Talk:1 Main Circuit

Military history: Maritime / Technology / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

CCS

The CCS link takes you to a disambiguation page. It should jut point to the correct page, but I don't know which one it is. --Omnipotence407 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

1MC term or circuit is not only used by USN. I'm onboard a Modified Lupo-class frigate and we also use that term, is it a NATO standard for internal comms circuits? we got here 1MC, 5MC (engine rooms) and 27MC (ASW). -- Evogol^Talk 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The USN was probably the origin. After all, many navies acquired trained under the RN and USN, which share similar nomenclature. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phased Out

The IVCS system hasn't been phasing out the 1MC. The 1MC is still used to address the crew, while the IVCS is just a system for dialing direct to other spaces, much like telephones, although it does have a "conference" like capability called a net. If IVCS replaced anything, it's the old "growler" system. I'm on the USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and this is how we and other ships on our waterfront are set up. --JimDanger 14:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asessment

Relatively big, organized, with pictures but lacks Bibliography and references. Needs much more work Ikokki 11:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US-specific?

Is this general naval terminiology, or is it particular to the USN? The intro would imply the former, but the TLA has a distinct whiff of the latter. And with no references... Alai 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage Examples

The "Usage Examples" section does not add very much to the article. I don't think usage examples are required to help someone understand what the 1MC system is for. Even if they do help someone understand, surely not that many are really needed? Many of the listed "examples" are completely opaque jargon to anyone who is not well-versed in Navy terminology. That section could use a very thorough pruning, if not outright removal in my opinion. --Cecilkorik (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Actually, I searched for the 1MC just to find those usage examples. They are significantly culturally associated with the US Navy's use of the 1MC. For those that have neither heaved out nor triced up on command from the talking box, it is a window into Navy and Marine life at sea. Omitting them would be a disservice. --TheKlown (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]