[Milsurplus] TCS data plates

[David Stinson]

POWERMWT at aol.com wrote:
 > Gentlemen, I'm looking for the TCS-9 data plates to go along with the
 > functioning restoration of my WW2 MB-NAVY-MZ-1 Navy radio jeep.
 >...
 > I have tried to find a TCS-9...
 > I'm also a newbie at radio and sure would like an explanation on the 
exact
 > differences between the different TCS versions,...
 > Is this change of data plates an acceptable practice? I'm hoping to 
have my
 > jeep judged and they are really strict on using correct data plates for
 > restored (Factory) class.

The vehicle restoration community needs to talk to
the radio restoration community, because this obsession
of the "correct data plate" in this instance:
a TCS-9 vs. another TCS model number- is misguided.
This isn't the first time something like this has come up.

The TCS series is almost exactly identical, rig for rig.
The suffix numbers defined contractors and build runs,
not real differences in equipment.
Your TCS-12, 5 etc. are all acceptable
and correct period rigs to use in your vehicle.
The people who wrote the specifications in the manuals
were not "radio" people- they asked someone what
was to go in the vehicle.  The guy had a -9 book
in front of him, so he said "TCS-9."  Had it been
the identical TCS-10 or TCS-12 book, he would have said those.

This is a common problem faced by the restoration community.
I was approached once by a group working on rebuilding
an early version of the B-29.  Their manual called specifically
for a "BC-375-C."  The world is full of BC-375-*E* models,
and they just would not hear of putting one of those in
their aircraft.  Well- there's probably one or two
BC-375-C models in the whole world, because the few
that were built were pre-war and issued long before
an B-29 builds.  It's very unlikely any B-29
ever flew with a BC-375-C model installed.
The big production runs were all "E" models and
they went into the earlier bombers like the -17, -24 and -25.
The earliest B-29 models flown "over the hump"
would have carried an -E model,
because that was the model in production at the time.
They were soon replaced by the AN/ARC-8,
which used the AN/ART-13 transmitter.
The person writing the spec for the earliest
B-29s had an old -C manual, so that's what he wrote.

In fact, we WWII radio people have discovered through
years of deep digging and hard debate that the radios
were put in every which-a-way; whatever they had on
hand when they had a need, it got installed.
I can't speak for jeeps, but aircraft were often not delivered
from the factory with permanent radio installations,
because they kept having to retro-fit them in the field
to match the set-up a particular unit was using
(yes; we do have written documentation).
"By the book" equipment just wasn't always available.
Thus, "aircraft" radios were often installed in tanks,
jeeps and in control towers- the Eighth Air Force
control tower in England had SCR-274N and SCR-522,
both "aircraft" radios, installed as their ground
base radios for talking with pilots.  I have documentation
of both SCR-274N and SCR-287 ("B-17 Bomber radios")
installed in Navy search and rescue patrol boats,
and a Navy aircraft command radio mounted in an ambulance.

So don't restrict yourself to the -9 model of the TCS;
you're on solid ground whatever model number you use.
I *would* match them both with the same suffix,
i.e. both TCS-12, etc, since the factory or the
in-theater radio shop would often (not always-
remember it depended on what was on hand)
have opened a crate with all one model in it.
That might have been TCS-5 or -9 or -12, but
it was all the same radio.
If the judges don't believe that, have them talk to us.

Kind Regards,
David S.