[ARC5] HF/VHF Again (Was ".... Transmitter Dial)

[David Stinson]

----- Original Message ----- 
>... he told me they practically never used HF !....

I don't doubt you're vet's honesty;
only his sixty-five-year-old memory,
which is reflective of the last months of the war,
and doubtless that's what he remembers.
The Navy's own history and official documents say
that VHF was not general or even widely available
until *after* Leyte Gulf.
While it was installed in many fighter aircraft
from mid-1944 on, it was still a "half-baked" system.
This is confirmed in the documentation.
According to Leyte Gulf after-action reports,
while VHF was installed in fighter aircraft and
on some vessels, the ships that were supposed to direct
and control the aircraft had makeshift installations at best,
proving that VHF was not a fully-operational aircraft comm
system in the fleet until some time after this.
That wasn't unusual;
The "official" books usually came out long after
the men in the field had cobbled something together.

DOCUMENTATION.
>From After-Action Reports for Leyte Gulf, Oct. 1944.
Quotes, with my notes and emph.:

ComCruDiv 13 comments:
   "....3. The lack of a dependable shipborne VHF installation is
   another source of inconvenience and loss of military efficiency.
   **** With only the makeshift installation of two AN/ARC-4 aircraft
   VHF radio units, it is not felt that the Flagship's CIC installation
   is properly equipped to handle the fighter direction
   and intercept work frequently encountered. ****
   (even the Flagship lacked an operational-level,
     surface-to-air VHF installation.  Many support vessels
    are report to be equipped with nothing but unreliable TBYs,
     or, more usually, no VHF at all)....
   **** During the past 10 months, however, this division
   has not had opportunity or the necessary equipment
   to remedy these and other discrepancies in the material
   installations of the communications department. *****"
(So, even 10 months *after* October of 1944,
the Navy *still* lacked the gear and people to install
operational-level, "by the book"  VHF surface-to-air
communications in their ships.
Well, they certainly weren't talking to them by semaphore
or using a big sling-shot to fling notes at them.
I didn't say it; the commanders who where there said it).

Again- don't take it from me; listen to the commanders:

CTU 77.4.3 comments:
   "*** To meet the additional traffic load required aboard a flagship,
   an *ATC,*  ten channel, high frequency aircraft transmitter was installed
  and set up on the ten frequencies most likely to be used.
   This proved an excellent addition,
  *especially for communications with aircraft*....."

CTG 77.4 comments and recommends:
   "1. The multiplicity of voice circuits required by the air support 
frequency plan
     presented a serious problem of coordination and control. In order to 
integrate
    the problem a complete Support Air Radio Center (SARC) was installed
    in a compartment connecting with CIC. The set-up worked so 
satisfactorily
    that it should be made standard in all carriers assigned to support 
missions. ....
   2. The nets guarded in the SARC during the LEYTE operations included:
    Inter CSA, Local Air Warning, General Warning,
    Inter Fighter Director, Air-Sea rescue, Support Air Direction,
    Support Air Request, and Search and Attack.
     >>>>*****All of these were HF circuits. *****<<<<<"
    (emph. mine, obviously. ;-)
    3. To cover these circuits a total of eight receivers were made 
available.
    Nine would have been more satisfactory. All must be installed in SARC
    and must cover ****medium and high frequency bands.****
    4. Transmitters available to SARC included one TBL, one TCE
    and one *ATC aircraft transmitter* pre-set for all required frequencies.
    The correct installation would be two TBL and one push button 
transmitter
    pre-set to ten frequencies."

And for such a "wonderful improvement" as aircraft VHF,
it got low marks from the commanders, again showing that,
at this time, aircraft VHF was not yet "ready for prime time":

CTG 77.4:
   "1. There is always the problem of insufficient VHF channels
   and "jammed' frequencies..... the presence of three distinct carrier 
groups
   complicated the problem even more.
   ....their air groups interfered both with the carriers and each other.
   The jamming of the fighter Director channel was particularly noticeable.
   There were many times when all three groups were giving vectors
   to their planes at the same time, with confusion of the fighters hearing
   vectors from all three controlling bases and
   the bases hearing acknowledgments from all the planes....
   3. At the present time, the four generally used VHF frequencies
   are so close together on the band that it is almost impossible to avoid
   interference between channels. This is particularly noticeable
   in channels #2, 3 and 4. Since there is a difference of only .72 mcs.
   Between the three channels, the elimination of this interference is 
difficult..."

CTG 38.1 Raid 7
   "....7. Communications for the most part were not sufficiently reliable
   for fighter direction. In the case of the night fighters, communications
   were generally most unsatisfactory. ....The number of planes in the air
   on the same channels is continuously increasing.
   ***Communication facilities have not been provided to the
   extent necessary to keep pace with the ever-increasing necessities
   of large scale air operations.***  Failure to provide the equipment
   and trained upkeep personnel will result in
   ship-air communications breakdown with consequent inability
   to intercept enemy aircraft. ...
   Regardless of how good radio discipline is, it is obvious that a
   thousand stations on one circuit can only result in massed confusion."

I have some original aircraft radio logs.
They show continuous HF use throughout the flights.
Aircraft Sectionals from that time show continuous, active HF circuits.
All this, plus mountains of other data is, at least to me,
conclusive, period, case closed.
I'll say it again:  VHF did not "replace" HF.
  They were concurrent-use systems; not in every aircraft,
 but in every theater, throughout the war.

D.S.