[ARC5] More on the "No HF" Myth

[David Stinson]

Somewhere out there is a book on the huge fleet of B-17s and
B-24s that were parked and scrapped in Kingman, Arizona.
One of the photos showed the valley around Kingman airport
(yes; I have been there) with what looked like hundreds
of bombers.  The caption claimed it was the "last stop"
for the 8th and 15 Air Forces.  Wish now I'd copied down
the tail markings.  I do know from other sources that 
at least some combat vets met the scrappers at Kingman.

Mike's post reminds us that we can't make "hard and fast" 
statements about what was used where.  For example, I have
photos of at least three light aircraft in the ETO during 
the war with RCA AVT/AVR installed.  One of them is being
guarded after being shot down by german small arms fire.
The AVR-20 is clearly visible at the wing root, as well
as the trailing wire antenna.  And I'm sure most of us
have seen the L-5 in the ETO with a BC-659 installed.

As for ARC-5 only being good for "very short ranges,"
that's a matter of individual cases.  I interviewed 
a WWII shipboard radio tech who said they couldn't hear
any airborne HF over a couple of miles.  When I asked him 
what he thought the problem was, he said "stupid antenna design!
They asked steamship piping engineers to design antenna 
installations."  I don't know that these guys were all that
bad as engineers, but the installation he described wouldn't 
work very well.
The radio shack was down two decks.
They ran antenna wires- single wires now, not balanced
feeds or coax- out the top of the equipment 
and into pipes that went up and came out next to the island.
Then they'd go up the side of island to the horizontal part.
As a result of this, they could only hear aircraft HF if the
plane was on the port side of the ship.  Small wonder.

I maintain that such installations and stories of poor
performance are the exception and have been recorded and
repeated over the years for a specific reason.  
The people who designed these aircraft systems were not stupid.  
The people who used them had to depend on them to work.  
SCR-274N and AN/ARC-5 HF stayed in service from 1940 
until at least the early 1950s.
That could not be the case for a system that "didn't work."
Even more telling-
A lot of money and man-hours were expended to keep these 
systems in service when there were lots of alternatives
readily available.  That procurement officers, 
faced with several choices in communications equipment,
should continue to support the one that "doesn't work"
over such a long period of time is inconceivable.
Moreover- no commander worth the name is going to 
put his people in jeopardy by forcing them to rely
on a system that doesn't perform, especially when 
there are alternatives available.

I believe that stories about how airborne HF "didn't work"
were given a lot of air play for a specific reason.
Propaganda often outlives the accomplishment of its goal.
Remember the stories about how surplus rigs were
"TVI gennys" and the BC-375 was good only for scrapping?
You STILL hear these stories.  They're untrue now, and
they were untrue then.  Many companies had a vested
interest in propagandizing against "surplus" radios.
How many of you are old enough remember the ARRL's attitude 
about military surplus, especially after phone calls from 
the advertisers who supported QST?  Add to that a bunch of
misinformation about operation the equipment in other magazines
and the myths become immortal. 

I submit that, given the above facts, the "HF didn't work/
wasn't used" stories don't hold water. 
I submit again that these stories are the remnants
of propagandizing for the replacement of airborne HF with VHF. 
The Brits, factions in the Air Corps, factions in the War Department
and the aircraft equipment manufacturers themselves all
had vested interests in pushing the changeover from HF to VHF.
Think of the money to be made in both military and civilian
contracts replacing all that gear. 

While I can't prove these assertions yet, 
I'd bet a six-pack that a few months in the archives would prove it.
Historical research is a lot like mathematics.
Sometimes a set of facts (the "bad HF" stories)
and another set of facts (the longevity of AN/ARC-5)
just don't "add up" until you introduce a third factor
(people lobbying against HF).

 -one man's theory.
But I think it's a good one.

73 Dave S.