[MRCA] PRT-4 PRR-9

[Tim]

Hi Rich - Every (AN/) PRC-6 and PRT/PRR pair that I have ever seen was on
51.0.  It may be that 51.0 was the "supplied" crystal on issued sets - and
maybe therefore became our "Mil" defacto guard channel.  I dunno, but
that's where I operate...
Tim
N6CC

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:41 AM Rich Arland <k7sz at live.com> wrote:

> 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 <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on
> behalf of Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2020 11:34 PM
> *Cc:* Military Radio Collectors Association <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 <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
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20200818/11292a56/attachment.html>