[Milsurplus] making sense of nonsense

[Mike Morrow]

N4TGC Eric wrote:

>There does appear to have been an effort...to assign meaning to the
>letters.  ... such as ASB=Airborne, Special, Bombing; APS=Airborne,
>Radar, Detection/Range/Bearing; ART=Airborne, Radio, Transmitter,
>etc.

Hi Eric,

The Joint Army Navy (JAN) nomenclature was (and still is) a logical and generally meaningful nomenclature system (except for uninformative combinations like AN/USQ-xx).  Unfortunately, the USN nomenclature system prior to the JAN system has no such logic to it.  The ASB was pre-JAN, along with hundreds of other common equipments like the ATA, ATB, ATC, ATD, ARA, ARB, RAK, RAL, RBM, RBS, ABF, ABJ, ABK, TCK, TAJ, RBA, RBB, RBC, RU, TBS, TCS, TBX, TBY, GF, GP, GO, MBF, MAW, MAY, etc. etc. etc.  Unlike the JAN system, none of these pre-JAN USN nomenclature letter combinations other than the first ever indicate *any* function that the equipment was designed to perform.

I remember seeing a reader response to a 1950s-era surplus column in "CQ" magazine in which the JAN system had been explained.  The reader wondered about the USN's TBX set, whose nomenclature translated to a "Ground Transportable Pidgeon Used for Identification Purposes."  It was a classic example of the dangers of applying JAN principles to the old USN system.  And you wouldn't want to confuse the USN's pre-JAN ARC-1 radar equipment with the USN's JAN AN/ARC-1 VHF receiver-transmitter.

I don't know who or what committee came up with the JAN system, but I think they did a good job, regardless of some ambiguities that are possible (like AN/BRC vs. AN/WRC vs. AN/SRC).  The JAN system has never been overtaxed in more than 60 years of use by the US and many foreign governments.

73,
Mike/KK5F