Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#371
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 11:00 am
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:19:28 GMT, Dave Heil wrote wrote: part of the military that wasn't glamorous, didn't wear flashy or cute uniforms, and bore the brunt of national defense as it always has since 1776...with the casualty rates the highest of any branch, from battlefields of Pennsylvania to the Persian Gulf area of Dubya's rule. The Signal Corps has the highest casualty rate, or did you mean the U.S. Army? The Signal Corps. The first target of any combat unit is the guy (or tank, amtrack, jeep, etc.) with the antennas. The second target is the guy -next- to the guy with the antenna because he is usually an officer. Frank, I originally wrote ARMY, relative to Navy, Air Force, etc. Davie, in an effort to be as dick-tatorial as possible, edited the quote to set up a following rebuke of the Signal Corps. Department of Defense casualty figures are the reference as to which branch gives the most. Anyone can look those up. In the Army the "front-line" (we called them just "line") radio users were just ordinary infantry, artillery, or armor troops who've had quickie courses in using their radios. Those aren't Signal Corpsmen per se. Is that something to brag about? Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even higher than EOD. That used to be true but the paradigm has flipped over today. The common manpack radio is the SINCGARS for land forces, both Army and Marines. The SIP or SINCGARS Improvement Program has resulted in a manpack radio that is half the bulk and half the weight of the original (beginning 1989) SINCGARS sets. Some 250 thousand total R/Ts were manufactured and operational as of the end of 2004, making that the most-produced military radio of all time...roughly double that of the PRC-25/-77 of the Vietnam era. I don't have any current figures on the SIP production-fielding, but the older SINCGARS cases-chassis (PRC-119) have been turning up on E-Bay, so there is a new beginning "surplus" area for "green" (military) collectors. When I was in, we "rear echelon" troops would exercise in infantry training using PRC-6s and PRC-9s (manpack). Those VHF whips aren't that noticeable and the (about) 20 pound manpack radio was half the weight and bulk of the old WW2 SCR-300 Walkie-Talkie. Being of average height and build, I never found it limited my mobility much then. During the Korean War active phase, the highest casualty rate got specialized to the pole linemen...extremely vulnerable targets at work with absolutely no cover but the pole. The Army got wise unusually quickly and set about getting lay-on- the-ground multi-channel cable such as the "Spiral-4" stuff used in newer terminal/radio-relay equipments. That was used more than aerial line pairs in Vietnam. I doubt that big, hairy ball USAF MARS operators in SE Asia ever noticed that. The SE Asian topography and dictated limited movement of troops led to concentrations of communications on whatever hilltops could be secured. That led to concentration of enemy fire on those relatively concentrated units with resulting heavy casualties. The Army was stuck with most of those tasks although the Marines did some of those radio hilltops. USAF MARS operators weren't doing those things, despite their claims of "being in-country" as much as combat troops. By 1990-1991 the "command track" concept of concentration of radios in certain vehicles was already lessening. Newer radios were more multi-purpose, multi-band, more agile and there were fewer tell-tale antennas to spot. Desert Storm isn't a good model for comparison since EVERYONE on land was ON THE MOVE in perhaps the quickest panzerfaust operation of any military at any time. It was largely armor-against-armor in an overwhelming over-run condition. The USAF and Navy Air had cut the Iraqi communications centers already during Desert Shield, leaving their ground forces with limited command track capability and little coordination. It was a rout for our side, taking only five days of ground war. By the time of Dubya's War, things were turned around again. Humvees are the local "command tracks" all over and the targets of hidden bombs and mines. Those are indiscrimate as to whether they have visible radio equipment or not. Different game, different rules, different playing field. While land forces have radios with excellent resistance to interception and jamming, we are up against Iraqis (and Afghanis) who aren't "radio knowledgeable" to any useful degree and don't know enough to look for "command tracks" or antenna concentrations. EVERYONE who wears a uniform in those areas needs big, hairy balls to venture about. Happy Christmas |
#372
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#374
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() KØHB wrote: wrote Do you? Do you have a short memory? If so, scroll up a few messages for a refresher. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB What exactly are you going on about? |
#375
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() KØHB wrote: wrote Hans doesn't believe in U.S. amateur radio being "self- regulating?" Ach, zo! This is amateur radio? I thought it was rec.amateur.tennis.policy! Silly me! Ach, ptuey! Beep beep de Hans, K0HB I hope this isn't an indication of how hams act on the air. Do you think Steve would transmit "raped an old friend" in CW? |
#376
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:19:28 GMT, Dave Heil wrote in et: wrote: snip part of the military that wasn't glamorous, didn't wear flashy or cute uniforms, and bore the brunt of national defense as it always has since 1776...with the casualty rates the highest of any branch, from battlefields of Pennsylvania to the Persian Gulf area of Dubya's rule. The Signal Corps has the highest casualty rate, or did you mean the U.S. Army? If that's correct, then what about Len's statement that "it bore the brunt of national defense as it always has since 1776"? The Signal Corps did all that? I'm sure my dad would have made some comment to that effect if he'd seen it at Utah Beach. He never said anything about the Naval units rushing signalmen to the beach. The Signal Corps. The first target of any combat unit is the guy (or tank, amtrack, jeep, etc.) with the antennas. The second target is the guy -next- to the guy with the antenna because he is usually an officer. What would be the odds of getting hit by a stray round if you were in a different country than where the action was going on? Is that something to brag about? Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even higher than EOD. Not if the fighting is in Korea and you happen to be in a big building in Japan, Frank. Dave K8MN |
#377
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18 Dec 2005 14:04:25 -0800, wrote in
. com: snip In the Army the "front-line" (we called them just "line") radio users were just ordinary infantry, artillery, or armor troops who've had quickie courses in using their radios. Those aren't Signal Corpsmen per se. My bad. I thought they came from the same stock -- I guess that shows how old I'm not :-0 Is that something to brag about? Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even higher than EOD. That used to be true but the paradigm has flipped over today. Very true. Real sci-fi stuff they have these days. Won't be long and every grunt will be equipped with a helmet-mounted sat-comm complete with bio-telemetry and "black box" A/V recorders. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#378
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:20:06 GMT, Dave Heil wrote
in . net: Frank Gilliland wrote: snip Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even higher than EOD. Not if the fighting is in Korea and you happen to be in a big building in Japan, Frank. I wouldn't know, Dave. I got my leg perforated in Beirut and I was only packing a Simpson 260. Not much experience, I grant you. But since that happened several months after most of 1/8's comm platoon got wiped out by the barracks bombing, I really didn't have a chance to get -their- opinion on the subject. I take it that -you- have a different opinion? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#379
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 6:54 pm
On 18 Dec 2005 14:04:25 -0800, wrote in snip In the Army the "front-line" (we called them just "line") radio users were just ordinary infantry, artillery, or armor troops who've had quickie courses in using their radios. Those aren't Signal Corpsmen per se. My bad. I thought they came from the same stock -- I guess that shows how old I'm not :-0 No problem. "All parts are interchangeable" in the land forces, something that's been mentioned for decades...before I was in and will be long after today. Soldiers are soldiers first, specialists second. USUALLY, but not always, the infantry radio ops are infantrymen with some short training in their manpack radios. Signalmen are found from Battalion level and up to Brigades, and do the mass-communication stuff for Brigade through Division command. Field radio equipment has been designed for wired-remote control (many hundreds of feet away, as needed) of transmitters for over a half century. Major reason being RDF *might* be able to pinpoint an emitter and drop some nasty stuff on it. The personnel at the control point won't necessarily be hit so those are still survivable. If the comms equipment is destroyed and no replacements are available, the signalmen revert to their basic duty: Soldiering the infantry way. That used to be true but the paradigm has flipped over today. Very true. Real sci-fi stuff they have these days. Won't be long and every grunt will be equipped with a helmet-mounted sat-comm complete with bio-telemetry and "black box" A/V recorders. Not quite. That stuff is PR material that's been out for years. The Army tried out the "squad radio" concept in Vietnam during the early 1970s. Didn't work out well and that was generally abandoned for wholesale use on the line. I don't know WHY it didn't work out since I've never been involved directly with it, just the manpack-to-high-power- vehicular-amp families of "regular" (in ham ideas) radios and some other interesting DoD stuff. :-) Back in 1990 the land forces had the AN/PSC-3 radio with voice and data capability on the military aviation band, three different antennas from whip to wire mesh parabolic reflector. The data part had a "chiclet" keyboard and a small LCD-like screen and messages could be typed in, stored, sent at 1200 BPS on UHF, either to an airborne radio relay or through military comm sats. Can't verify if the data part could be encrypted, but today's PSC-7 can do that. The PSC-3 was used in unfriendly territory during Desert Shield and none were compromised. Some old- timers in here thought the military was still using something like WW2 OSS HF sets with morse code during the first Gulf War! :-) The present-day survival radios (HT size) can cooperate with the DME of TACAN to yield distance information and their voice is both digitized and encryptable. Same size as 20-year-old survival radio-beacons but have more electronic features and better battery packs. The AN/PRC-104 HF manpack transceiver (operational 1986, will be replaced soon by an updated unit) by Hughes Ground Systems has an automatic antenna tuner integral to the manpack R/T. One can physically shorten the whip by removing sections to cut down visibility and the antenna tuner will compensate for the shorter sections. Won't be quite as efficient as the full whip but it is less visible on the ground. The lil 20 W PEP transmitter will shove as much RF into the whip as it can without damaging itself. While I haven't been with the Army units testing anything in the last half-dozen years, I can see that the "command track" concept (actually a command vehicle, a Humvee now more than a Bradley tracked vehicle) is still strong. That lends itself to the "many antennas" visibility for un- friendlies who have some smarts on sorting out targets. With two NVIS whips (bent-over long ones) and a couple VHF, UHF antennas on a Humvee, those stand out pretty well from the ordinary gunner-style Humvee. There are "mini- huts" for making up a Humvee into a radio command vehicle holding lots of radios inside...similar to the full-size hut on a deuce and a half flatbed. Armor units have the flashy toys now with a couple dynamic (on the move) automatic positioning location and reporting systems still undergoing more field testing. [why, I don't know, they were first out in the field a decade ago] Artillery can confirm its position super-accurately with military-mode GPS in the little HT-size "plugger" or AN/PSN-11 receiver. The same plugger can connect to any SINCGARS radio to update its calendar clock for good networking in FHSS mode; GPS provides a super-accurate time base. Plugger was in use during Desert Storm. I haven't followed the progress of the SIDs (Seismic Intrusion Device) that first saw service in later years of the SE Asia Live-Fire exercise. My RCA division in Van Nuys did the casing and geophone amplifier-filter- processor, me doing the final whip design desired to be a simple wire rather than the original OD tape style. Buryable unit intended for Vietnam but that war ended early without full deployment. It could distinguish between two-footed and four-footed creatures and report back (by coded radio signal) detection of the two- footed variety. In the three decades since there must have been improvement in that area. shrug There's more stuff coming along with the first signs of in SIGNAL magazine published by AFCEA along with Defense Industry Newsletter. The latest is an RF psycho weapon using ultra-wideband microwave stuff to scare-shock-disturb unfriendlies at a distance. First operational test contract was awarded a couple months ago. While it uses radio, it might not be handled by signalmen at all, probably not by artillery types either. Psy-war units? :-) The first NODs (Night Observation Devices) were operational during the latter half of the 1960s and used in Vietnam. Too many were stolen/captured with the USSR making their own versions. Now those "Buck Rogers" devices can be bought at sports stores as a regular consumer electronics product. shrug |
#380
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 19 Dec 2005 10:38:46 -0800, wrote in
. com: From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 6:54 pm snip Very true. Real sci-fi stuff they have these days. Won't be long and every grunt will be equipped with a helmet-mounted sat-comm complete with bio-telemetry and "black box" A/V recorders. Not quite. That stuff is PR material that's been out for years. The Army tried out the "squad radio" concept in Vietnam during the early 1970s. Didn't work out well and that was generally abandoned for wholesale use on the line. I don't know WHY it didn't work out since I've never been involved directly with it, just the manpack-to-high-power- vehicular-amp families of "regular" (in ham ideas) radios and some other interesting DoD stuff. :-) One version of the "squad radio" was the PRC-68, a cool little VHF-lo rig. The problem was the radio wasn't built very well (mic screen kept falling off, battery boxes dented easily, antennas broke, etc), and the batteries were expensive, didn't last very long, and weren't compatible with any commercial equivalent. snip The AN/PRC-104 HF manpack transceiver (operational 1986, will be replaced soon by an updated unit) by Hughes Ground Systems has an automatic antenna tuner integral to the manpack R/T. One can physically shorten the whip by removing sections to cut down visibility and the antenna tuner will compensate for the shorter sections. Won't be quite as efficient as the full whip but it is less visible on the ground. The lil 20 W PEP transmitter will shove as much RF into the whip as it can without damaging itself. We had the PRC-104 in the early '80s; the RT was used as the exciter for the MRC-109/110 (400/1000W) jeep radios. Mechanical push-button tuning from 2-30 MHz. I still want one. snip The latest is an RF psycho weapon using ultra-wideband microwave stuff to scare-shock-disturb unfriendlies at a distance. First operational test contract was awarded a couple months ago. While it uses radio, it might not be handled by signalmen at all, probably not by artillery types either. Psy-war units? :-) I heard about that a couple years ago. Not a psych weapon -- it causes significant "discomfort" in the eyes and skin at a distance. It is/was intended for domestic purposes (i.e, riot control -- make sure to wear your aluminum-foil hat to the upcoming anti-war rallies). The first NODs (Night Observation Devices) were operational during the latter half of the 1960s and used in Vietnam. Too many were stolen/captured with the USSR making their own versions. Now those "Buck Rogers" devices can be bought at sports stores as a regular consumer electronics product. shrug Yeah, I have a Soviet unit that takes 2 AA batteries. Hmmmm..... ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release | Antenna | |||
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release | Antenna | |||
BPL pollution - file reply comments by August 6 | Antenna | |||
BPL pollution – file reply comments by August 6 | Antenna | |||
BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED | Antenna |