[Milsurplus] GRR-5 vs. R-392

[Francesco Ledda]

Many NATO contries used the GRR-5 for the NBC and air attack warnings.  The
GRR-5 was disseminated to units that did not have HF communication
capabilities or other long range communication means.




-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Marty Reynolds
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:00 AM
To: Ray Fantini
Cc: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] GRR-5 vs. R-392



> Although the subject has been beaten into the ground before I still am
> curious, what was the original intent and deployment of the GRR-5? The
> broad tuning, lack of standby function and no IF filter show this not to
> be much more then a repackaged GRC-9 receiver and with the internal
> speaker, multitude of power options and preset channels it almost appear
> more along the lines of a moral receiver, except it dose not cover the
> entire AM band. .....  blah de blah

W4MEW ran Ft. Monmouth labs when this contract was 'let' to Emerson
(1st)

He wrote on it in ER and without pause sed it was a political pay-back
contract.  GRR-5 had no purpose.

Sig corps laughingly called it the "new gas receiver."
That was reference to the largely unused bc-729 ww2 set built for
gas warnings

Ray I've been derided for referring this ER art'l before.

My only apology is waiting so dang long to write

   Marty
______________________________________________________________
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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 8/25/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 8/25/2006