IIB or not IIB?

[CJE]

What is the official spelling of RAF sub-versions?
- Tomahawk Mk. IIb or Mk. IIB;
- Spitfire Mk. Vc or Mk. VC.

I know this is of little importance, but I'd like to know.

Thanks.

Chris

[Graham Boak]

I don't believe that there was an official version: I've been told that either can be found in the documents. However, the Flight Manual reprint for the Spitfire Mk.V uses capitals.

I do have the Hurricane manual, but I need to stay near the door for trick and treaters! From memory, that was capitals too.

Personally, I prefer the lower case on aesthetic grounds, plus it does allow making the distinction for variants such as the Spitfire Mk.IXB (LF Mk.IX, as I'm sure you know.)

[CJE]

Hello Graham!

Wot? The British did not codify their designations. I just can't believe it!
More seriously, thanks for your answer.

Chris

[Graham Boak]

Odd, isn't it? Someone who is studying the early use of the role prefixes/mark numbers/suffixes tells me that the confusion of Spitfire/PR Spitfire/Seafire marks and designations is only one example of the inconsistencies in early use of the system. Another example is the early Beaufighter, Mk.1F and Mk.1C. where the suffix is a role code, although it does reflect an armament difference.

Not that more modern use was any better: see how Harriers followed a conventional set of changes as engines were replaced (GR MK.1, Mk.1A and Mk.3), but Jaguars were GR Mk.1s regardless.

Yes, British Bureaucracy was Best, but even Homer nods....

[brewerjerry]

Hi
I have a collection of pilots notes & flight manuals, etc ( I know... I am seeking treatment and rehab...).

However, all use capitol letters when refering to sub marks, As graham stated in his reply.
cheers
Jerry

[JP Vieira]

From my recollection of several books and articles I thought that the (at least more commom) way was MK.Vb (for instance)...

[Pilot]

All what I know also is that they use block capitals.

[Graham Boak]

I've been rereading work in progress on the subject, and it includes quotes from internal Air Ministry documents where the lower case is used for armament variants. The documents were not entirely consistent, as things were in flux. The driving need was the messy situation regarding Spitfire PR designations. It is my feeling that the concurrent use of role prefixes, which were invariably(?) in capitals, meant that the armament variants were initially thought of as lower case. The possibility for confusion is evident - consider your example of the Hurricane. The Mk.IIb is the 12 gun fighter, the Mk.IIB the 10-gun fighter-bomber. I don't know if this was ever considered (I doubt it), but it is entirely consistent with the nomenclatures of the time. It does show why some improvement in the system was needed.

Prewar, of course, this would have meant a name change - Vincent/Vildebeeste, Hart/Audax/Demon/Osprey are the same basic aircraft, but no-one (as far as I know) ever suggested the Blenheim Mk.IF be renamed. Once the role codes became prefixes, only the armament codes remained so they could be either capitals or lower case.

Which is interesting (at least, I think so) but doesn't get any nearer defining "official" usage.