[ARC5] Nomenclature Taxonomy

[Mike Morrow]

Robert wrote:

> Error.  I have some steel LG-2-A that are stamped LG-2A..  Probably the 
> last ones made before the aluminum LG-2-B came out.

I agree with Robert.  There is tangible value to use of the correct format
or taxonomy for the system applicable to the particular equipment.

In the old Army nomenclature system of Robert's example, that means that LG2A,
LG2-A, and LG-2A are incorrect component IDs for the LG-2-A.  For system IDs
like SCR-274-N as well, SCR274N or SCR-274N are incorrect.

In the old Navy nomenclature system, it's RAL-3, ZB-2, and TCS-12, not RAL3,
ZB2, or TCS12.  It's CBY-46105 for that RAV and ARA compnent, not CBY46105.

The JAN system has room for many errors.  For the R-23A/ARC-5, the use of
R23A/ARC5, R 23A/ARC 5, R-23-A/ARC-5, or ARC-5/R-23A are ALL a few examples
of incorrect usage.

Even manufacturers make careless mistakes.  Hughes used RT-794-B/PRC-74
on the name plate of the RT-794B/PRC-74.  Oklahoma Aerotronics misspelled
RECEIVER as RECIEVER on the R-1004A/GRC-109 name plate.  There are others.

Then, there are subtle inconsistencies in the JAN system.  The R-1004A/GRC-109
is part of the AN/GRC-109A, the RT-794B/PRC-74 is part of the AN/PRC-74B, and
the T-47A/ART-13 is part of the AN/ART-13A.  However, AN/ART-13B applies to
both the system using the T-47A/ART-13 with CDA-T LF/MF/HF crystal oscillator
AND the system using the T-412/ART-13B.  The RT-77A/GRC-9 is not necessarily
part of the AN/GRC-9A.  The AN/GRC-9A means only that a DY-88/GRC-9 power unit
is being used in a system which can have either a RT-77 or RT-77A/GRC-9 as the
main unit.

There's those Collins commercial model numbers too, some used without change
by the military.  The USAF 618S-1 is correct, not 618-S1 or 618S1.

We could get into aircraft nomenclature, like the one the Navy used before the
services standardized in 1962.  PB4Y-2 is correct, not PB-4Y2 or PB4-Y2 or
PB4Y2.  For the USAAF and the current common system, B-29A is correct, not B29A
or B-29-A.

And then there's firearms.  Who wants to address M-1911A-1 vs. M1911A-1 vs.
M1911A1?

And foreign nomenclature!  Wireless Set Number 19 Mark II, or Wireless Set
No. 19 Mk. 2, or W.S. 19 Mk II, or WS19MkII, or many many other variations
for the exact same set.  This one of many UK examples is horrific simply
for how difficult it is to determine THE actual *correct* nomenclature,
especially for a complete and unambiguous database search.

It would make internet equipment searches much easier and productive had all
the databases and websites simply used the defined taxonomy that applies to
the equipment of interest.  To deliberately do otherwise is an impediment.

Mike / KK5F