[Milsurplus] Question ( RBS; submarine )

[Meir WF2U]

The DF-ing of receiver radiation is basically an urban myth. The radiated RF is miniscule and the DF receiver would have to be at a fairly close proximity to the reradiating receiver, which will put it at visual range anyway. The real reason is that in  shipboard radio operaton there were usually multiple receivers connected to the same receiving antenna, and the mutual interference from the same ship's receivers would be intolerable, especially when some receivers would be used for SIGINT and COMINT to search for and listen to enemy communications and other RF signals.

73, Meir WF2U
Landrum, SC

On August 24, 2016 7:38:03 AM EDT, Bill KA8VIT <ka8vit at ka8vit.com> wrote:
>It is my understanding that U.S. subs in WW2 used the RAL/RAKs because
>they are TRF radios and not superhets which emit a local oscillator
>signal onto the antenna which can be DFed when the receivers are in
>use.
>
>The RBS and TCS were typically used when in close proximity of other
>ships or the shore.
>
>We have two RBOs aboard.
>
>One in the radio room and one in the Officer's Ward room.
>
>They were mainly used for news and crew entertainment and are
>definitely WW2 vintage.
>
>The one in the radio room is stamped 1943, not sure of the other.
>
>Our main transmitter is a TBL-7.
>
>Talking with some old timers last evening leads me to believe that the
>URR-13s replaced an SCR-522 and an SCR-624 which were aboard during WW2
>and probably used on the last patrol as well.
>
>I am trying to confirm this.
>
>I think that Bob Straub had mentioned that to me a long time ago as
>well...  (you know how that CRS is!)
>
>The power supplies for the RAL/RAKs are mounted underneath of the metal
>shelf that acts as a desktop.
>
>I'll be at West Point this weekend visiting my son but I can take some
>more photos of/in the radio room over labor day weekend if anyone has
>an interest.
>
>73 - Bill KA8VIT
>
>
>On August 23, 2016 at 3:37 PM Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:
>
>Is this really correct? I am not a subject matter expert, but it looks
>like the existing evidence is that the setup included RBS and
>
>never a RBO, and that the RAK-RAL were not replaced by RBS receivers. 
>
>Perhaps the RBS was carried as a spare HF receiver, without the bulk of
>the RAL and its power supply. ( There would be no need
>
>on the sub for the large RBS supply with its audio power amp; the
>smaller RBM supply would suffice. However when i was there,
>
>i didn’t think about the power supply locations. Sensory overload, and
>my photos disappeared. )
>
> 
>
>This page has a severely cropped photo of the Bowfin radio room. Looks
>like 3 of RAK-RAL types, with one RBS,
>
>and TCS at left, parallel to viewing vector. No sign of power supplies.
> 
>
>As i recall, the receiver in something like a day room or lounge
>elsewhere had some kind of medium-quality Hallicrafters
>
>shortwave radio. No idea when that was added.
>
>-H 
>
> 
>
>
>====================================
>Bill Chaikin, KA8VIT
>USS COD Amateur Radio Club - W8COD
>WW2 Submarine USS COD SS-224 (NECO)
>
>ka8vit at ka8vit.com
>http://ka8vit.com
>http://www.usscod.org
>====================================
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>______________________________________________________________
>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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20160824/94d20935/attachment-0001.html>