Zero - specific questions

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:51:37 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

Japanese: A6M2 22-gata Kou
English : A6M2 Model 22 a

And we must never forget that this is the SHORT system!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver writes:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:51:37 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

Japanese: A6M2 22-gata Kou
English : A6M2 Model 22 a

And we must never forget that this is the SHORT system!

Well, I erred in this respect. In the latter part of my post, I gave
the proper Japanese truncated designation:

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)

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?

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.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

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.

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.

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

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.

(I am even now reading a book about the air war in Burma from the
Japanese perspective www.warbirdforum.com/rangoon1.htm and I just
about fall asleep hearing how the Type 97 Fighters escorted the Type
97 Light Bombers while the Type 97 Heavy Bombers flew on ahead.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

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

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

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

But it was a Japanese system! And I suspect they adopted it because
they couldn't understand their own.

While the navy's short system was indeed copied from the USN, the
army's was unique, just a kitai (airframe) number, very simply and
impossible to mistake one airplane for another.

(Can you imagine the tower on a Japanese base, saying that a flight of
Type 97 Heavy Bombers escorted by a flight of Type 97 Fighters is
coming in, followed by a flight of Type 97 Light Bombers?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

I really believe it comes down to
crappy translation if you get bored.

Actually, I'm reading the Japanese, or more actually taking notes
while my translator gamely wades through the text.

Japanese writers shouldn't bet on there being a Martin Caidin out
there to make their stuff interesting to foreigners.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver writes:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

I really believe it comes down to
crappy translation if you get bored.

Actually, I'm reading the Japanese, or more actually taking notes
while my translator gamely wades through the text.

Japanese writers shouldn't bet on there being a Martin Caidin out
there to make their stuff interesting to foreigners.

Good luck :-)

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

Cub Driver writes:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

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

But it was a Japanese system! And I suspect they adopted it because
they couldn't understand their own.

I certainly take your point, but I still think we are looking at two
different things he

1. aircraft design specs, via some ministry specification: the Navy
chose something that looked like the USN coding system, but this
applied to the design as a whole. The Army used a kitai number,
also unambiguous, as you point out.

2. Actual plane designation, based on the system that the plane was
first produced/designed in the nefarious imperial year system, and
airplane type. Woe behold if the Navy decided to order two of the
same aircraft type in the same year :-)

These two systems are not exclusive, since to any design spec can be
added the aircraft description, (e.g., SBD-3 Dauntless carrier-based
scout bomber, or G4M1 model 1 Type 1 land attack plane).

(Can you imagine the tower on a Japanese base, saying that a flight of
Type 97 Heavy Bombers escorted by a flight of Type 97 Fighters is
coming in, followed by a flight of Type 97 Light Bombers?)

I don't know what they would say! I must see if I can find a picture
of something like this grin.

But Dan, have you seen any Japanese books that use the design names
for aircraft (A6M, Ki-67, etc.). I haven't, except that sometimes they
are given once when aircraft specs are shown, since the designation is
part of the specs. Strangely, it is on plastic model boxes where the
Ki number and Navy design names are most often visible, perhaps due to
space limitations!

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

Cub Driver writes:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:21:27 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

But Dan, have you seen any Japanese books that use the design names
for aircraft (A6M, Ki-67, etc.).

Now it gets interesting :-)

Actually, I have, but usually something like this: Type 44, referring
to a Ki-44 Shoki.

As in '44-shiki'? This doesn't make sense AFAIK,
http://yashico.cool.ne.jp/html/Ki44_CFS2.html
shows the designation as Army Type 2 single seat fighter.

I've also seen Type LO, referring to the Japan-built Lockheed Electra.
That was so usual, in fact, that I don't know its kitai number.

Again, what is `Type'? I suppose individual authors might have their
own formats also to write long names in simpler Roman letters but
abbreviated. Recalling, "ME" is often used for Messerschmitt Bf109,
and "FW" for Fw190. Nicknames were also common for Allied planes or
their derivatives in Japan, there is a propensity to shorten and
sometimes combine foreign words in Japanese to make a new Japanese
word. Maker was often used to denote the plane. Trying to think of an
example: The USN fighters were universally referred to as "Grumman" -
after 1943 this was synonymous with "Hellcat" which was also used. The
P-38 was simply "Lockheed", the B-29 I think was the "Boeing".

Interesting that western writers would deal with Japanese aircraft in
a style unfamiliar to the Japanese reader. What do they do when they
translate US and UK books back into Japanese? Is Renee Francillon's
book available in translation?

Good question. Short answer, I don't know. Francillon's book is not
available. Despite the debt Western readers owe him, in Japan there is
no shortage of books on these subjects, so translations are not really
an issue. For ships, the Anatomy of a Ship series by Janusz Skulski is
translated, often with corrections (Takao, Fuso, Yamato) to the
original english version. I do not see any A6M type designations
there.

Look, I've just finished moving, and got my books sort of unpacked
last night. I took out a couple of plane related books, one of which
is on the Pete and Claude. So I'll post what the general layout of the
names is tomorrow.

Cheers, till soon,
Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

Actually, I have, but usually something like this: Type 44, referring
to a Ki-44 Shoki.

As in '44-shiki'? This doesn't make sense AFAIK,

No, Nakajima Ki-44. The Japanese name is Shoki, I think meaning
Dragon. Allied pilots called it Tojo. Aka Type 1 Fighter (I assume it
was 1941: it was in prototype service that December).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com