[Milsurplus] TBX
Ray Fantini
RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu
Thu Sep 14 09:57:36 EDT 2017
With all due respect to your craw I still stand by my statement that the TBX was not an adequate field radio for the small patrol or active combat operations. The radio is a good radio, when you have the time, space and crew required to set it up and make it operational but as history proves at Tarawa it was found to delicate, complex and under powered and was sited in official documents as one of the biggest problems in the inability to establish communications between the landing beach and the fleet.
Jeep mounted TCS sets provided the answer at Tarawa and not the TBX. The concept of low powered AM/HF field radios was already on the way out by this time with the advent of FM/VHF sets like the SCR-300 and the soon to be abundant tactical VHF FM sets that were being fielded by the Army.
Don’t get me wrong about this, I personally like the TBX and am a big fan of low powered AM/HF sets. I am currently looking at putting together an SCR-245 set for field use and wanting to drag around the BC-223 and BC-312 makes the TBX look lightweight but just like the SCR-245 the TBX was one of those sets that were a pre war design and already obsolete by the end of the war.
One of the things I like looking at is weapons systems that were state of the art pre or at the start of the war and way obsolete by its end. Things like the B-17 that was state of the art in nineteen forty and only suitable for scrap metal by nineteen forty six. The B-17 is a wonderful airplane, great wing loading and capable of sustaining massive battle damage and still flying but hopelessly obsolete when compared to something like the B-29 that replaced it. I tend to think of AM/HF field radios when compared to the new FM/VHF sets developed during the war the same way.
I will be up at Gilbert at MRCA this weekend and not able to answer any emails but will be interested to see any comments regarding my speculations. Also keep in mind that we will be operating many military sets during the event so anyone wishing to operate in addition to just writing about military radios may want to participate. See the attached web link:
http://www.mrca.ar88.net/Fall_Meet/fall_meet.html
Some of the Net Frequencies and times:
http://www.mrca.ar88.net/Nets/default.html
Ray F/KA3EKH
________________________________________
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:09 PM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] TBX
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
More information about the Milsurplus
mailing list