[Milsurplus] TBX

Wed Sep 13 18:09:44 EDT 2017

Re-reading some old mail today and I find this post still sticks in my craw. I consider from the history of the TBX it was indeed a successful equipment.
Consider the use, which I cited, at Salerno Italy; Roi-Namur in Kwajalein; the China coastwatcher operations.  With its battery powered receiver, I think
it would have been a better choice for the Philippine resistance than some of the other radios which were issued. But the limitation there was the upper
frequency range; sets supplied for this use needed to have an upper limit to match the 3BZ set's skywave frequencies, up to 12 MHz. This is why the 
BC-474 and BC-654 had a minor role, if any, in the Philippines. 
As for lack of AVC, how many operations can you cite, where the TBX had to co-operate with multiple other stations? I don't think that was the way it
worked. 
I consider the selection of 6-volt tubes for some observer radios such as 3BZ and TRC-10 to be a mistake. True, the 1.5 volt tubes have a reputation for 
being more fragile than the 6-, but they also eat much more heater power, requiring a stronger power supply, like a wetcell battery or some poor grunt
cranking on the generator while you're monitoring.  Not so good if you have to watch a frequency  for activity.
-Hue 

>Think the USMC used a four man crew to support the TBX the radio was not suitable for small patrol type of operations.  Difficult for one or two men can carry all that’s involved with that set once you add the long antenna, battery box and hand crank generator, there was also a gasoline powered generator for more weight and difficulty.
I have owned and operated several TBX radios including the four and six and have to say that the radio is not something that you just throw on the ground and start operating. The receiver is battery powered and once the accessory box is connected and the antenna put up you can start operating that but the transmitter requires someone to crank the generator along with the person who is operating the radio itself and if it’s the older non eight series it’s not “push to talk” so you had to throw the send receive switch before talking or sending CW. Also the receiver lacks AVC so when operating in a net you have to ride the gain control to compensate between week and strong signals.
So I would assume that any company that had a TBX radio would only use it after setting up CP or some other form of encampment and not attempt to use it as a field radio. The TBX family was used at Tarawa and was an operational disaster being too complex, to easily damaged and underpowered in its roll in coordinating shore support fire control. Poor radio communications were an issue at Tarawa.
Web link with pictures of TBX in operation:

http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/usmcradio.htm

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Al Klase
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 9:51 AM
To: mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Research Help Requested

Hi Joe,

I checked the TBX-8 manual and couldn't find the weights, except for the accessory box at 28 pounds.  So, I suspect it was a three-man carry:  Transmitter-Receiver, hand-crank generator, and accessory box containing RX batteries, antenna equipment, cables, etc.

This was pretty much state-of-the-art for the time period, with a claimed range of 30 miles on CW and 15 miles on voice.  The Army's stop-gap SCR-288 had similar characteristics, but the SCR-284 weighed almost twice as much.  The SCR-694/BC-1306 wasn't available until 1944 

The BC-611 HT or Navy MAB would only do about a mile on a good day.  I'm not sue if either were available in the early going.

Al
On 8/27/2017 10:18 PM, Joe Connor via Milsurplus wrote:

The patrol that went to rescue the Goettge patrol carried a TBX transmitter-receiver.

Does anyone know what a TBX weighs? The rescue patrol was much larger than the original patrol, so I'm thinking the TBX was too heavy and bulky for the smaller Goettge patrol. 

        Joe Connor

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 10:34 AM, Joe Connor via Milsurplus mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net wrote:

Guys, I need some help on a research project I'm doing on the Goettge patrol, a 25-man Marine patrol that was slaughtered on Guadalcanal on August 12-13, 1942.

One curious and unexplained issue is why the patrol did not bring a radio with them. Because of that, when they needed help, they had to send a guy to swim back to the Marine perimeter, about four miles away.

Can you think of any reason why they wouldn't bring a transmitter/receiver? Size? Weight? Bulk? Lack of availability in the shoestring days of the Guadalcanal campaign? This was before the advent of the BC-611 walkie-talkies, right? In August 1942, what type of small transmitters/receivers (if any) would have been available to a 25-man Marine patrol on Guadalcanal?

As always, thank you for your help.

                        Joe Connor
______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto: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

______________________________________________________________
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

-- 
Al Klase – N3FRQ
Jersey City, NJ
http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/

_____________________________
This message, including any attachments, may include privileged,
confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this
communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.