[Milsurplus] Re: Ricebox hams on WW2 warships...

[SHAEF1944Returns at aol.com]

I have to agree with John here.  While radio-guys might put the emphasis on 
showing off radio capabilities, displays aboard old warships should be part of 
the overall picture of the ship's history.  As John said, part of the ' 
education ' should be showing the limits of the equipment the guys had to deal with 
in the past.  The old stuff might not be as 'sexy' as newer sets, but the 
education provided to visitors should inform them of what the men had to use AT 
THE TIME.  Sometimes, limitations of equipment, including radios, could affect 
the way a battle was fought.  Imagine this scenario : A Re-enactor group does a 
battle reenactment of the Battle of Gettysburg.  The Yanks are hunkered down 
on Cemetary Ridge.  Here comes Pickett's men, charging up the ridge, firing 
1873 Winchester repeating rifles.  The volume of fire from the repeating rifles 
is so great, it keeps the heads of the Yanks down effectively enough for the 
Rebs to carry the  field.  After all, the 1873 Winchester IS a breech-loading 
type, single shot weapon, and it came along just a few years after the Civil 
War, so why not ?  Point is, the tactics and technology available influenced the 
battle, which in turn influenced history. To correctly understand history, 
accurate portrayals of the equipment is needed.  Part of the job of anyone 
helping out on these historical vessels, IMHO, is to explain, in a way that could 
be considered  'entertaining', the original equipment, tactics, and how their 
limitations and abilities fit into the history of the time.  Ships are a little 
tricky in this regard, as pointed out in another reply, because their 
inservice life could span a number of decades and wars, with a wide variety of radio 
equipment.  Funds and available radios taken into consideration, I would 
ideally like to see the battleships with a radio room with all WWII stuff, another 
with Vietnam-era stuff, etc, and guys who can educate visitors as to the 
differences between the two.  
My experience with this argument comes from many years with the old 
Confederate Air Force ( now Commemorative ), arguing that slick, glossy paint jobs, 
machine-gun positions in the rear seat of an AT-6 (unless depicting and aerial 
gunnery school ship),  and a variety of other, more modern, "slick-em-up" 
do-dads do not accurately portray the warbirds that actually flew in WWII.  
Entertainment is a fine thing, but accurate history must be made to be 'entertaining', 
 and the entertainment part not take precedence over the true history.  Just 
MHO. 


**************************************
 See what's new at 
http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20071029/cb2dc93d/attachment.htm