[Milsurplus] Doubting the Foxhole Radio, conclusions
J. Forster
jfor at quikus.com
Fri Aug 3 11:18:19 EDT 2012
Without active multicouplers and coax receiver inputs, the reduction of
interferance with other gear does make some sense. And, not only for ships
but for bases with many receivers.
Certainly more than the LO DFing story, IMO.
-John
============
> And oh yes, the other reason I have seen for reducing LO radiation is to
> prevent interference with other receivers aboard ship. This sounds quite
> plausible for Navy gear where there might be multiple rcvrs on the same
> band operating in close proximity shipboard or at intercept sites
> (sometimes sharing a common antenna with just a 600 ohm isolating
> resistor). The RAO-2, for example, evidently had an extra RF stage added
> for this reason. But it doesn't seem as likely a reason for modifying
> Merchant Marine morale radios.
> http://www.radioblvd.com/WWII-PostWar%20Hamgear.htm
>
> Nick K4NYW
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Nick England <navy.radio at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's still not clear to me how much of a danger DF'ing the LO actually
>> was, but it is certainly true that receivers were modified to reduce LO
>> radiation. Evidently these modified rcvrs were given production and
>> procurement priority and widely used, so the purpose couldn't have been
>> to
>> prevent anyone from getting information via other than official
>> channels.They were called morale receivers for a reason.
>> http://www.imradioha.org/images/Gear/Scott_SLR-12-A_1942_Ad.gif
>>
>> Another "cover-up" explanation I have heard is that the reduced
>> radiation
>> was a way of explaining the reduction of U-boat success rates when the
>> real
>> reason was Bletchley Park's reading the Enigma traffic. But the timing
>> on
>> that doesn't see all that good either.
>>
>> The true story can be found in that giant warehouse seen in the Indiana
>> Jones movies...
>>
>> Nick K4NYW
>> www.navy-radio.com
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM, J. Forster <jfor at quikus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue of DFing LOs was, IMO, a canard. A crystal set could not be
>>>
>>> detected by any means, of course.
>>>
>>> While it is theoretically possible that LO leakage could be detected at
>>> short range, it is very doubtful that it would be of any real use to
>>> the
>>> enemy.
>>>
>>> After 70 years, the original purpose of such things is highly suspect.
>>>
>>> IMO, it was much more likely a cover story to prevent the troops
>>> getting
>>> information via other than official channels.
>>>
>>> Disinformation was an integral part of war. Just look at the efforts to
>>> spoof the D-Day location.
>>>
>>> Politicians are trying to do exactly the same thing today, thankfully
>>> with
>>> only limited success.
>>>
>>> YMMV,
>>>
>>> -John
>>>
>>> ============
>>>
>>>
>
More information about the Milsurplus
mailing list