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

Sun, 25 May 2003 09:19:05 +0100

Meir,

there are number of inaccuracies here that really ought not to be repeated
on a group dedicated to the WS19.  Fine set as it may be, it was not the
first set to have a single VFO knob - that innovation belongs to the WS11,
which predates the WS19 by some years, and was in fact the forerunner of
both WS19 and WS21.

WS19s may well be reliable now in benign conditions.  That was certainly not
true of many of them in real-world, wartime conditions, where a substantial
proportion were out of service at any one time (check Wireless for the
Warrior for details).  Notably a PSU capacitor failed in the North African
desert in the high temperatures and caused serious problems for a while.

The UHF B-set is not exactly an asset.  It never worked well from all
accounts, and was replaced asap, by the WS38AFV, then WS88AFV and finally
the WS31AFV.  It was so useless, that REME even spent time stripping them
out of many later sets, presumably to save the current drain, and stop
people messing with it.

I have not studied comparisons between US and British sets, but one obvious
point should be made.  And that is the serviceability of British stuff is
poor when compared to US kit - you only have to look at the way components
are piled in more or less at random on top of one another (in the WS19 for
example) to see that at soon as need to replace a part not immediately
accessible, then you are forced to pull other parts out that are probably
not faulty, and the repair itself can cause damage.  US sets are better
thought out in this regard. So are Canadian sets, like the WS52, for that
matter.

One reason for US sets being more carefully laid out is possibly that they
had more time to get sets designed. The WS19 was a "rush job" of the first
order.  THe WS11 was not produceable in volume and something had to be done
quickly to get the volume of sets required.  When viewed in that context,
the WS19 can be seen to be a fine effort to get something out quickly that
functioned well enough to do the job - in at that sense it was a success.

My assessment of the WS19 is that was a set that was good enough - fit for
purpose if you like. And there are many criteria to be satisfied, from
volume produceability, to using commonly available components, to easy
operation and serviceability. And on all those counts it was good enough,
but probably can't be said to be outstanding at any point, principally
because it had to be designed in such a hurry.

73s

Richard
G7RVI
-----Original Message-----
From: WF2U [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 25 May 2003 02:19
To: [email protected]; Hue Miller
Cc: Milsurplus; Wireless-Set-No19 @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: [The WS No19] RE: [Milsurplus] Re: British Army Radio During WWII

The WS 19  was an innovative and well performing radio for the purpose it
was made for. It's unique that it has a  low power UHF set built in for
short range communications (relative security from intercepts) but the HF
section is a true transceiver, with a single VFO tuning both the receiver
and the transmitter to the same frequency by heterodyning. No other set of
that era had those feature. No US military radio of the era was so easy to
use, versatile and was as small a package for the power output and the
frequency coverage as the WS19 (US field sets such as the BC-654, the
BC-1306 and the TBX). The 19 sets are  at least as reliable as any US
military radio of the same era. In fact, none of my 19 sets (6 of them) ever
had a bad capacitor and they were manufactured according to their tags
between 1943 and 1945. OTOH  about 60% of my US military radios needed
capacitor "transplants" .

Most of the  complaints about the sets were really about not  having the
proper radio issued for certain missions. For example, in several instances
the British troops were issued the WS22 which is a short-range HF set
(about 1 W output) for some deep penetration/parachute drop missions in
Europe and in their isolation were effectively left without communications
with their headquarters. If Wireless Sets 19 were issued, they would not
have been practically left stranded and left to fend for themselves.

I'm sure similar problems plagued the US troops as well, due to bad
planning.

Then, for example take the British R107 receiver - it's far better and more
serviceably built than the mission-equivalent BC-312/342. Its bigger an
heavier but in side-by-side operation,  they're equivalent, the R107 drifts
less, probably due to the larger and sturdier chassis.

The R1155 receiver which is the functional equivalent of the BC-348 is also
just as good a performer as it's US counterpart, and it's a little smaller
due to its external dynamotor supply, and the receiver includes a D/F unit.
The T1154 transmitter wins hands down against its US bomber "Liaison"
transmitter counterpart, the BC-375, but definitely not against the ART-13!

73, Meir WF2U

British/Allied military equipment:
Wireless Set 19 Mk II and III (Various US and Canadian manufactured)
Wireless Set 52 (Canadian Marconi)
R107
R1155/T1154
B28 (Marconi CR100)
Royal Australian Air Force A.R.7 (Kingsley, Australia)
A.679-J (STC Australia)
Royal Canadian Air Force AR-2/AT-1 (Canadian Marconi)
Royal Canadian Navy CSR5, CM-11, FR-12, MSL-5, PV500 (Canadian Marconi)
Post War:
Wireless Set 62 (Pye, England)
R209
R210
B40 (Murphy)
AP100335, 618 series (Murphy)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of J. Forster
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 5:42 PM
To: Hue Miller
Cc: Milsurplus; Wireless-Set-No19 @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Re: British Army Radio During WWII

Hue Miller wrote:

> -Also, notwithstanding the above, the WS38 still looks, to me, "cheesey".
But that doesn't mean
> unlikeable.
> Hue Miller

To me, most WW II US Army radios look like baroque toasters or juke boxes.
The WS 19 looks like a
RADIO.

Asbestos overalls on.

-John

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.