[Milsurplus] Re: History of ham mods; opinions?

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I disagree that the history of these fine rigs ended with the end of
>>their deployment as someone eluded to.
>
> The only history of this
> gear that's worth the ink or electrons to document is why and how
> it was developed, and then operated by the intended user (the
> military).

In *your* opinion. I think that's why so many folks 'misunderstand'
you, Mike: you insist your way is the *only* way.

>>A rich history has continued since...
>
> Really?  Who could give a flying fart about what hams did with
> stuff that they generally valued only as parts for their hobby rigs?
> Was that use acceptable?  Sure it was.  Was that use interesting
> to anyone but (perhaps) another ham?  Not the least little bit!

Hmmm.....well, how about the fact that many of those hams were in fact
WWII vets who used, maintained, and knew the gear in its previous
military life as well? Perhaps you should consider rephrasing your
opinions to reflect that -you- feel this way as opposed to
any/everyone. They obviously do not.

> If a ham thinks that future historians of military technology will
> care at all about ham use of surplus, then he grossly over estimates
> the impact and value (both very minimal at best, except for the days
> well before WWII) of ham operations to society in general.

And conversely, if any collector of this gear thinks that *only* the
military history of a given piece of equipment matters, then he
grossly underestimates the impact the military and associated surplus
have had on our engineers and technology throughout the years - and
vice versa, whether you choose to believe it or not. Do a little
research into where many of the trained radio and electronics folks
who joined the military came from in WWII and before. While you're at
it, talk to folks about civilian gear being 'borrowed' by the
government and military specifically, from civilian amateurs in early
WWII. Like it or not, the commoners are thick in the mix: designing,
building, using, instructing. Did you just *twitch*, Mike?  (o:

> I don't preserve any of my gear for, or because of, ham use.  I
> preserve it for the technical and military history it represents.

I don't think Dave's original query had to do with preserving or
documenting the gear specifically for one purpose or another, more how
it was developed, used, served and continues to serve. When you think
about it in a little more depth: if not for the perceived monetary
value to hams after WWII, what is the likelihood that so much of this
gear would've ever survived? If there wasn't some value above scrap,
how many NOS ARC-5s would still be turning up? Probably few, if any,
since much more would've gone to the smelters instead of surplus
houses.

You're certainly free to follow a narrow, specialized side of
collecting, Mike. But to look down your nose at post-military history
related to this stuff as unworthy seems to do a disservice to the gear
as much as the people who designed, used, and maintained it.

73, OM -

~ Todd,  KA1KAQ