[Milsurplus] AN/PRC-5, WW2 Suitcase Radio Set For Sale

Mon May 23 11:29:20 EDT 2005

Hi,

I have an AN/PRC-5 Suitcase "Spy" Radio Set for sale. I believe that these CW only HF sets saw limited use by OSS and Military Intelligence and Special Forces type units at the end of WW2 according to those who were kind enough to respond to my inquiries when I first got the set. I am looking for $3500.00, or best reasonable offer. The set is in very good to excellent condition. I have pictures that I can send to anyone interested. Please respond off list. U.S. and Canadian buyers only please. If interested, please respond off list to jjhaggerty01 at excite.com. If You would like some pictures for the historical interest and are not interested in buying, you are still welcome to ask for some. If in New England area, I will deliver the item, or meet you halfway.

TX and 73,
John

 --- On Mon 05/23,  < milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net > wrote:
From:  [mailto: milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net]
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 04:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 13, Issue 42

Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to 	milsurplus at mailman.qth.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 	http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 	milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net You can reach the person managing the list at 	milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..." Today's Topics: 1. manual (signetics at netzero.com) 2. WWII Radar Fans (David Stinson) 3. Who was looking for W2EWL Lionel Transformers? (Receiver) 4. Fw: rethinking Iwo Jima ( slightly OT but WW2 ) (Hue Miller) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 16:20:13 GMT From: "signetics at netzero.com" <signetics at netzero.com> Subject: [Milsurplus] 
manual To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net Message-ID: <20050522.092021.8685.109099 at webmail28.nyc.untd.com> Content-Type: text/plain The following manual surplus to my needs: Instruction book for Model GF-12 and RU17 Western Electric co dated April 21 1941 fair condition with schematics: The following figures are missing: Fig 23 installation diagram Fig 25 Dyinamotor filter FIg 26 Typical cable assembly FIgt 27 mechanical linkage Figt 28 antenna for low wing monoplane $20 CONUS Phil signetics at netzero.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 17:55:18 -0500 From: David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com> Subject: [Milsurplus] WWII Radar Fans To: Milsurplus New mailman <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> Message-ID: <42910DD6.7050404 at ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed You'll want to look at this one: 
5776850136 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:08:57 -0400 From: "Receiver" <r390a at gumlog.net> Subject: [Milsurplus] Who was looking for W2EWL Lionel Transformers? To: "Milsurplus Refl." <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> Message-ID: <000801c55f2b$9e312320$0200a8c0 at HP1095C200410> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 	reply-type=original These were used in a phasing rig built on a severely modified ARC-5 Transmitter chassis. The article was written by Tony Vitale (sp), W2EWL a long time ago. Someone asked on one of these reflectors about a source of these little transformers made by Lionel Corp. on SC order no 18191- PH-51-13B. The three I have were packed in March 1953. The request sounded like the person was interested in building up one of the transmitters. I knew I had some, but had to stumble on to them when looking for something else. Most

of you know what I'm talking about. Will whoever it was contact me? 73, John, W4NET ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 21:04:18 -0700 From: "Hue Miller" <kargo_cult at msn.com> Subject: [Milsurplus] Fw: rethinking Iwo Jima ( slightly OT but WW2 	) To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> Message-ID: <BAY106-DAV198547B8E28CC251D9E655E40C0 at phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="Windows-1252" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Miller (Eddie)" <arrabba at comcast.net> To: "Hue Miller" <kargo_cult at msn.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: Iwo Jima __________________________________________________________________ Los AngelesTimes March 10, 2005 " Rethinking The Iwo Jima Myth By Max Boot On Feb. 19, 1945, 30,000 Marines splashed ashore on a small volcanic island in the central Pacific. After four days of bitter 
fighting, a small patrol reached the peak of Mt. Suribachi, where it planted a U.S. flag in an iconic scene captured by photographer Joe Rosenthal. It is right and proper that there should be 60th-anniversary commemorations of these heroics. ....Yet it would be a mistake to bury this battle in a haze of "Greatest Generation" sentimentality. Our awe at the bravery of the Marines and their Japanese adversaries should not cause us to overlook the stupidity that forced them into this unnecessary meat grinder. Selective memories of World War II, which record only inspiring deeds and block out all waste and folly, create an impossible standard of perfection against which to judge contemporary conflicts.... That is why Marine Capt. Robert S. Burrell, a history instructor at the Naval Academy, has performed a valuable service by publishing in the October 2004 issue of the Journal of Military History an article called "Breaking the Cycle of Iwo

Jima Mythology." Burrell examines the planning of Operation Detachment, as the invasion was known, and shows that it was badly bungled. The planners actually thought that Iwo Jima would be lightly defended. Nimitz had no idea that the Japanese had been preparing an elaborate defensive network of caves, bunkers and tunnels. As a result, he failed to allocate enough aircraft or warships to seriously dent the enemy defenses before the infantry landings. This oversight consigned the Marines to what a war correspondent called "a nightmare in hell." And for what? The rationales for taking the island were shaky at the time and utterly specious in hindsight. The original impetus came from the U.S. Army Air Forces, which wanted a base from which fighters could escort B-29 Superfortress bombers on missions over Japan. But Iwo Jima was so far away from most Japanese targets — a 1,500-mile round trip — that even the newest fighter, the P-51D 
Mustang, lacked sufficient range and navigational equipment for that purpose. In any case, Japanese air defenses were so weak that B-29s didn't need any escort; they were able to reduce Japanese cities to ashes on their own. When the fighter-escort mission didn't pan out, U.S. commanders had to come up with another rationale for why 26,000 casualties had not been in vain. After the war, it was claimed that Iwo Jima had been a vital emergency landing field for crippled B-29s on their way back from Japan. In a much-quoted statistic, the Air Force reported that 2,251 Superforts landed on Iwo, and because each one carried 11 crewmen, a total of 24,761 airmen were saved. Burrell demolishes these spurious statistics. Most of those landings, he shows, were not for emergencies but for training or to take on extra fuel or bombs. If Iwo Jima hadn't been in U.S. hands, most of the four-engine bombers could have made it back to their bases in 
the Mariana Islands 625 miles away. And even if some had been forced to ditch at sea, many of their crewmen would have been rescued by the Navy. Burrell concludes that Iwo Jima was "helpful" to the U.S. bombing effort but hardly worth the price in blood. In modern parlance, you might say that Iwo Jima was a battle of choice waged on the basis of faulty intelligence and inadequate plans. If Ted Kennedy had been in the Senate in 1945 (hard to believe, but he wasn't), he would have been hollering about the incompetence of the Roosevelt administration, which produced many times more casualties in five weeks than U.S. forces have suffered in Iraq in the last two years. No such criticism was heard at the time, in part because of the rah-rah tone of World War II press coverage but also because Americans back then had a greater appreciation for the ugly, unpredictable nature of combat. They even coined a word for it: snafu (in polite 
language: "situation normal, all fouled up"). It's a shame that so many sentimental tributes to the veterans of the Good War elide this unpleasant reality, leaving us a bit less intellectually and emotionally prepared for the trauma of modern war." End quote. Slightly OT but may interest some of the Old Guard here. Milsurplus connection: if you can view the actual film of the Suribachi flag raising, and that of course would be the the second flag-raising, the replica of the original under fire, you will see off to the side a GI wearing the BC-1000 backpack radio. This has bee cropped out out in the still photos of the event. -Hue Miller ------------------------------ ______________________________________________________________ Milsurplus mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net End of Milsurplus 
Digest, Vol 13, Issue 42 ******************************************

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!