[ARC5] OT The BC-659- what were they thinking?

Thu Jun 2 12:28:48 EDT 2016

Did you mean 3-4 MC for the extra 274N transmitter?  This is the first time I've ever heard of the possibility of a 2-3 MC 274N.  
I have seen a couple of BC-611s that were set up on some Coast Guard frequency in the 2.7 MC range, if I remember right; told one of my friends who was a Coastie radio operator about them and he said "That's an interesting frequency."  But he didn't elaborate.
83
Mike
WA4DLF

      From: Robert Eleazer <releazer at earthlink.net>
 To: Dennis DuValll <w7qho at aol.com> 
Cc: arc5 at mailman.qth.net
 Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 9:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [ARC5] OT The BC-659- what were they thinking?

 Note that the idea of ground troops talking to the aircraft to do FAC duties was an alien one for most of the war.  Most ground troops did not know how to do that, and in any case the higher ups in the USAAF were horrified at the very idea that properly briefed aircrew could be overruled by a "private on the ground." They were moving from the Air Corps concept of units being attached to specific armies the same way that Tank Corps and Signal Corps were - to the concept of an independent Air Force that pursued its own objectives.
I think the first unit that broke the mold was the Air Commandoes in Burma.  The idea was that ground units operating inside enemy lines would be supported totally from the air.  That made it essential for the airplanes to talk to the ground units, so ta'hell with what the brass wanted.  But even then, the RAF had gone over to VHF, and there were no suitable radios for the ground - and in any case the RAF leadership said, "Our pilots have been properly briefed and have no need to talk to the ground units."  But the USAAF Air Commandoes were equipped with the P-51A, fitted with SCR-274-N and thus had the capability to talk to the army units, even if quite by accident.  If you look at that list of radios per combat theater they came out with you will see instructions to provide an extra SCR-274-N transmitter, 2 - 3 MHZ range, for P-51A's bound for the CBI - and no doubt that was what it was for.  Eventually they realized this was a good idea in France, and the SCR-622 came out of the SCR-522 - but it sure took them a long time to do what seems blindingly obvious today.   I have read of the BC-611 being used in the "URC-4" role in the CBI to talk to C-47's, but that was in cases where they were dropping rescue people to help downed aircrew and knew exactly where they were flying, not searching around.  I suppose if you are circling 1000 ft directly overhead and using an SCR-274-N even a BC-611 will work for that.  Those 2 for $7 walkie talkies they sell in the toystores probably even will work for that. WayneWB5WSV       
 ----- Original Message -----  From: Dennis DuValll  To: Robert Eleazer  Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [ARC5] OT The BC-659- what were they thinking? 
Well, remember we’re talking about “early in the game” here.  The follow-on to the BC-659, the BC-1335 was much smaller, lighter, had miniature tubes and is a LOT easier to setup and lug around.  Seemed to be intended primarily for vehicular, not man-pack use though. Purloined SCR-522s ended up in the back of jeeps because the guys on the ground needed to be able to talk directly to the the P-51s and P-47s giving them close air support.  At the time, incredibly, there was nothing in the Army inventory to provide that critical capability (see the “Green” Books).  And,of course, we got the -522 from the Brits…. 
 Not sure how well the BC-611 actually worked out in practice.  Merrill’s Marauders found them essentially useless according to their reports.  They liked the SCR-300 though and used SCR-284s to good effect.  
      Dennis D.  W7QHO Glendale, CA 
 ****************

 On Jun 1, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Robert Eleazer <releazer at earthlink.net> wrote:
  Yes, I find it hard to believe that we could not have built a much lighter and smaller set to cover the armor FM frequencies and thereby enable the infantry to chat with nearby tanks.  Maybe they could have had an armor "guard channel."  The same is true for ground to aircraft communications.  We should have been able to have something smaller and lighter than what amounted to an SCR-522 in the back of a Jeep    Not sure just when miniature tubes came into service but they should have been able to do the job.  No doubt such a set would not have been as easy to haul as a BC-611 or even a PRC-6, but something even 4 or 5 times that size on only two frequencies would have been very useful.   I was just working on a PRC-77 and a PRC-25. They are not the lightest things to haul around, either, although a backpack harness would have made it easier.   
Wayne WB5WSV             
 ----- Original Message -----  From: Dennis DuValll To: Robert Eleazer Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [ARC5] OT The BC-659- what were they thinking? 
The BC-620 operates in the lower  “Armor” frequency band.  The BC-659 operates on the higher “Artillery’ frequencies.  There were  battery packs and vibrator power supplies for both units.  AC supplies too, at least for the BC-659 (rare).   I currently have a pair    of working -659s, both with the Italian battery substitutes.  The things actually work quite well but a lot of bulk and weight for what they do by todays standards.  The techs who had to implement frequency changes probably weren’t too fond of them. 
     Dennis D.  W7QHO Glendale, CA 
 ****************

 On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Robert Eleazer <releazer at earthlink.net> wrote:
  I assume the BC-620 was intended for use by infantry and scout units supporting armor while the BC-659 was for infantry use.  I've seen a picture of South Korean ground troops with a BC-620 on high ground above a major tank battle in the Korean War.

 No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7598 / Virus Database: 4591/12342 - Release Date: 06/01/16

 No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7598 / Virus Database: 4591/12343 - Release Date: 06/01/16

______________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20160602/79961a50/attachment-0001.html>