mythical emperor Jimmu, was instituted by those
criminials from the Choshu and Satsuma who instigated the Meiji
Restoration. Obviously it fell from use post-BM2, so it is quite an
strange to modern Japanese, not only antiquated but associated with
something quite un-Japanese to them (namely the brain-washed military
dictatorship period). So referring to aircraft as Type 97, etc., is
meaningless for most modern Japanese too, not only for us
Westerners. It might in fact be better to use design names instead
(Ki-21, or A6M, etc.)

Best regards,
Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan