[Milsurplus] was: Pre-WW2 USAAF nomenclature

[WA5CAB at cs.com]

In a message dated 11/19/2005 1:01:36 AM Central Standard Time, 
kargo_cult at msn.com writes: 
> the "middle codes" were not exclusive to the USAAF, but were 
> used for the USA ground Army also?
> 


First, it wasn't USAAF but only AAF (Army Air Forces). And during the period 
when all the funny nomenclature was being assigned, it wasn't that either. It 
was AAC (Army Air Corps).

> Again, what did the first letter of the two letter middlecode 
> represent?
> Examples, BC-RC-183, BC-SA-167
> 


No one that I know of has ever come across the instruction covering this. And 
there are too few examples known to determine it empirically. Most examples 
are "A*". When I first began to see them, I assumed the intent was the 
progression from "AA" through "ZZ". But then the examples you list above would imply 
that the first letter was some sort of equipment type designator and only the 
second letter was incremented. In which case maybe the "A" was supposed to 
significant as well (Aircraft?). The third case (and just confirmed by reference 
to the TM) is BC-AA-191. First, it was both a Ground and an Aircraft set. 
Second, although all but two of its dozen+ accessory units are also "AA", you have 
BC-AA-193 and BC-BB-193, and BC-AA-196 and BC-CC-196. 

The above examples alone are internally inconsistent with any of the theories 
of what the letters "meant". So I will simply contend that whatever the rule 
might have been supposed to be, it was not followed correctly.

The only thing that does appear to have been consistently followed (the above 
plus the power units Bill mentioned) is that in the Navy fashion, higher 
letters in the second position imply either later production, different 
contractors, or both.

> Isn't it surprising, for apparently how few prewar SCR-183's
> survived, how many actual production runs there were?
> ( AA thru AS at least )
> 


Actually, rather large quantaties of the SCR-183 and 283 appear to have 
survived the war and into the early 50's. But most ended up in garages, then on 
trash piles at the back of the property, and then finally hauled off to city 
dumps. I can recall more than one example of this from the late 50's or early 
60's. Very few collectors in those days.

> I wonder if in the US Army there tended to be less of a need for
> long-distance type aircraft radio than in the US Navy and USCG.
> Witness the ultra-rare CW add-on for the SCR-183 series.
> William, do you know which SCR -A*-183 set used the CW 
> oscillator.
> I note that the Navy's similar RU receivers all - apparently -
> were CW capable from the start.
> 

The Navy was always (or at least from the 30's) more CW oriented than the 
Army. When the Army began in the mid 30's a serious attempt (hampered by funding) 
to put radios into every aircraft, the concept of Command versus Liaison 
radios already existed, or at least was invented at the same time. So the only 
reason I can think of for having CW capability in a Command radio (which required 
a trained operator) was if the aircraft had no Liaison set. The components to 
add CW capability to an SCR-183 or SCR-283 might be an early example of $500 
toilet seat lids. :-)

73 

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
<http://www.wa5cab.com> (Web Store)
MVPA 9480
<wa5cab at cs.com> (Primary email)
<wa5cab at houston.rr.com> (Backup email)