[Milsurplus] C-405A/A vs. C-740/ART-13

[Mike Morrow]

Michael wrote:

>Not quite so.  The Navy used the ATC - T-47/ART-13 with the ARB in a
>typical installation which, while it didn't have the full coverage the
>transmitter did, was adequate to their purposes.

Yes, the ARB was (unfortunately) the best that the USN had for use with the ATC.  That's sad, because the ARB and various AN/ARC-5 receivers (including the R-26/ARC-5 plus C-131) are not even remotely equivalent as receivers to the magnificent engineering of the ATC as a transmitter.  The manuals that detail the connection and use of the AN/ART-13 with the ARB, AN/ARC-5, AN/ARR-2, or AN/ARC-4 are the AN/ARC-5 operator and maintenance manuals, oddly enough.

The ARB would have been more technologically comfortable with the ATD.  I have a ARB/ZB-3/ATD set which is pretty to show, but I believe it would have been found very limited in capability for actual military use in late WWII.

>Further, the ARB was cockpit tuneable which the BC-348 wasn't.

However, the AN/ARC-8, whose AN/ARR-11 (BC-348) so well compliments the associated T-47A except for remote control, was the finest airborne LF/MF/HF set flown by anyone anywhere in WWII.  The USAF still had AN/ARC-8s flying in older aircraft in the 1970s.  The BC-224/348 series is also one of the great highlights of radio technical history.

>> The USAAF AN/ARC-8 used the AN/ARR-11 (BC-348), which very well
>> matched the associated T-47A/ART-13,
>
>So did the Navy later on from acquiring USAAF aircraft.  

Especially in all those B-24s that became PB4Y units.  The USN also used the SCR-522 VHF set and the SCR-269 ADF set, often in "native" USN aircraft.  I'm glad that the USN had sense enough to use the best gear available, and at the time of their appearance the SCR-522 and -269 qualified.  If I'd been WWII USN air crew, I'd much rather have used these USAAF sets than their closest USN equivalents.  They all remain USAAF in character, even when used by the USN.  

>...they kept using them with a few modifications
>like an SO-239 in place of the antenna post.  These were used
>concurrent with the ARR-15(A).

The AN/ARR-15 used an antenna wire binding post much like that of the BC-348.  I've never seen an installation with *both* a BC-348 and a AN/ARR-15 present.  The USN's AN/ARC-25 consists of the T-47/ART-13 and the R-105/ARR-15, but often there were actually two AN/ARR-15 units in use.  In the era of the AN/ARC-25, I wonder what receiver was used for LF/MF operation of the AN/ART-13 and O-16/ART-13?  The AN/ARR-15 doesn't cover this band.  Only the ADF (usually a post-WWII AN/ARN-6) or a R-23/ARC-5 would have the coverage, and be common and likely.

>This, in turn, makes me wonder if the RU was ever paired
>with the ATC.

I would think that very unlikely.

Best regards,
Mike / KK5F