[MRCA] PRT-4 PRR-9

[Mike Morrow]

> Maybe your reference is John Bergen's book "Military Communications
> A Test for Technology" (page 256 - I'm pretty sure most of us have
> read it).  He states that the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 4th
> Infantry Division received these "prototype" sets and used them
> in the Dak To combat operations.  "Those units in the Division
> that used the radio at Dak To found that it worked well."  But
> Bergen goes on to describe its ultimate shortcomings.
>.Tim N6CC

That book may be downloaded here:

  https://history.army.mil/html/books/091/91-12/index.html

On page 450 it has this information about the AN/PRT-4 and AN/PRR-9:

"As final testing of those prototype radios was about to begin in 1964, the Combat Developments Command declared that it was unhappy with the concept of a two-section radio. After extensive discussion and delays, the Army, recognizing that rejection of the concept would set 
the program back at least three years, decided to proceed with final testing and 
production of the two-part squad radio. 

"Designated Standard A in January 1966, the PRT-4 transmitter and the PRR-9 
receiver were hailed as the answer to the infantrymen's need to talk to each other 
in the dense vegetation that blocked visibility and personal communication in 
the jungles of South Vietnam . Within months after the first 400 models arrived 
in South Vietnam in March 1967, the Army discovered that those expectations 
were not to be met. To reduce weight, the batteries were strapped unprotected 
to the radio, but heat and humidity were turning them into masses of dripping 
cardboard . Not realizing that the helmet served as part of the antenna, soldiers 
tried to use the receivers apart from the helmets and were disappointed with poor 
reception. Despite test findings that squad members needed only receivers, 
soldiers in South Vietnam were unhappy without a means to respond to 
directions.

"Following a period of heavy use in the first year after its introduction, the squad 
radio gradually disappeared from the battlefield. Unwilling to take the time to 
adjust to using the sets, soldiers left them behind at fire bases when going out 
on patrols. To protect the small radios from being misplaced or inadvertently 
stepped on, many commanders consigned them to footlockers in supply rooms 
where they remained for the rest of the war. An attempt to save money had led 
to the development of a rarely used two-section radio costing $1,044 each."

[$1044 in 1966 would be about $8400 today.)

Although these are quaint little gimmicks today, they must really rank as some of the most ineffective gear deployed.  From a technical viewpoint, the AN/PRC-34 and -36 belt and helmet two-way radios that were developed before the PRR-9/PRT-4 are much more interesting.

Gene Smar wrote:

> Anyone out there actually USE one or both of these milrads in the service?

I worked 25 years for TVA (a federal agency whose electrical power production is entirely supported by its market alone).  I doubt any other "company" has made hiring veterans such a high priority.  We had many Vietnam combat-experienced infantry veterans (MOS 11B and 11C, 1965 to 1972).  I never found anyone who had even heard of or seen such a thing as the PRR-9/PRT-4.

> My research (Google) says these were rarely taken into the field and
> were quickly replaced by the PRC-25 once it became available in
> mid-sixties.

The AN/PRC-25 had been in Vietnam several years before the PRR-9/PRT-4 showed up in 1967.

Mike / KK5F