[ARC5] Quote: "ARC-4 was a total piece of garbage"

[Geoff]

>> I have been contacted by a friend of the team near Portland, Oregon which 
>> is
>> restoring a WWII PT boat...The other piece of equipment they need is an 
>> ARC-4.
>> I told their intermediary that the ARC-4 was a total piece of garbage, 
>> but,
>> apparently, they insist that is what they want.
>
> Well, I guess they must be a really silly bunch, just wanting to restore 
> the
> equipment that was in place for war-time military use.  Obviously, if they
> were smart, they'd want something else that works better, like an 
> AN/ARC-1,
> or an AN/ARC-3, or an AN/ARC-73, or an AN/ARC-115, or an AN/ARC-134, or...
> maybe even the latest oriental gear...something that is more suitable for 
> ham
> fun.
>
> It surprises me to read that a group attempting an authentic restoration
> would be discouraged from that effort.  If the unit carried a BC-14-A 
> crystal
> set, that's what should be there!
>
> Now...to the AN/ARC-4:
>
> The WE-233A (AN/ARC-4*) filled an essential role in war-time naval
> communications years before the AN/ARC-1 or VHF AN/ARC-5 was available. 
> One
> can find documentation of its use not only on naval aircraft, but also
> on naval craft including submarines and PT boats, as well as in portable
> installations such as the MAH and MAM.  It apparently filled its 
> *military*
> (not ham!) role without many of its intended users calling it "a total
> piece of garbage".  Perhaps those users were not qualified sufficiently
> to understand how really poor their equipment was. :-)


Maybe they didnt return from a mission to talk about it. PT service was not 
McHales Navy.
Im also surprised that the one being restored hadnt been upgraded; it would 
be interesting to know its history.

Carl