[Milsurplus] Command Sets ARC 5

[David Stinson]

Marty R's GI-stuff haunt wrote:

> Don't do that Dave.
> 
> I quote from CAF & SARS member Bill Johnson
> 
>   BC375/348 sure 'got out' for liasson (long range) work.  But atmospherics
>   made their use spotty.  The 2 TXs & 3 RXs in '274 ensemble only served for
>   375/348 back-up and were never employed on missions.

Bill Johnson's a good guy and I respect him, but he's wrong.
And this isn't the first time 
the politically Correct Air Farce has been full of beans.

The hard evidence and documentation is absolutely 
conclusive on this point.  The designations of "Command set"
and "Liaison set" were official, had been for a long time
and remained so for long afterward.
They were offically different because they had
two entirely different missions.  
The BC-375/BC-348 was not designed for and
was utterly unsuited to the role of Command radio.  
HF radio in the Command role was common everywhere
except the ETO and the Eastern seaboard of the U.S., where 
VHF dominated.  Even there, HF radios in the Command mission
were still active.  Air sectionals and airways documents
of the era confirm this beyond any doubt.

With all respect to Bill Johnson, Marty,
the facts simply don't support that position.
Sixty year old memories are quirky things;
friendly yarns and beer talk can transform 
into "history."  
It's innocent and well-intentioned, but it's also wrong.

73 Dave S.