[Milsurplus] ARC-5 data tags...

[Mike Hanz]

brianm@carsoncomm.net wrote:

> FWIW, I have two ARA 1.5-3 mc. receivers here, both under the same contract
>number (NOs-74912).  Serial # 941 has had the date surgically removed,
>whereas serial # 2651 has the date intact.  Incidently, the date is June 29,
>1940.  Can anyone get closer with the serial numbers?
>

I don't know of any concerted effort to track these serial numbers, 
Brian (unless Dave Stinson might be doing it, but I believe so far he 
is  focused on the 1930s contracts).  In any case, I'm not sure one 
could say with any certainty that, for example, serial numbers 1 
through, say, 1219 had their dates removed, while numbers higher than 
that did not.  I suspect you would more likely find a total hodge podge, 
depending on where particular blocks of equipment were sent, whether 
they were for replacement in a field unit or new construction in 
aircraft, and what the particular theater commander's policy was at the 
time of receipt.  One might surmise that the first units to have their 
dates obliterated would be those with potential contact with the enemy, 
but even that would be suspect - things just didn't seem to happen like 
that in wartime.

Jack Antonio wrote:

> So, could the grinding off of the date, be considered evidence that the unit
> actually saw operational service, as opposed to a unit that sat in a warehouse
> before being surplused?


On an overall statistical basis, this might well be true. The problem is 
that the sixth sigma sets are the ones we usually see these days - 
operational sets tended to have a short lifetime out in the fleet, from 
what I see in the ARMN.  Water dripping on the radios in aircraft was a 
common occurrence, not to mention the enormous vibration they underwent 
in the air.  As a result, many of the survivors  with obliterated dates 
could easily have been regional depot stock that had the labels defaced 
as a result of /anticipated/ deployment, rather than actual installation 
in an aircraft...  Most of this is pure speculation, of course.  I don't 
have any documentation to pin on this flight of fancy, so there are 
undoubtedly more ideas on the subject out there.

73,
Mike