[Milsurplus] New video - 13 mnutes

[John Vendely]

It's true that the WWII FM sets don't fit neatly in the "modern" 
communications world.  Despite this, they aren't totally absent from 
today's airwaves.  They communicate very nicely with the AN/GRC-3 family 
radios, which have a similar IF bandwidth.  Dare I mention that 
SCR-608s, BC-659s, and BC-1335s have been heard recently on the popular 
military FM radio frequency 29.4 Mc?  And at the Indiana Museum of 
Military History, which when in operation was the largest private 
collection of military vehicles, we had all the aforementioned radios 
installed in military vehicles and operational, plus the SCR-506, 
SCR-508, AN/GRC-3 through 8, and AN/VRC-12 families.  And a GRC-46 and a 
GRC-122.  The statute of limitations being long expired, I have no 
compunction in stating that all the old WWII sets were operationally 
demonstrated regularly and in their "natural habitats"...


73,


John K9WT


On 2/1/2026 3:50 PM, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus wrote:
> Cool, around here I am into Immersive history, so tend to like working 
> with equipment that you can use. Not just put up on the shelf or talk 
> about. Get on the air and make some QSO with it, and you will gain 
> lots of experience that you will never get from a book. Think that is 
> where support of the SCR-506 comes in being it's a still a useable 
> radio today for some eighty years on.
> Personal preference tends to fall more into the Vietnam - Cold War 
> stuff being I was around then but still will also play with the old 
> WW2 stuff sometimes.
> No disrespect to the low band first generation FM equipment, but you 
> see very little activity with that old 40 kHz super wide band 
> technology. Nothing at all like the super wide acceptance of the more 
> modern military FM tactical stuff in the Ham resto community, just 
> look at the size of the "Cold War net" at Hamvention. You know how 
> they stack them up for that!  And I will say that anyone who is 
> capable of getting a SCR-300/BC-1000 up and running gets my respect 
> But today in 2026 I would propose that there are a lot of TCS sets, 
> ARC-8 (BC-348 ART-13) various configurations of ACR-193 (BC-312 and 
> BC-191) sets out there being used but not a lot of that old first 
> generation  BC-652 or 653 being used.
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of John Vendely 
> <jvendely at cfl.rr.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 1, 2026 3:17 PM
> *To:* milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Milsurplus] New video - 13 mnutes
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Salisbury University. 
> Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments 
> from external sources.
>
> Howdy,
>
>
> The SCR-508 was not designed to replace the SCR-506.  Both were in 
> development around the same time, and the SCR-508 was actually 
> standardized before the SCR-506.  Rather, the two sets were intended 
> for different roles.  There was a need for a short-range (e.g., 10 
> miles) crystal-controlled, tactical mobile FM set for use primarily in 
> tanks, as well as a longer range HF vehicular radio capable of at 
> least 50 miles range on CW or 20 miles on AM voice.  The SCR-508 was 
> used primarily for inter-tank communications and liason with artillery 
> groups using the artillery band SCR-608 FM sets. They were simple to 
> use and required minimal operator training.  The SCR-506, operated 
> mainly in CW mode, was used primarily for communicating at the 
> division command and admin net levels and required trained radio 
> operators. Relatively few SCR-506s were installed in tanks, and those 
> that were, were used for communicating back to battalion and division 
> level nets.
>
>
> The WWII FM sets were state-of-the-art and unique to the U.S. forces, 
> and were a radical improvement in mobile tactical communications.  The 
> SCR-506 was also a pretty advanced design for its time.  The 
> disparaging remarks about the 506 in amateur publications stems from 
> its limited frequency range (and the limited viewpoint of hams), which 
> includes only one amateur band.  In fact, the SCR-506 was an 
> excellent, well-designed set that did just what it was designed to do.
>
>
> It's gratifying to see a youtube video on the important but completely 
> overlooked subject of wideband FM tactical radio and its great effect 
> on the course of WWII.  A fascinating episode not mentioned in the 
> video and which demonstrates this, took place during the Battle of the 
> Bulge.  As mentioned, the German tank sets were AM, and an airborne AM 
> jammer system code-named "Jackal" had been developed to jam them.  
> However, the German AM sets and American FM sets overlapped in 
> frequency, so commanders were unwilling to deploy Jackal for fear of 
> jamming U.S. tank forces along with the German.  Armstrong urged them 
> to proceed on the basis of the AM interference rejection capability of 
> the wideband FM SCR-508 sets.  The Jackal jammers were installed in 
> B-24s and flown in relays over the battlefield.  POW interviews 
> conducted after the battle indicated the jamming seriously disrupted 
> German communications, contributing greatly to the American breakout.  
> SCR-508 operators were unaware that jamming was even taking place...
>
>
> 73,
>
>
> John K9WT
>
>
>
> On 2/1/2026 1:09 PM, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus wrote:
>> e help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20260201/5bb12f20/attachment-0001.html>