[ARC5] ATA -dates cut out of dataplates.

[Mike Hanz]

On 11/14/2014 3:37 PM, Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2014 at 12:44, Chris Bowne wrote:
>> The antenna relay has the date cut out of the contract number on the ID
>> plate. IIRC this had something to do with stuff going to the Brits on
>> Lend-Lease when we were still neutral in 1940-41.
> I was told some time ago that this was done for a while in order to NOT give
> the enemy any idea of production rates.
>
> The idea being, I was told, to prevent ANY information at all from being of
> any use at all to the enemy via captured equipment.
>
> It seemed kind of silly to me, though.

I could not quite understand that either, until I read a book that 
described the British effort in tracking German production equipment.  
It was a classified subject until well after the war, but the focus was 
on dates and materials used.  They would dissect the radios and other 
captured equipment, even fragments of shells, looking for dates and 
associated use of metals and insulation.  They were able to categorize 
the quality and effectiveness of both original and changes in materials 
usage, and feed that to the Strategic Bombing program.  The intent was 
to ultimately cause detriment in the performance of the equipment being 
used against the Allies.  One of the examples given was the change in 
shell casing composition, which was affected by targeting certain steel 
and brass additive sources.  The shortage of those additives led to 
shells which exploded in large chunks, rather than fragmenting in 
thousands of pieces of shrapnel, causing far less damage overall than 
the old mixtures.  I think that's the main reason we began to remove 
dates, at least at the nomenclature plate level.  After the Allies got a 
head of steam on, the practice on our part stopped...we had just about 
everything we needed from a strategic materials perspective, and similar 
analysis by Axis scientists would simply discourage them rather than 
provide vulnerable targets.

I wish I could recall the name of the book, because its coverage of the 
science was pretty good, but it is gone with the wind.  Perhaps one of 
our British colleagues knows.

73,
Mike  KC4TOS