[Milsurplus] airborne radio activity

[Mac]

we're they limited to just 1 relay plane ??
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Stinson" <arc5@ix.netcom.com>
To: <Telegrapher@QWEST.net>; "ARC-5" <arc5@mailman.qth.net>
Cc: <milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] airborne radio activity


> Telegrapher@QWEST.net wrote:
> 
> > Read an article about a B-24 pilot yesterday.  Said his "final 3
> > missions were radio relay missions, with up to 14 radios in the
> > aircraft". ... This was in the May 1945
> > timeframe...
> 
> The theory is that airborne VHF repeaters had replaced
> HF Liaison and Command functions on strategic bombing 
> missions by 1945.
> 
> At least two eye witnesses say that a system of 
> airborne VHF repeaters was used to relay liaison and command traffic.
> I am certain they saw airborne VHF repeaters in WWII.
> But there are good reasons why it could not have been 
> an official replacement for bomber HF systems.
> 
> First- there is no documentation in any of the sectionals,
> Airways guides or any other document 
> I've seen for such a system, and I've seen many.
> Never in decades of reading and collecting this information
> have I seen a single instance of a WWII VHF radio 
> with a duplex channel.  All have been simplex.  
> If someone has the documentation, please share it with us.
> 
> Much more important- it's physically impossible for 
> a VHF repeater to have carried bombing mission liaison traffic
> or to have relayed VHF command traffic from the targets back to HQ 
> late in the war in the ETO.
> 
> The radio horizon for an antenna at 23,000 feet is 214 miles.
> If both transmitting and receiving antennas were at 23,000 feet,
> the total line of sight distance for this system is 428 miles,
> and the last 40 or so miles of that distance would be very
> noisy even with modern receivers- an SCR-522 wouldn't stand a chance.  
> The great circle distance from London to Berlin is 577 miles.
> Even if you could get both antennas to 30,000 feet, 
> you'd still be nearly 100 miles short.
> Thus, the theory cannot be correct.
> 
> I didn't run the calculations for Sicily to Northern Italy
> or for the Pacific theater, because the numbers would 
> be similar.  It is physically impossible that this system 
> replaced all strategic bomber HF functions.
> 
> Could this system, among other uses,
> have helped with crippled aircraft over the Channel? 
> Could it have been used for shorter, tactical missions
> by medium bombers and ground support aircraft? Certainly.
> I think it likely that the real purpose of the system 
> was to keep tactical aircraft- like P-51s looking
> for tanks to bust- in touch with the rear.  
> 
> Could it have replaced all HF Command and Liaison functions
> in the strategic bombing campaign?
> Absolutely and conclusively not.
> 
> 73 DE Dave AB5S
> _______________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Milsurplus@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus