[Milsurplus] Tank (radio) vs. Tank (radio)

[J. Forster]

I get the impression, and it's only an impression, that quite a few of the
Canadian WS 19 Mk IIIs were similarity supplied to the remoter regions of
Canada. They certainly remained in service until the mid-late 50s.

FWIW,

-John

===============



> The Soviets had fairly decent tank radios from the late 30's. The 71TK-1
> radio set was issued from 1935, followed by the 71TK-3 version in 1939.
> These were installed in the early T-34 tanks. The 71TK-(*) was a separate
> transmitter and receiver configuration, the transmitter covered
> 4 - 5.63 MHz, CW/AM, with 3 W output.
> Starting in 1943 the radios installed in tanks were the 9RM which was a
> much
> smaller set (an adaption of the RSI-3M1 aircraft radio) covering the same
> frequency range as the 71TK, AM only with 1.5 W output. The receiver was
> the
> RSI-4T, the companion airborne receiver for the RSI-3M1. The 9RM may have
> been a stopgap solution while a new, higher power radio was in the works
> and
> was operational in the same year, 1943. The new 10RK set was comprised of
> the 10RK-26 transmitter (3.75 - 6.0 MHz, CW/AM, 10W output) and the
> 10RT-26
> receiver. The performance and perhaps reliability of this set must have
> been
> satisfactory, as it was manufactured and used into the 1950's.
>
> The Lend-Lease Wireless Sets 19 MkII manufactured in the US probably
> filled
> the need for additional radio sets between 1942 and 1943 for the T-34
> tanks
> which were rolling off the production lines in increasing quantities, and
> the electronics industry - which at the time was not as developed as the
> heavy industries in the Soviet Union - probably couldn't keep up with the
> volume of production. Many of the Wireless Sets 19 destined for the Soviet
> Union never made it there because it seems, at least as tank radios were
> concerned, that after 1943 the 10RT radios must have been supplied in
> sufficient quantities.
>
> Basically it's a myth that the Soviets didn't want to install radios in
> their tanks. The Soviet-made radio equipment listed above, with the
> upgrades
> and new designs disprove this. In the 1930's they evidently didn't plan on
> large-scale tank battles spread over large areas, and the older low-power
> HF
> radios just didn't cut it in the post-1943 situation. Regarding the 19
> Sets,
> there may have been a reluctance based on very strong national pride to
> use
> large quantities of foreign materiel when their industry finally caught up
> with the production volume necessary for the war effort.
> I heard once that many 19 Sets after the war were supplied to remote
> collective farms to maintain communications with each other, and/or with
> their higher authorities because of lack of landlines in many areas.
>
>
> This is my opinion, YMMV as they say.
>
> 73, Meir WF2U
> Landrum, SC
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Hue Miller
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 8:06 AM
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Tank (radio) vs. Tank (radio)
>
> Regarding Rossians, I don't believe it's a case of they just weren't into
> radios in their tanks, more like they didn't have an adequate supply.
> Something that puzzles me still, and I have not managed to get to the
> bottom of it, is that despite vast numbers of the various Marks of No.19
> sets built, you very rarely, or maybe never, see them in Russia, altho
> many different sets of USA manufacture turned up there. More variety,
> in fact, than you'd ever expect, such as a complete TBW set, for example.
> .......................
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>