[ARC5] Re: History of ham mods; opinions?

[Bob Macklin]

In 1957 I was introduced to the ARC-5/SCR-274 units by a WWII USAAF(8thAF)
radio operator.

He showed a group of us in the USAF (and POOR) how to make ham rigs out of
these things. Especially how to use the BC-453 and a Q5er.

Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa,
"Real Radios Glow in the Dark"
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
To: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at arrl.net>
Cc: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:25 PM
Subject: [ARC5] Re: History of ham mods; opinions?


> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>I disagree that the history of these fine rigs ended with the end of
> >>their deployment as someone eluded to.
> >
> > The only history of this
> > gear that's worth the ink or electrons to document is why and how
> > it was developed, and then operated by the intended user (the
> > military).
>
> In *your* opinion. I think that's why so many folks 'misunderstand'
> you, Mike: you insist your way is the *only* way.
>
> >>A rich history has continued since...
> >
> > Really?  Who could give a flying fart about what hams did with
> > stuff that they generally valued only as parts for their hobby rigs?
> > Was that use acceptable?  Sure it was.  Was that use interesting
> > to anyone but (perhaps) another ham?  Not the least little bit!
>
> Hmmm.....well, how about the fact that many of those hams were in fact
> WWII vets who used, maintained, and knew the gear in its previous
> military life as well? Perhaps you should consider rephrasing your
> opinions to reflect that -you- feel this way as opposed to
> any/everyone. They obviously do not.
>
> > If a ham thinks that future historians of military technology will
> > care at all about ham use of surplus, then he grossly over estimates
> > the impact and value (both very minimal at best, except for the days
> > well before WWII) of ham operations to society in general.
>
> And conversely, if any collector of this gear thinks that *only* the
> military history of a given piece of equipment matters, then he
> grossly underestimates the impact the military and associated surplus
> have had on our engineers and technology throughout the years - and
> vice versa, whether you choose to believe it or not. Do a little
> research into where many of the trained radio and electronics folks
> who joined the military came from in WWII and before. While you're at
> it, talk to folks about civilian gear being 'borrowed' by the
> government and military specifically, from civilian amateurs in early
> WWII. Like it or not, the commoners are thick in the mix: designing,
> building, using, instructing. Did you just *twitch*, Mike?  (o:
>
> > I don't preserve any of my gear for, or because of, ham use.  I
> > preserve it for the technical and military history it represents.
>
> I don't think Dave's original query had to do with preserving or
> documenting the gear specifically for one purpose or another, more how
> it was developed, used, served and continues to serve. When you think
> about it in a little more depth: if not for the perceived monetary
> value to hams after WWII, what is the likelihood that so much of this
> gear would've ever survived? If there wasn't some value above scrap,
> how many NOS ARC-5s would still be turning up? Probably few, if any,
> since much more would've gone to the smelters instead of surplus
> houses.
>
> You're certainly free to follow a narrow, specialized side of
> collecting, Mike. But to look down your nose at post-military history
> related to this stuff as unworthy seems to do a disservice to the gear
> as much as the people who designed, used, and maintained it.
>
> 73, OM -
>
> ~ Todd,  KA1KAQ
> _______________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>