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

Sun Jul 8 12:11:46 EDT 2012

Hi Leslie,

It was not only British factories that suffered.

In about 1956, I was visiting my grandparents in Surrey. I was repeatedly
told not to go digging in the gardon or playing in the pond because there
were still unexploded bits from WW II dogfights there. This was a full
decade after the war ended. They still had a bomb shelter.

Also, in either 1952 or 1956 a few things were still rationed. I remember
eggs being scarce. The same grandparents had a chicken coop and a few
hens, BTW.

I believe a few things (rubber, gasoline?) were rationed in the US, but
nowhere near the UK.

-John

=================

> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>