[ARC5] AN/ARC-5 vs. SCR-274-N - Henry's Mystery

[Henry Mei'l's]

I repeat for the last time: The Germans labelled the units 274 that's how 
THEY see it  - maybe before the next war you should explain the intracacies 
of US radio gear designations to the opposing forces before hostilities so 
that when they are become occupied they wont confuse things.

I agree to be expedited for Court Marital  under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, paragraph B.S.666:
"Disrespecting Command Set designations and disgracing the honor of the 
ARC-5"

BTW people have been mailing me off thread,  and backing up my point of 
view. Also, somone has identified my units.
I wont be baited into any more discussions on this subject with you.









----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>
To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] AN/ARC-5 vs. SCR-274-N - Henry's Mystery


> Henry wrote:
>
>>Look old buddy
>
> That's rather presumptuous.
>
>>[Incoherent and disorganized rant followed.]
>
> I was trying to help you determine if your units were formerly
> SCR-274-N units or AN/ARC-5 units, which was at the core of the
> question with which you seemed concerned.
>
> You stated your conclusion that your units had been SCR-274-N units,
> when that is quite clearly impossible if the frequency range of
> the unit in question was 1.5 to 3.0 MC.  There are no SCR-274-N
> receivers for 1.5 to 3.0 MC.  But, perhaps that can be explained
> if you yet again had provided incorrect technical information.
>
> I also repeated the suggestion that others had already made about
> determining if the unit used a 12SF7 anywhere, which would determine
> without ANY ambiguity that it had been an AN/ARC-5 unit.
>
> But, I and others who have responded to you have failed.
>
> Apparently you are offended by any attempts to guide you to an educated
> answer to "Henry's great technical mystery" of whether the units in
> question had been SCR-274-N or AN/ARC-5.
>
> One of the purposes of this list is to discuss this type of equipment
> and reach CORRECT...I say again, CORRECT...technical or historical
> conclusions.  I doubt that I'm the only list member perplexed by your
> poorly organized and informed recent postings, and by the difficulty
> you seem to be having with this profoundly simple equipment identification
> problem.
>
> I am always happy when someone provides any information which corrects
> errors in my knowledge, assumptions, or conclusions.  That happens
> with some frequency.  I can not apologize for you if you do not share
> a similar goal when you participate on this list.
>
> Mike / KK5F
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3168 - Release Date: 09/30/10 
08:34:00