[Milsurplus] MAB vs BC-611

[Mike Morrow]

Hue wrote of the MAB:

> i think this would have been a superior HF - AM walkie for the
> European war theater. Easier to work on, i think; easier to replace
> sub-units, like chassis, case, antenna, headset, if damaged, and
> more practical to carry

Hue,

Is the MAB really more practical to carry than a BC-611?  It doesn't seem so
to me, since overall it's heavier and has those cables going to the headset
and antenna.  The BC-611 one-piece design seems better from a human factors
standpoint.  But the MAB system is an interesting design, especially when
you consider the option of a vibrator supply, or look at the direction
finding DAV version.

The RF design of the the BC-611 seems better.  It seems to do a more
efficient job of using its stages in both receive and transmit mode,
possibly because it had a long multi-section PTT switch that the MAB did
not.  It had an RF stage in the receiver, which could be a significant
performance enhancer.  I suspect power outputs were similar, even though
every BC-611 manual I've ever seen states that its power output is .035
watts.  I believe that should have been 0.35 watts.

We see a lot of reports of the use of the BC-611 in combat, but almost
nothing about the MAB.  I wonder how much use it really got.  The DAV is
even more problematic.  I wish there were some reliable info about the
service use of the MAB/DAV.  Likewise, I think there's a fair amount of
documentation of USN/USMC use of the BC-1000 in the PTO, but less of
USN/USMC use of the BC-611.

Another related topic...what did these sets talk to, other than to each
other?  For field sets, the BC-654 seems a match for the BC-611.  The TBX
(also lacks a receiver RF stage) seems appropriate to the MAB/DAV.  I love
those movies which show a BC-611 talking to a BC-1000.

What did the BC-1000 talk to?  Its 40 to 48 MC span did not overlap the span
of any of the higher powered sets, like the
SCR-508, -608, -510, -610, -619, -808, etc. (which span 20 to 39 MC).  I
know of no WWII-era US FM set that covers the span of the BC-1000.  Why
wouldn't the BC-1000 have been better designed had it been able to talk to
armor and artillery on their radio sets?  Yet I'm sure there must have been
a deliberate decision made when determining the span of the BC-1000.  Maybe
it was intended that some armor and artillery units would have a BC-1000 in
the form of an AN/VRC-3, along with their normal radios.

Mike / KK5F