[ARC5] 1155

[Geoff]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>
To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] 1155


>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.


Not really, there is a big difference between book reading and combat needs

>
> 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.

As it says in the book


>
> 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.


Then I suppose all pilots stayed at high altitudes in your view of things.

What about crippled planes, those seperated from their group by weather or 
combat? Were they supposed to simply "deal with it"

I suppose that Spitfire pilot of the plane recently discovered in the desert 
died happily knowing that he likely could have been rescued if a real radio 
was available, and it wouldnt have been VHF.

Im not into HT's and rubber duckies but I have worked extreme distances on 
2M SSB with planes and also AM in earler days.

.
>
> The command set function has always been better served by VHF (or UHF)
> equipment.


Generally that is correct and when things go according to plan. And in later 
years as equipment improved it certainly was superior.


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.

As long as pilots could communicate with their limited number of VHF 
channels they were happy. Granted that changing frequencies on the fly with 
ARC-5/SCR HF gear was no fun but if channelized sets had been available it 
may have been a different story.
Nothing was even close to ideal during WW2.


>
>> 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-*.)

I didnt say it was so calm yourself.
But it was used as a backup to VHF when necessary as well as its primary 
long range purpose.
Their is plenty of historical data of HF being used as the cripples came 
back to base at treetop level and received escorts, or other assistance. Yes 
Im familiar with the AN/ARR-11 designator

>
> 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 message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5117 - Release Date: 07/07/12
>