[ARC5] Data tags and contract delivery dates

[David L. Stinson]

Mike Morrow wrote:

> I may be misinterpreting, but it appears the documents provide substantial
> evidence that by late 1942 the USAAF made little or no use of the SCR-274-N
> in the ETO.  The documents also show the tremendous and dominating
> importance in the ETO of the command set that few collectors seem to like,
> the SCR-522.  (I like it though, but then I also like the USN's AN/ARC-4.)
> 

I did a lot of research on this point last year, 
and several extensive posts on it.  
It isn't as simple as "we always used this; we never used that."
In short: tactical aircraft at the front, in England and in France
had to have the SCR-522 by D-Day.  There was a lot of time
before D-Day when a great many aircraft were still flying HF.
If you wanted to fly anywhere else in Europe
(and there is more to Europe), you'd better have HF or you're
"flying blind."  This was also true of most of the western hemisphere
throughout the war, the Caribbean theater until 1943, and 
the Pacific theater far later (the Air Corps prioritized SCR-522 
to the ETO because of the requirement to coordinate with the Brits). 

If you look at the figures, (and these are confirmed by the 
Signal Corps history series) the total production of SCR-522 
until the end of 1942 amounted to 12000 sets.  
This is not sufficient to fill every ETO requirement, 
especially considering many of them 
were being supplied to the Brits.

More telling and conclusive evidence of the continuing use of SCR-274N
well into 1943 is the figure for 
"Necessary parts to provide alternate installation in planes
equipped with SCR-522."  Production on this began in December of
1942 and totaled nearly *34,000* retrofit kits by mid-1943.
That's a lot of production to retrofit aircraft with radios
they don't intend to use.  Why would such a massive order 
for retrofit kits have been issued, obviously with some priority
given the production urgencies of the time, unless some people found
out that the SCR-522 wasn't the "end-all, be-all" some had
made it out to be?  According to the Signal Corps official histories,
they were "burning down the woods" to get SCR-522 on line by this 
time, yet here they are spending precious resources 
to retrofit with SCR-274N.  There are even photos around
of Mustangs with dual-set mounts, marked for installation
of either 522 or 274N.  The photos don't have dates,
but the aircraft is *not* a Mustang "A;" it's later.

Moreover, by August of 1943, the figures show a continuing production 
of SCR-274N that had totaled nearly 135,000 sets. 
We know from contract and order information that production continued
even after that date (still working on the contract info, Taigh).

I swear, I do not understand this continuing resistance 
to the role of the SCR-274N in the war.  
Someone wrote in a book: 
"fighter aircraft in WWII carried to SCR-522."  
Well, that's true as far as it goes.
The problem is, it doesn't go very far at all.  
When did they use it? What fighters?  Where stationed?   
Which units? etc. etc....
Air charts of the time show conclusively and unquestionably that
to at least mid-1943, an aircraft flying anywhere other than England, 
the northeast coast of the U.S. and the Panama Canal
had better have HF or the pilot was going to be talking to the wind
most of the time.  If he needed a position fix, there weren't
even any VHF direction finding stations beyond the mentioned
areas in *1944*, so God help him if he's lost in a storm.
If he had HF, he could trip over a DF station every few miles.
I have the charts that prove this beyond question.

The role of the SCR-522 was pivotal 
in the advancement of aircraft communications; no question about it.
But it is *not* the whole story.  
The SCR-274N, praised by those who used it,
was a vital bridge linking the "old world" 
of the 1930s micro-powered TRF sets
to the "new world" of VHF.  
That's no mean feat.

73 DE Dave Stinson AB5S