[ARC5] The comms war - VHF & HF (a bit OT).

[Leslie Smith]

Hello list,
Some-one with a better knowledge of history may be able to correct me on
the following point.

RAF warned by German HF radio use:
I understood that the British Air Force specifically moved away from HF
communication for "command" purposes as a result of their experience
during the first months of the war, and particularly the Battle of
Britain.  The UK radio interception women found they could hear the
German Air Forces on HF radio as each group assembled across the
channel.  This gave the Brits a double advantage - they had a warning of
impending attack, and their aircraft saved fuel by fighting over their
own territory.  More than that, if a pilot baled out he might be
rescued. So I understood the Brits developed HF as a result of listening
to German radio traffic.  I'll read comment about this point with
interest.

However, this idea (that the Brits conserved their fighter forces as a
result of listening to the German control chatter etc) is only a memory,
and I don't have a specific reference that might document my rather
vague memory.  

Uninterrupted industrial production in USA.
I think some others have raised a few good points - in particular I felt
John made a worthwhile point about UK loss of production (due to
bombing) vs  absolute isolation and no possibility of attack in USA
factories etc. This point is illustrated well by my now-gone friend,
Henk Bias.  He was a Dutch pilot. He made the point that the Americans
were so confident they would never be attacked that they took no effort
at black-out.  He told me it was normal when flying "in" to see the
lights about 20-30 minutes or so before landing.  In contrast, he said
there was so much dock-yard lighting in California (this would be tramp
steamer "liberty ship" assembly) that the west coast cities (ship-yards)
were visible for about 2 hours from a B-17 before he landed.  He made
that specific point. 

To John's point about the US advantage of isolation, I'd say that food
production was a problem in war-time Britain.  No such problem in US -
because there was a LOT more arable land, and the climate was kinder in
terms of the growing season.   I understand Britain survived because of
US agricultural production and cross Atlantic freight in 20k tonne
liberty ships.  Ditto for Russia.  I have seen list of material supplied
to Russia.  USA supplied 5 million pair of army boots to Russia.  That's
a lot of leather, and a lot of feet. So US industry (and science) was
able to focus more energy on developing technology.

Red tape - straight keys vs "bugs".
Also, I think the American "let's do it" attitude might contrast with
the British "we do things by the book", in terms of "time to get a job
done".  And if I may be bold, I think this is illustrated nicely by a
very simple device - the telegraph key.  I am not aware of any Brit
using a "bug".  I'll bet some-one on this list can say from their own
observation that US used "bugs" extensively.  I don't know this, I just
"sense" that was so.  I'll bet the Brits had an order permitting only
"straight" keys or "standard" keys to be used - not "bugs".  I'd be
pleased to hear from list members in UK and in US on this point, because
I've always speculated about why there isn't a British military "bug"
and there are definitely US military issue "bugs".  

I'm reading each postings with interest as it appears.


  Les
  vk2bcu at operamail.com


On Sat, Jul 7, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Mike Morrow wrote:
> I wrote:
> 
> > ...the UK helped get the USA away from attraction to its marginally effective
> > MF/HF command sets to VHF.
> 
> Geoff wrote:
> 
> > I think not as VHF has severe distance limits that only HF could cover.
> > Both had their purpose and were widely used with excellent results by US
> > forces.
> 
> What we've got here is...failure to communicate.
> 
> My statement above clearly indicates its application to *COMMAND* sets,
> not liaison sets.
> 
> Command sets are used for plane-to-plane communication in formation,
> and for short range communication to air fields on departure and
> approach.
> 
> With respect to those "severe distance limits", the operating
> instructions
> for many US VHF sets contain a graph of line-of-sight-to-ground range
> at VHF frequencies.  The one in the 1944 AN/ARC-1 manual indicates the
> range to be greater than 200 miles for an aircraft at 30000 feet.
> Many of us have used two-meter FM HTs to talk with someone flying
> at 30000 feet several states away.  It's not theory...it's real.
> 
> The command set function has always been better served by VHF (or UHF)
> equipment.  No one has ever cited a credible condition where, if
> VHF sets *had* been available, they would not have better served the
> command set function than MF/HF sets.  The UK helped to bring
> the US forces into that realization.  I challenge anyone to find a
> pilot's memoir that bemoans the replacement of the SCR-274-N gear
> with the SCR-522-A.  Pilot praise for the SCR-522-A and the later
> AN/ARC-3, expressed as great preference for the "push button" rather
> than the "coffee grinder" command sets, can be found with little
> difficulty.
> 
> > I also understand that the UK outfitted some of their aircraft with 
> > better performing US HF gear so they wouldnt get lost on long flights.
> 
> That equipment was definitely not a MF/HF command set.  It was AN/ARC-8
> (AN/ART-13A and AN/ARR-11) *LIAISON* equipment.  (AN/ARR-11 is the JAN
> name for the BC-348-*.)
> 
> 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

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be