[Milsurplus] Why Australia used the 3BZ

[Hubert Miller]

The Collins 18M ( Navy TCH ) manual I have, the civilian manual, has a date inside of Nov. 1940.   I have seen a photo of one in U.S. by Brit soldiers in
North Africa combat zone; however this use by U.K., as well as this radio's Lend-Lease status, seems unknown to U.K. hams.

Thanks for your comments and references, Dean. 
I remain somewhat puzzled as to why no other set was chosen, or maybe better, developed. Okay, I understand the outstations in the Pacific Islands 
already were equipped with the 3B sets, so the equipment was already there, but when the U.S. Navy started supplying the Philippine guerilla, the 
set the U.S. Navy supplied via submarine were the 3BZ sets and the ATR-4. Maybe this partly because for the U.S., the best (land) resources went to the
European zone, which was considered the toughest nut to crack, and thus the first. 
Besides the above sets, the U.S. in the Pacific for such use employed the Navy MBM - but it didn't have AM; when the Army got involved and many
more stations were added, the SCR-294 ( BC-1306 ). Apparently there were also some home-made sets. I have not yet been able to definitely name
any other set used by the U.S. there. I do not believe the BC-474 or BC-654 were used for this, as these radios lacked crystal controlled transmit and 
for longer range comms, didn't go up to the frequencies required.  A book I have mentions one more U.S. set the users weren't impressed with,
maybe because of its handcrank gen; but I don't know what set this was.  The TRC-10 according to paper I have, looks like it was never released.
Or maybe a few were ??? While revisions were still being considered ? 
I think about the weight of the 3BZ. Can you imagine having on short notice to move the two radios, two car batteries, the charging generator, fuel,
and some accessories, to have to hump these thru the jungle? Fun ! 
Very interesting topic, for me. 
-Hue