[Milsurplus] tank radio skip?

[J. Forster]

Hue Miller wrote:

> That will verify my opinion that the German sets, with most models having 10 watts
> output, had more output power than the U.K. models  ( and seeming to prove
> incorrect another poster's surmise ).  5 watts output into an inefficient mobile
> antenna, with maybe 5% efficiency, is much less than 10 watts into an antenna
> of 1/8 to 1/4 wavelength (at 27 - 33 MHz, sometimes higher ).

The efficiency may not be as bad as you surmise. A tank or other AFV makes a damn good
ground. It's a large conducting chunk.

> Also, i'd have to conclude that the German gear, at least for tank to tank comms,
> would probably do the job more reliably - it is simpler, and no critical antenna
> tuning, and no antenna variometer  (loading coil).  However, i don't think the
> overall effective range was any better, due to not-so-good RF receiver tubes,
> and i see the rated ranges of the panzer equipment is only maybe 3 miles or so,
> kinda like CB.

The 19 set's receiver is quite sensitive, even compared to modern sets. Trouble is, for
modern use, the 9 KHz BW makes sorting out signals difficult. That would not have been as
big an issue in WW II ..

> I can't see that the 19 Set CW capability would be of any advantage whatsoever in
> tank maneuvering. I suspect it was maybe never used except in training.

I'm inclined to agree, although have no information to support that opinion. OTOH,
operational security would favor the transmission of just a few characters and discourage
any chit-chat.

I suspect that the original concept was to use the 230 MHz B set for coordinating local tank
operations, and the A set was intended for the leader to talk to the command post. In actual
practice, they likely used what worked best, or at all.

-John