[Milsurplus] GRR-5 vs. R-392

[federico]

Hi Marty,
         thanks!! finally I understood that AN/GRR-5 was really a "gas attack 
alarm receiver", as I knew before, but without any practical purpose except 
to give some money around. In Italy we build motorways that nobody use for 
the same purpose! 73 de Federico IZ1FID



Visit my website entirely devoted to military radio, military handguns 
and aircraft clocks :

www.dottorbaldi.it/militaryradio

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Marty Reynolds" <cosmoline at aa4rm.ba-watch.org>
To: "Ray Fantini" <rafantini at salisbury.edu>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:00:10 -0400 (EDT)
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
------- End of Original Message -------