"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?

"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

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

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?

Perhaps Len could shed some light on this.

I could, but it is like trying to teach pigs to fly...it annoys the pig and
the instructor. Nonetheless, I clean off the whiteboard and explain:

In the 1950s-1960s, morse code skills were taught to FIELD RADIO
MOS school students...but at (then named) Camp Gordon (now Fort
Gordon, GA). "Field" radios in the US Army then ranged from the old
WW2-era AN/GRC-9 two-man-pack portable to the AN/GRC-26 truck-
mounted hut containing an HF-range AM/CW/RTTY station (BC-610
transmitter) and having the masts and wires for a small rhombic.

"Angry-twentysixes" were deployed in Korea during the active war
period there (1950-1953) but the overwhelming mode of choice for field
communications was RTTY, not morse. The GRC-26 could transmit
RTTY and voice simultaneously. NVIS had not become a standard
acronym yet. Despite the hilly topology of Korean landscape, VHF
radio relay sets had become the "favorite" (most-used) method of radio
communication of any kind there. Such VHF radio relay carried voice
and TTY circuits, again the TTY preferred over manual morse code.

In the next decade, moving to southeast asia, the AN/TRC-24 (among
several) was the most used radio relay equipment, again carrying voice
and TTY. The '24 was easily spotted by the curious square antenna
configuration that worked from 40 to 400 MHz and could integrate with
Spiral-4 land cable having up to four in-line repeater amplifiers along
that cable. An integrated solution to networking at higher command
levels.

In the 1950s in Korea, the small-unit radio most used at first was the
BC-1000 "Walkie-Talkie" designed by Motorola in WW2. The AN/PRC-6
HT was next for easy squad use, on VHF and with the built-in facility for
active repeater operations. About 1952 late, the "three-band PRC-9"
family of manpacks replaced the SCR-300/BC-1000s, having less than
half the weight. Those extended into vehicle-mounted versions of the
manpack and were initially planned as three overlapping bands in VHF
intended for Artillery-Infantry-Armor units, each of those having a band.
All of the "9s" family had provisions for unattended repeater operation.

For Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all of the mentioned VOICE radios
were used plus the appearance of the almost-all-solid-state PRC-25
multi-channel synthesized portable VHF FM set (only the final amplifier
was a tube stage). By 1970 or so, the AN/PRC-77 appeared which was
essentially the same architecture but having all solid-state circuitry.
An eighth of a million models of the '25 and '77 were produced during a
decade and a half of production in several countries.

The original SCR-300/BC-1000 "walkie-talkie" was licensed for manufacture
in many countries, including the UK (there known as WS-11?). The
improved "9s" of the late Korean War vintage were also licensed out to
other countries. Motorola's Chicago works was the pioneer in the design,
beginning before WW2 (original "handie-talkie") and into the architecture
of the 1950s-introduced manpacks.

US military aviation pioneered the UHF "military aircraft band" of 225-
400 MHz beginning in the 1950s, notably the Collins Radio design which
was channelized and had AM voice...some were still on inventory as of
1970. The SINGLE CHANNEL SSB (single user) was pioneered again
by Collins Radio for the Strategic Air Command in the 1950s, the
ignition point for the adoption of single-user SSB by radio amateurs.

While several HF range portable and transportable communications
transceivers were in use from 1950 through 1990, all with carrier on-off
control and having manual telegraph keys as part of their system, the
modes of actual use were still voice. Carrier on-off control was largely
restricted to semi-remote site operation from a wire-linked control point
(some protection of personnel from enemy DFing and bombing of RF
emitters). Various forms of voice encryption and data machine coupling
appeared then.

The first of the SINCGARS family of VHF small-unit communications sets
appeared in 1989. Design was led by ITT Fort Wayne, IN, and allowed both
frequency-hopping and external encryption devices to defeat enemy
interception. That series continues in production today with the manpack
version reduced to half the bulk and weight and including internal
encryption
circuitry for both voice and data. A standard US military land and air set
for manpack, vehicular, or airborne use, a quarter million has been produced
by ITT and the former General Dynamics Land Division in Florida.

Army land communications includes a large number of different radio relay
sets (troposcatter included in my definition of that) and whole voice-data
telephone exchanges, all mobile and truck mounted, deployable anywhere
and capable of supplying all the needs of military communications at any
level from Corps on down. The Signal Center at Fort Gordon is now the
main Signal School for the US Army and other branches. Fort Monmouth
is now the home of the Electronics Command, USA, and is a center for
coordinating manufacturing and research in Army military communications.

The Military Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, AZ, has the only "code
school" left (morse code cognition) and that Center trains ALL branch
members and necessary government employees on various Military
Intelligence tasks. Morse code cognition is taught using commercial
morse code computer programs. Such cognition schooling is only a PART
of the overall M.I. electronic intelligence intercept task. A much larger
activity there is the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) training.

The old mythology of "special forces behind enemy lines reporting back
intel via CW" has never surfaced in any history since the 1960s. During
the first Gulf War, the "behind the lines" radios were basically the
AN/PSC-2 which is low UHF, has three antenna choices (the
largest is a satellite "umbrella") and was designed to handle voice and
data, data to 1200 BPS using a small "chiclet" style keyboard. The
deployable AN/PSC-5 is now operational with more improvements. USAF
"Joint Stars" command aircraft can easily relay PSC radio comm to other
sites and the directional UHF antennas defeat most field DF operations.

In the US military, HF radio use is largely considered to be just a backup
mode of communications. The primary medium for communications is
land radio relay, satellete relay, and small unit radio netting at VHF and
higher. At fixed bases, land communications is connected to the DSN
which is considered as the "government's own Internet" that handles
voice and data digitally and includes encryption for both (if authorized).

There is NO morse code mode used for any tactical radio communications
anywhere in today's military. There is no evidence that strategic comm
(such as by Special Forces, SEALS, etc) uses any morse code modes;
their known equipment characteristics concern only voice and data modes.

It's not possible to tell/explain what happens in "code classes" when
there are none today...

Leonard H. Anderson

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

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.

Meanwhile, the US had listening posts in Turkey, Greece, Germany,
Korea, Japan...

We didn't need to send OUR traffic via CW, we needed to copy THEIR
message traffic using CW.

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

See above.

And thats all I can say on that subject.

Aw, c'mon.

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

No, Dwight, it was not all monitored by computers. In
fact computers were scarce as midnight sunshine in the
60's. I KNOW some people quite well who were both
operating CW in the military and others who spent
their entire enlistment copying it on HF with headsets.


It was where my father worked. We lived right next to the facility and his
job just about every night was to go and get those computers (or radios)
going again whenever they stopped working. He had a terminal right in the
bedroom to monitor it all. Again, this was in the mid-60's (1964 and 1965).
I even went into the facility several times and there was only four or five
guys working there (and none of them had headsets on whenever I went in). I
remember the smell of electronics was strong enough to leave me gasping for
air.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

I think that these licenses we have should be retested every so often, such
as every ten years! All applicable elements for the respective licenses
including the morse code test. Most every other license out there issued
requires some form of retesting. At least this way we will find out if
anyone has learned anything along the way or not... And it could be that if
you were, for example a 20wpm Extra, you would have to pass all the elements
required for that back then, or the license class you would have/get would
be whatever elements a person DID pass on the retest. Definitely would show
if anyone bothered to "grow" in the ten year period.

Works for me!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Brian" wrote:

Meanwhile, the US had listening posts in Turkey,
Greece, Germany, Korea, Japan...

We didn't need to send OUR traffic via CW, we
needed to copy THEIR message traffic using CW.


And it was all monitored by computers. My father worked at one of those
stations in Turkey in the mid-60's (Karamusel Air Station near Istanbu).
Nobody actually listened to the initial traffic by ear. Instead, computers
listened for key words and recorded conversations that might be interesting
(CW messages were printed). Those messages were then sent back to the states
for screening and evaluation.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Computers listening for key words in the mid-60's. Hmmm.

I roomed with a ditty-bopper, he listened to live signals on a real
radio in the 1980's.

"Brian" wrote:

Computers listening for key words in the mid-60's. Hmmm.


That's what my father told me at the time (and I have no reason to doubt
what he said). Of course, I was too young to know much about it (maybe about
12-13). I do remember the terminal in the bedroom and going to the building
several times. I also remember the antennas (dozens of large vertical
antennas in two circular patterns, a large outer circle and a smaller inner
circle). You could see those antennas from anywhere on the base. There was
also a large collection of smaller antennas. I also remember a little of
what that equipment looked like inside the building, but obviously not any
of the details.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Brian" wrote:

Computers listening for key words in the mid-60's. Hmmm.


That's what my father told me at the time (and I have no reason to doubt
what he said). Of course, I was too young to know much about it (maybe about
12-13). I do remember the terminal in the bedroom and going to the building
several times. I also remember the antennas (dozens of large vertical
antennas in two circular patterns, a large outer circle and a smaller inner
circle). You could see those antennas from anywhere on the base. There was
also a large collection of smaller antennas. I also remember a little of
what that equipment looked like inside the building, but obviously not any
of the details.

I've been trying to figure out who would have enough money to buy, and
the talent to make use of, the 1960's computing resources needed to do
real-time Morse decoding in any volume. The list of possibilities is
really, really short.

I know of a not-small number of advances in Information Theory and
Cryptography where it took independent academics several decades to
(re)discover what the NSA already secretly knew. I've also always
thought that people who assume the performance of available commercial
decoders on hand-sent Morse is an indication of the state-of-the-art in
what is possible are also making a big mistake, though this is a topic
of such decreasing relevance that independent researchers will likely
never get around to reproducing what may have been possible years ago.

Dennis Ferguson

"Dennis Ferguson" wrote:

I've been trying to figure out who would have enough
money to buy, and the talent to make use of, the 1960's
computing resources needed to do real-time Morse
decoding in any volume. The list of possibilities is
really, really short.


I believe the whole thing, at least at that facility, was an Air Force
project. My father maintained the equipment (I don't think he had anything
to do with collecting information). There were perhaps a dozen (at most,
perhaps less) other guys working there. I never saw all of the people at one
time, so that's just a guess. At least three of those were civilians (or at
least I never saw them in a uniform). It was probably related to SAC
(Strategic Air Command), because that's where my father worked just before
and after that duty assignment. A few years later, he went to a similar (he
said) facility in Korea and, still later, another in Greenland. He mentioned
once where the information went to, but I only have a vague recollection of
that and no idea today where he said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/