Roman Numerals, Why?

Another use of the method of marking with a screwdriver blade was the broad arrow mark on military equipment. That became formalized with a special stamp and or a stencil for paint application.

Not necessarily illiterate artisans, though (after all, they were writing in Latin!) – just people who found the quickest way to number things with the tools at hand.

Well, I did see mention of a G-FXII in the “Air Leasing at Sywell” thread!

Should Mark 12 now be re-christened ?

double post.

According to Wikipedia the use of Latin mark numbers for aircraft is an interwar innovation –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_aircraft_designation_systems

But this does not show awareness of the use of Latin mark numbers in the 19th century for military equipment. As Stuart Gowan’s has pointed out in post 18 and with which I agree, I subscribe to the view that they are a descendant of the simple marks used by illiterate or semi-literate artisans seeking to ensure that parts of a object would be tracked to ensure proper fit. Perhaps this practice which is extremely practical became legitimized by officialdom and passed from being an effective tool (using pseudo Latin marks) for assemblers to a recognised system for defining variations.

DaveF68….And a myth, as the photo of an early fighter with 4 Xs shows!

NEEMA…. This myth yet again

I know it’s a myth – that’s why I included the link to Wiki – which debunks the myth.

I posted it tongue-in-cheek as an example of Roman numerals in use.
Ken

Is it possible that the theory (of Roman numerals being used because they made for simpler ‘marks’) is borne out by the word ‘mark’ itself, as in ‘Mk I”? Otherwise how did “mark” arise, instead of ‘Type ‘1’ or ‘Number 1’?

“Two X’s in front of the roundel and one X after the roundel”
This myth yet again. For 29 Squadron they were not “X’s” at all and the number varied at least , from 2 to 4 . They were diagonal crosses.

Picking up from what Malcolm has said, Roman numerals were also used in the construction of timber barns, again easy to mark with a chisel; one would have thought that the same joint recognition system would have been used in shipbuilding, and as much of the terminology from that industry was carried over to the A/C manufacture, perhaps its was just a hangover from days gone by.

Roman numerals are OK for small numbers.

True but:

Not always the case

Spitfire XVIII, anyone? 😎

Interesting.
I was wondering if it had anything to do with metal punches. XX requiring just one punch instead of two.
I doubt it 🙂

Not as far fetched as you might modestly imply. Well into the 19th century gun makers used simple punch marks to number the individual parts for guns they were assembling. This was because until the middle of the 19th century and even later (in the case of top of the range sporting weapons (and pistols) ) the original parts were very basically finished but assembling them required hand fitting which created the need to keep all the parts for one item together as they were hand fitted. The simplest method for many makers was to use a screwdriver blade to neatly stamp a small stroke – due to the small numbers of items being made this use of stamped strokes could easily be used to effectively number the parts for each individual piece. Thus a stroke like I could easily be turned into a V or an X and higher numbers created. Also many workers in the gun trade (screw makers, barrel makers, filers, stock makers etc. – they were all separate trades) were illiterate and these simple marks were easy for them to read. On most of my antique firearms parts are stamped with these combinations. Later when numbered dies came into use (following the US practice) numbers from 1 to 9 and 0 were used.

True machine production of parts that do no not require hand fitting and finishing to make the final product is really a 20th century development – even the famous claims made in the 19th century by the Colt company for interchangeability of parts from their mass production methods was untrue as all parts from the simplest screw through to frames and barrels required a degree of hand finishing to make the final product function smoothly. That is essentially why serial numbers on firearms and other machine products was developed – not as an aid to tracking the number produced but to track the parts fit.

“Two X’s in front of the roundel and one X after the roundel”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._29_Squadron_RAF

Ken

And a myth, as the photo of an early fighter with 4 Xs shows!

The change from roman to arabic numerals came in the latter part of WW2, when things started to get to XXXIV etc

Not always the case: I think Meteors started as I, II, III & IV but commenced at the trainer with T.7, F.8 etc. Roman numerals are OK for small numbers.

Also note: if the versions of engines, planes, tanks, guns and other weapons, produced or designed before and during the WW2, were designated with Roman numerals, then postwar British designations for all armament versions were adopted with Arabic numerals.

Bre11t is very confusing too….

simplex ut difficilius est 🙂

“Two X’s in front of the roundel and one X after the roundel”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._29_Squadron_RAF

Ken

Interesting.
I was wondering if it had anything to do with metal punches. XX requiring just one punch instead of two.
I doubt it 🙂

Yabba Dabba Doo Mk I?
Keith

In the case of British aircraft I suspect that it was a hang over from the standard British army method of designating the various sub variations of equipment which developed as a result of changes in these becoming somewhat more complex than could be properly defined by just using a description. This was a result of the increasing number of changes that were able to be made once proper industrialized military equipment production occurred in the industrial society of the 19th century. Aircraft were in the very early period of their use just before WW1 simply an extension of army equipment and the practice was continued as the RFC came into being and when this became the RAF. It might have continued for longer if WW2 hadn’t occurred and forced production of evolving variants to the point where the use of Latin numbers became unwieldy. The average non-classically trained person could probably easily recognise that for instance III represented the 3rd variant but once you got into XVI (16) or XIX (19), or even IX representing 9, then that was beginning to stretch things. Also a great many officers and most senior administrative staff in WW2 were coming from backgrounds that were outside the old military’s traditional recruiting area which was the private school system.