[MRCA] PRT-4 PRR-9

Tue Aug 18 14:52:00 EDT 2020

Rich:

     The milrad guard freq is 51.00 MHz.  You were told the wrong freq of
50.1.  If you were to transmit there you 'd be in violation of FCC rules.
Only CW is permitted from 50.00 through 50.10 MHz.  Setting your FM carrier
on 50.1 would put your non-CW waveform below this cutoff freq.

73 de

Gene Smar  AD3F

From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of Rich Arland
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:41 PM
Cc: Military Radio Collectors Association <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRT-4 PRR-9

I absolutely love the PRT-4/PRR-9 discussions!!! I am on the lookout for a
pair. So far Fair Radio has the best selection/price. 

This causes me to wonder about the "official" MilCom low band VHF watering
hole. When I procured my PRC-1088 I was told that 50.1 MHz as the frequency
to guard. Then we get into the PRT-4?PRR-9 discussions and those are rocked
up on 51.0 MHz (well, most of them are). 

So, which one is the primary guard frequency? I normally listen on 50.1 on
the 1088 which is connected to the 6M antenna on the roof of the house.
Should I be listening on 51.0 instead??

Guidance, please.

Vy 73

Rich  K7SZ

  _____  

From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
<mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> > on
behalf of Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net <mailto:kk5f at earthlink.net> >
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 11:34 PM
Cc: Military Radio Collectors Association <mrca at mailman.qth.net
<mailto:mrca at mailman.qth.net> >
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRT-4 PRR-9 

> 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
______________________________________________________________
MRCA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:MRCA 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/mrca/attachments/20200818/039d5593/attachment.html>