[Milsurplus] Ocean dumping

[Karl Bullock]

Ray, a lot of what you posted was anectodal, but there's plenty of 
anectodal evidence to the contrary, especially concerning aircraft.  
I've seen old newsreel footage where aircraft on carriers were simply 
pushed over the side on the way home to keep from having to service the 
things when they got here.   What a terrible waste!  Civilian air 
enthusiasts could have had a field day with these aircraft, and I have 
no doubt that the dumped craft also had radio equipment on board.   
However, there have been articles published where electronic surplus 
immediately after the war was being sold by the pound, not by the item.  
It would probably take an act of Congress (and Lord knows, we don't need 
any more of those!!!) to find out what really happened.  Suffice it to 
say, back in the 50's and 60's, regardless of what happened to the rest, 
there was plenty of war surplus electronic stuff floating around.  I 
wish I'd bought more of it then.

Karl, WA5TMC

Ray Fantini wrote:

>Not having been alive in the second world war or shortly their after I
>will have to say this is all my opinion, but its opinion biased on
>printed material including issues of QST from  1945 to 49, and numerous
>other Radio and Electronic magazines from that time. Let me propose the
>following statements:
>First: I do not believe in a mass organized effort to destroy by ocean
>dumping or burial of surpluses stock of radio equipment after the war. 
>There are at least one dozen advertisements in every issue of QST from
>46 to 49 for war surplus radio equipment vendors. Both CQ and QST did
>many articles on the conversion of surplus radios, CQ use to publish a
>monthly column on surplus conversion along with two manuals exclusively
>on surplus conversion. I would propose that their was a sizeable
>percentage of users out their with a large stock of equipment to support
>this.
>Second: This is more antidotal then factual, but I recall the large
>quantity of surplus equipment at hamfest during the seventies and early
>eighties. This was after twenty years of Hams cannibalizing equipment in
>circulation so I would assume their was more during the fifties and
>sixties. 
>Third: Where their was a effort by the government to destroy equipment
>they did a good job. All Nazi radio equipment was ordered disassembled
>after the war and with the exception of war trophies you don't see a
>lot around, compare that with the ARC-5 series that are common today.
>Forth: General condition, much of the equipment that was common on the
>surplus market appeared to have never been placed in service. With much
>of the damage to equipment being from generations of Hams who have
>hacked the radios. This would lead me to believe that the majority of
>surplus sold after the war was NOS, from the last production runs. 
>I do not deny that their was mass dumping of equipment in theater,
>especially where it was not economically feasible to transport that
>equipment back to the states, and am also aware that for decades it was
>standard practice to dump excess or expired munitions in the ocean, but
>do not buy the statement that countless tons of brand new equipment was
>just dumped with no effort to surplus out.
>And finally understand that I do not intend to contradict the living
>testimony of those who were their, but how many times have we all been
>told the story of LO direction finding? I will accept that much radio
>equipment was scraped, and some may have been dumped or burned, but I do
>not feel that ocean dumping of new radios was a government policy.
>Ray Fantini KA3EKH
>
>______________________________________________________________
>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
>
>.
>
>  
>