"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do
have
the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing
how
so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out.

Poor DICK. I was never in a Russian dittybopper school.

Russian military, as our own,
don't.

Poor DICK. I was never in a US dittybopper school.

When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you
"just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Because RTTY could be run in the 'secure', or 'green' mode.

CW can be coded as well. As long as everyone's o the same "page"
should work OK. Authenticate.

And RATT was
more capable of sending LARGE volumes of messages.

Tell me about the error rate, too.

Due mainly to the
untrained CW operators in the US Military at the time you are
referencing.

So the Amateur Radio Service didn't act as a pool of trained operators
for the military?

Ten groups a minute is all that was required of a O5C MOS back then.

Dan/W4NTI

Kind of negates many of the arguments for forcing people to test for
code, doesn't it?

No it does not negate a thing Brian. It shows how ill prepared the US
Military was during the height of the Cold War.

The Iron Curtain countries didn't have a problem with good CW operators.
And IM NOT TALKING ABOUT HAM RADIO.

And thats all I can say on that subject.

Dan/W4NTI