clifford wright
2015-11-01 21:27:52 UTC
Good day all!
This has been a long term research interest of mine for many years.
I am familiar and have used almost all the WW2 British army radios
and find very many of the explanations offered for these failures to
be pretty spurious.
FYI many year ago I contacted the Arnmem area as a radio amateur from
Cambridgeshire using a type 18 set as provided to the paratroops.
This was using a 20 metre long wire aerial.
The excuses about a wooded area affecting range do not ring very true.
They are obviously influenced by people's experience with more modern
VHF/UHF radios which are affected quite severly.
The 18 set was usually used at around 7 MHZ which is what I used for my
contact. With a wavelength of 40 meters this is rather like that used by
the Americans in the Vietnam war in heavy jungle.
Wet terrain is another,BUT this actually improves the performance as it
actas an an effective ground plane.
The other "tale" has been mismanufacture of the batteries. This only
applies to the lead acid base batteries used with a hand generator
however one protagonist of this theory got it all backwards!
One thing you NEVER do is completely discharge a lead acid battery
if you do then it really will be useless.
Of course the 18 set had a VERY ineficient aerial. However many houses in
the 1940's had an outside radio aerial of considerable length. Even with
a severe mismatch to the transmitter the use of one of these would have
enormously extended the range, but it was not done. Perhaps the Para's
needed a few radio hams in their number?
Overall there seem to have been so may problems that in my more paranoid
moments I have wondered about the possibility of sabotage. After all the
failure of Montgomery's northern thrust to Berlin meant that the
Russian'swould get there first.
Roosevelt was quite blind to Stalin's real nature and this would mean
that American influence would not have aided any British efforts toward
security.
According to some account they were getting ranges that were measured in
hundreds of metres and needed several relay' for 5 miles.
Th
In the event there is a lot of misinformation around on this topic.
One "expert" thought that the transmitters were crystal controlled
(not so). The power output is usually given a 0.25 watts, but even with
this power, in ground wave the range should be several miles, and with
skywave propagation at night far greater.
BTW can someone elighten me as to whether the BBC had a short wave
service in the 5-7 MHz range in 1944. I would not be surprised, but this
would explain the troops listening to the BBC on their type 18 receivers.
It might also indicate that it was the transmitters that were the
problem.
Arnhem has always fascinated me as one of my earliest memories is of the
vast fleets of aircraft and gliders flying over my home town on the 2
occasions of D day and the Arnhem landings.
Hoping to get some interest.
Clifford Wright ZL1BDA ex G3NIA
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
This has been a long term research interest of mine for many years.
I am familiar and have used almost all the WW2 British army radios
and find very many of the explanations offered for these failures to
be pretty spurious.
FYI many year ago I contacted the Arnmem area as a radio amateur from
Cambridgeshire using a type 18 set as provided to the paratroops.
This was using a 20 metre long wire aerial.
The excuses about a wooded area affecting range do not ring very true.
They are obviously influenced by people's experience with more modern
VHF/UHF radios which are affected quite severly.
The 18 set was usually used at around 7 MHZ which is what I used for my
contact. With a wavelength of 40 meters this is rather like that used by
the Americans in the Vietnam war in heavy jungle.
Wet terrain is another,BUT this actually improves the performance as it
actas an an effective ground plane.
The other "tale" has been mismanufacture of the batteries. This only
applies to the lead acid base batteries used with a hand generator
however one protagonist of this theory got it all backwards!
One thing you NEVER do is completely discharge a lead acid battery
if you do then it really will be useless.
Of course the 18 set had a VERY ineficient aerial. However many houses in
the 1940's had an outside radio aerial of considerable length. Even with
a severe mismatch to the transmitter the use of one of these would have
enormously extended the range, but it was not done. Perhaps the Para's
needed a few radio hams in their number?
Overall there seem to have been so may problems that in my more paranoid
moments I have wondered about the possibility of sabotage. After all the
failure of Montgomery's northern thrust to Berlin meant that the
Russian'swould get there first.
Roosevelt was quite blind to Stalin's real nature and this would mean
that American influence would not have aided any British efforts toward
security.
According to some account they were getting ranges that were measured in
hundreds of metres and needed several relay' for 5 miles.
Th
In the event there is a lot of misinformation around on this topic.
One "expert" thought that the transmitters were crystal controlled
(not so). The power output is usually given a 0.25 watts, but even with
this power, in ground wave the range should be several miles, and with
skywave propagation at night far greater.
BTW can someone elighten me as to whether the BBC had a short wave
service in the 5-7 MHz range in 1944. I would not be surprised, but this
would explain the troops listening to the BBC on their type 18 receivers.
It might also indicate that it was the transmitters that were the
problem.
Arnhem has always fascinated me as one of my earliest memories is of the
vast fleets of aircraft and gliders flying over my home town on the 2
occasions of D day and the Arnhem landings.
Hoping to get some interest.
Clifford Wright ZL1BDA ex G3NIA
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus