[The WS No19] RE: [Milsurplus] Re: British Army Radio During WWII

[WF2U]

-----Original Message-----

Hue Miller wrote:

>> > Was full break-in really necessary in military operations with good net
>> > operating procedures? IMO, likely not.
>>
>> No, except for recon longer range use, under poor conditions,
>> maybe. Someone thought it was a good idea, apparently.

>My point exactly. CW & MCW were a backup mode to the radio's primary
mission,
>and perhaps even an afterthought. IMO, that explains the kludge T/R
switching on
>CW & MCW.
Not really - CW was intended to be used for communication with the higher
echelons, or other units/formations, which may have been out of range for
R/T.
The "kluge"  receive/transmit switching in the WS 19 in entirely
intentional: it's for communication security. You don't want someone
inadvertently leaning on a key or dropping something on it (can easily
happen in a tank, AFV or a Scout Car, or even at a field setup) when you're
in radio silence - this can easily happen with a break-in T/R switching!. A
positive plug in/unplug the key switching is a foolproof method for
increased COMSEC.

>> No, leave the handcarts and wet batteries to the Brits.
>> These US sets all had handcrank power generators, in
>> addition to available dynamotor or vibrator supplies.
> >Totally packable.
> >Hue

No US field radio set in the power range of the WS19 relied only on hand
crank or pedal generators... There were dry battery packs for the receiver
sections (BC-654, BC-1306, TBX) and only the transmitters could be run on
human power. Else there was either the vehicle battery or a gas generator.

I wonder how long they could hand-crank those sets. After a while, batteries
might not seem so bad.
-John