[Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!

Tue Oct 21 16:10:53 EDT 2025

Yes, Francesco is correct.  The AN/GRR-5 had multiple, if somewhat 
obscure roles as a monitoring receiver.  For example, battalion ops 
centers, firing batteries, and fire units were issued them to monitor 
intelligence nets and observation post nets which were on HF AM.  Other 
units used them to monitor warning nets, such as antiaircraft warning 
nets.   And of course, the GRR-5 was often pressed into service in a 
variety of improvised receive-only applications.

Incidentally, the BC-342 had an extended post-WWII life as the 
R-336/GRC-26.  THese were updated BC-342s with a substantially modified 
L.O. with considerably improved stability and an IF output to make them 
suitable for FSK operation.  THey were the receiver used in the earliest 
version of the AN/GRC-26 RATT vans (with the BC-610 transmitter and FSK 
converters).  Despite the worthwhile improvements, they were still a bit 
marginal for this application, and in the late 1940s the R-336s were 
replaced with the superior R-388.

On 10/21/2025 3:45 PM, Francesco Ledda via Milsurplus wrote:
> Years ago, I read an Army book about communication doctrine. The book 
> mentioned the GRR-5 as being used as a monitoring receiver and not 
> being utilized as part of a dedicated communication system.
>
> Best, Francesco K5URG
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Oct 21, 2025, at 12:59, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus 
>> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Maybe it has to do with total production? Possibly more BC-342/312 
>> were produced and were more available? And there is a big weight and 
>> size difference in favor of the BC-348. But the BC-342 did come with 
>> a AC power supply and was ready to use without modification.
>>
>> Anecdotally would also speculate more of the BC-312/342 receivers 
>> were dumped on the surplus market being by the end of WW2 they were 
>> already obsolete  with new receivers entering military service like 
>> the 51J and R-388 products that were needed to support teletype 
>> making all that WW2 stuff go away. Oddly the BC-348/ART-13 
>> (ARC-8)combination survived longer in military service seeing use in 
>> B-29 and later B-36 along with a bunch of transport and cargo 
>> aircraft that maybe not as many were dumped into the surplus market 
>> as the obsolete BC-342/312 and that can also account for cost 
>> difference.
>>
>>  I don’t think technical specifications had anything to do with it. 
>>  By 48/49 Hallicrafters and National  were selling receivers that way 
>> exceed anything you would get with a BC-348 or 342 so serious Hams 
>> were buying things like SX-71 or Nationals HRO -5A/C or 7 with the 
>> war surplus going to the bottom end market for entry level Hams and 
>> SWL users.  The HRO-5TA1 was up for sale as soon as 1946 for $217, 
>> think that would be like buying a Icom 7800 transceiver today. Lot of 
>> money but everyone knows at least one or two Hams who have to have 
>> the best!
>>
>> The GRR-5 is more interesting. Think the thing there is the battel 
>> that started  early in WW2 between AM and FM for tactical 
>> communications on the battlefield. I would think by the end of WW2 
>> the battel was over and FM was clearly the winner, no heterodynes, 
>> clean good quality audio and excellent short range communications. 
>> But the Army did proceed with developing contracts for things like 
>> the AN/GRC-9 for HF/AM tactical communications and later sets like 
>> the AN/GRC-19 both systems served well into the sixties. That along 
>> with things like Broadcast nets where general orders or otherwise one 
>> way communications can take place were perceived as having some 
>> value. The British PCR receivers were a good example of that. I 
>> somehow see the GRR-5 and PCR in some way related in there use? And 
>> like the PCR cannot see the GRR-5 having any real value as a CW 
>> receiver or otherwise  but as a network monitoring receiver for 
>> things like time information it had its place. GRR-5 receivers were 
>> mounted in operations and teletype centers for years beyond any of 
>> the other radios like the R-392 and T-195 were in service. Least 
>> that’s my speculation, the GRR-5 was part of the great GRC-19 
>> generation, where as the GRC-19 configuration survived a little 
>> longer in military service because it was capable of running teletype 
>> the GRR-5 had little reason to be around as long.
>>
>> Least that’s my speculation, let’s see where I am right or wrong.
>>
>> Ray F/KA3EKH
>>
>> *From:*milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
>> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On Behalf Of *Hubert Miller
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:05 AM
>> *To:* milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>> *Subject:* [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348
>>
>> I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10 
>> over the BC-342 price.
>>
>> What accounts for this difference, do you think ?
>>
>> That the BC-348 was lighter ? More “attractive” looking ?
>>
>> The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better.
>>
>> The “old style” crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and -348 
>> look to me smarter than either
>>
>> the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs. 
>> it’s about twice as wide as
>>
>> at 470 kcs.
>>
>> -Hue Miller
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/6727166c/attachment-0001.html>