[Milsurplus] Re: PRC-1 questions

[Hue Miller]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <W7QHO@aol.com>
Subject: PRC-1 questions

I am forwarding this to the list because i think it's of high interest
(maybe) also to others:


>Hue,
You may remember my quotes in a recent e-mail about PRC-1 use in Burma (see 
below).   There's a nice picture of the PRC-1 on Peter McCollum's web site 
including a spec sheet that lists a series of common 50/60 cycle AC line voltages 
for primary power.   No mention of a hand cranked generator.   Checked with 
the owner of the pictured rig, Richard Dillman, W6AWO who said the PRC-1 was AC 
mains only and would never have stood up to the conditions encountered in 
Burma.   His opinion was that both sources were in error and some other rig must 
have been in use.   

-Both sources wrong? Maybe if one was based on the other?
But Ogburn's book names the PRC-1 in a couple places at least.
This really is confusing. I have to wonder how the suitcase
stood up. I suppose the PRC-1 could have been modified for
dc power; after all, the ? units in India built a number of their
own units out of V-100 radios.  ( This was mentioned in the
other Maruaders book; sorry, it's packed away, and i don't
recall title. This unit-built set was the same one, i think, as what
i saw in the History Channel program where it dealt with CBI. )

Now, the "Marauders" book does show an SCR-284 in use by Merrill's troops and 
this set puts out almost as much power (24 W vs. 30 for the PRC-1) and can be 
run from a hand cranked gen.   But, the 284 also makes provision for running 
the receiver off a battery contrary to Contrary to the equipment which was the 
subject of Maj. Pilcher's comments in the official history series, see below. 

I saw that photo ( back side, isn't it? ) and wondered if the wrong photo
got in the book.
A very interesting idea, that Dillman says the sources must be wrong.
I suppose that could happen. GE's book "Men and Volts at War"
has a mixup between the SCR-506 and the SCR-193, and i probably
could come up with others. Oh, just thought of the Feb. 44, Radio
News, where a photo of the "SCR-583" certainly is not the SCR-583
but some clandestine rig (the one with the "Lucy" receiver ). So 
here you are years later correcting the book.
Actually, thinking about this, the higher freqs used in the SCR-284
would have sufficed. Dave Stinson pointed out the 80 meters would
have done fine for the Philippines - Australia trip. The other Marauders
book i mention, in talking about the unit-built radio, says it tuned up
to only something like 4 MHz but was very able to work from 
Burma into their bases in India.  So the higher frequency range of
the PRC-1 might not have been necessary.
I was once told that the PRC-5 was used in Burma. Maybe this
was some kinda mixup on the person's part based on the Ogburn
book. The PRC-5 had the same power problem and probably was
in no way rugged enough to be used in an infantry situation.
Maybe, interestingly enuff, none of these radios were actually
used: PRC-1, PRC-5, TRC-10. 

The difficulty in cranking the rig certainly sounds like the SCR-284,
which had 2 final tubes, didn't it? ( Type 307A ). That extra cw power
would seem to also recommend it for that role.  Maybe you and R.
Dillman have cleared up this historical confusion.
Hue Miller