| |
Military
Collector Group Post;
Backmail
#45
:(20 pages) Index: Poor Boy's Collins, The TCS; by Dennis Starks WW-II
Vets In "Nam"; TCS & others, by Ed Zeranski MORE TCS; by Lenox Carruth
New Comers Questions/Suggestions; Discussion, TCS, PRC-17, PRC-1, BC-222,
Jap Stuff, & More. by Hue Miller, & Dennis Starks The Admiral's TCS; by
Ed Zeranski TCS Antenna Discussion; Army TCS's; Expanded reason; by Brian
Scace TCS TECH TIPS; From Dave Stinson
Poor Boy's Collins, The TCS; It's Legend Begins. The
TCS series of radio equipment is one of those success stories stemming
from WW-II that has few rivals, & no equals. It's story begins in 1939
& the first contracts let with Collins by the US Navy, interestingly,
the first ART-13(ATZ's), & TBX from GE, were also ordered this same year.
The Navy knew something the rest of our countries military didn't! Early
examples of the set differ mainly in the coil design used in the IF's,
progressing in later years to the more accepted SO-239 type Antenna connections
on the last sets built. It's design simplicity, extreme ruggedness, excellent
frequency stability, & compact size would all combine to spell it's success
for many years to come. It would be used in virtually every military capacity
imaginable, & in post war years, continue to serve in both military, civilian,
& commercial roles. By the end if it's military career it will have served
for more than 20 years, & will have known no equivalent, or rival, either
military or commercial. Even though no set's were built after WW-II. War
time propaganda by Collins in all the magazines of the time, usually always
depicted a PT boat in the background. I suppose they then thought this
was the most glamorous role their radio could be serving in, thus best
suited to publicize their participation in the war effort. True, the TCS
was the preferred radio set for PT boats, & I would suspect that they
were all outfitted with them even well after the war. But it's use was
not limited to these fine boats. The TCS was used in every war time capacity
we can think of, including Armored vehicles, Jeeps, Aircraft, Landing
craft, fixed simi fixed shore & field stations, & ships both large & small
of every description. Even the Army Signal corps had a stock number for
the TCS(still, as of 1953). One of very few Naval radios to be accepted
by the Army, though we don't know when, where, or in what capacity they
used them. This is very significant, as the technical rivalry, & competition
between the Signal Corp, & Navy was VERY intense! For the Army to accept
a radio of the Navy's would have been most degrading, & vice versa. It
would not be until the Army interred the war in the Pacific, would some
cooperation between the services be seen. And then only because of the
need for comparability in equipment types. This for two main reasons,#1)
the Army had tired up most of the countries manufacturing facilities with
their equipment types. #2) & most important, to simplifie the immense
supply/logistics problems. Technical Marvel! Years ago, a one time friend
of mine, upon seeing my TCS said,"you could always tell when it was one
of those things transmitting", "they had the prettiest CW signal on the
air"! This one time friend had been an Army Signalman during WW-II in
the Pacific. Though many of his war stories turned out later to be bull
shit, this one has been collaborated many times. The design of the TCS
family is very simple, so simple in fact that for many years I couldn't
understand why they had done what they did. For instance, why two 1625's
in the RF PA for CW, but only one was used for AM? We all know well, that
it's 1625 modulator pair would easily modulate both the output tubes!
Why two oscillator circuits? The MO has an oscillator tube & circuit completely
separate from the xtal oscillator which has it's own! Conventional equipment
of the time simply switched in, or out a couple of parts to change between
Xtal or MO service, but using a common circuit. What a waist of parts
& space I thought. Boy was I dumb! Several years ago while in a super
QSO on 3880, at 04:00 in the morning, my TCS receiver began to waiver.
I was frantic, the conditions were perfect, all the best guys were on
the air. And they could hear me! I had to get it back up! I jurked open
the receiver & started thumping tubes, hit an IF tube & the thing went
nuts. What to do now? The needed tube was out in the critter infested,
pitch black shed, along with several thousand other ones! It hit me! I
pulled the tube from the xtal oscillator swapping it fore the IF tube,
what the hell, I wasn't using the xtal osc, rather the MO as usual. It
worked & I was back on the air without missing one round. It later dawned
on me what had been going on in those brilliant Collins engineers minds!
The reason for all those redundant circuits & tube types. Unlike virtually
every other piece of electronic equipment built for the military until
the advent of the transistor, the TCS did not have a spare parts kit.
It was it's own spare parts kit! All it's spare parts were very neatly
stored in a place were they could be immediately found, under the most
adverse of conditions. Picture yourself in a combat environment, similar
to the above story except people are shooting at you, & your boat is bouncing
all over the place. The very same thing would take place. If your transmitters
PA quit during CW ops, you simply robbed a tube from the modulator. What
the hell, it was only needed with phone ops. If it screwed up during AM
phone ops, you simply robbed the extra PA tube used only with CW, it could
then be swapped to either the PA or modulator. Now we know the reason
for two tubes in CW & one in AM! If any other tube in the transmitter
failed, it could be replaced by the one in the unused oscillator, now
we know why the redundant oscillator circuits! What kind of a warped,
but far sighted & brilliant mind came up with this! The only spare parts
kit known, is one for the later versions that either had factory, or field
installed Noise Limiters. This was because the tube used in this circuit
did not already exists elsewhere in the radio set. By the way, this Noise
Limiter really works! Continuing Legacy. Use of the TCS continued on for
many years. Though some experts have said that it remained in inventory,
but was no longer a front line radio after WW-II. This couldn't be more
false. As of 1958, the TCS was still being installed in new M38A1 Jeeps
for use by Marine Pathfinders(among others),along with a mixture of other
Collins aircraft crap. Long before this time, some variants had received
joint service designations such as MRC-6 having transmitter & receiver
group OA-26A(the TCS). The MRC-18 was a large field transportable system
which contain among many other items, the TCS, these systems were ordered
in 1949. The MRC-22 combined a TCS, ARC-1, & a ARC-27, these all mounted
in a M-115 trailer circa 1951. Also with an order date of 1951 was the
MRC-23 which contained a TCS, TDE, URT-7, FRR-27, & a URR-13, all mounted
in a K-53 6x6 truck. The MRC-24 had a TCS-12, TDQ, RCK, MAR, & a RCH.
Both the transmiter & the receiver were asigned R-* & T-* numbers, but
these don't come to mind at present. The story goes on, suffice to say
that the TCS also saw extensive service as commercial(via the Sante Fe
rail road), marine(until the demise if the HF/AM marine band), & of course
Ham's. Worthy of note, the ART-13 was used in much the same ways when
more RF power was thought to be needed. We all know the standard for comparison
this radio set. But somebody else can write that story. The Story Continues,
There were also some incounters in Vietnam with the TCS, but I'll let
those tell the story that are better qualified. At least as late as 1980
a friend(though he was a Navy ET) remembers servicing TCS control heads
on the bridge of a Naval vessel, though they were no longer connected
to TCS's. Rather, by then they were used to remotely control URC-9's,
but this is still further evidence of the long life of the TCS. WA4OID(Sweetwater
Bob) who's exploits today on 75mtrs with his TCS & Command sets are legend,
while in Naval service in the early 1960's remembers using the TCS as
the ships ham shack. He states, that because he was a Snipe/Diver, it
was the only rig the Radioman would let him use. This most likely because
of the radio's simple operation combined with the fact that most Snipes
were not known for their vast intelligence. Even so, he wasn't alowed
to touch the knobs. One more personal war story. I good friend, WD0ALN
once came to visit. In an attempt to brag on my newly up and running TCS,
I told him "watch this", "I'll go over there & key that thing up & it'll
come up on 3880". It had been running the night, before & I usually never
shut it off. I went over & keyed it, but nothing happened! I'd turned
the damn thing off, turning it back on, I waited a few seconds & pressed
the T-17's PTT. As the heaters lit up, & the antenna current meter began
to deflect, the LED's on the freq counter flashed 3880, this to the amazement
of us both! How's that for stability from a 50 year old, tube type, MO
controlled radio, that's never had anything done to it except one IF tube
changed!!! The receiver is every bit as impressive. Eat your heart's out
Icom, Yeasu, & Kenwood! Lets see how many of those things are on the air
after fifty years! I gave George a junker TCS receiver & transmitter before
he left, with the condition that he had to put them on the air, or I wanted
them back. Within a couple days he had the receiver up & running. I don't
think it's been turned off in 4 years. This even though it is flanked
on either side by a Hammerlund SP-600, & Drake Twins. Not much chance
of my ever getting that set back! Only one military radio comes to mind
that served longer in our nations defense. Though I had known it for some
time, it was Danny Cahn that made it click. The CRT-3(Gibson Girl) is
the only known radio to be used unchanged in military service longer than
the TCS. This until the recent demise of the 500kc marine distress frequency,
or it would most likely still be around celebrating it's 55th birthday.
Sadly though, this was a WW-II German development, that was simply refined
by us. And you all thought all I knew or gave a shit about was PRC's.
Fooled ya! Dennis Starks; MILITARY RADIO COLLECTOR/HISTORIAN military-radio-guy@juno.com
*****************************************************************
WW-II Vets In "Nam"; TCS & others Dennis, Just had
a conversation with co-worker and unrepentant RMC(retired) Gary Sinn KM6A.
Part had to with multi-culturalism, he is using the CMI 26003A key I gave
him with an Icom 706MK II. The rest had to do with TCS use in the '60s.
Gary, aboard the USS Pollux AKS4, was part of a CW net operating in the
Tonkin Gulf during Market Time. The main TX/RX he used was the TCS. The
last tour Gary did on the Pollux ended in 66 but the WWII radio equipment
was still in operation until decommisioning in approx 68. The other modern
technology available on a support ship in the 'Nam era?? Main TX was a
TBK backed by RBS and RBC receivers. LF/500KC was a TDE. TED/RED combos
took care of UHF, no URC-9s or SRC-20/21 for these folks. A URC-32 came
aboard with an R390 in '64 or so but the veteran equipment stayed in use
with the R390 taking the TTY broadcast role from the unstable RBS and
the URC-32 used mostly as an RX. Just before Gary left the ship got a
WRT-2 TX. An added feature of the TBK was shack warming during winter
in Yokosuka. I'm not sure when the oter sets were first brought on line
but our buddy the TCS is approx '43 so thats 25 years in service right
there. Ed Zeranski This is a private opinion or statement. home email:
ezeran@cris.com ***************************************************************
MORE TCS; Lenox Carruth Well, Dennis, I don't know
what I can add to the excellent TCS story that you already have written.
I did not use them in the military so have no stories to tell there. I
have had one operating for about four months. I do not have an antenna
for it here at the house and have only used it in the field. I took an
old wooden folding table and drilled some holes in it for the TCS cables
so they could go straight down. I also made a bracket that holds the remote
(for the speaker) at the left end of the table. I put the transmitter
on the right side and the receiver on the left since I am right handed
and would more naturally operate the receiver with my left hand if I were
sending code with my right (my code is lousy!). I never have figured out
why they are arranged in the opposite manner in the manuals. I also drilled
a hole in the right rear of the table to fit a GRC-9 antenna base and
use six antenna sections and a two-foot lead in. Works great outdoors
but my wife won't let me drill a hole in the roof so I can use it inside!
I would like to hear some good suggestions about what people are using
as a simple antenna for the TCS. I don't have a tower. My TCS receiver
worked as soon as I turned it on. It hears as well as a BC-348 and has
a lot better dial calibration! The transmitter had been modified in the
audio section so I found a schematic and restored the original connections.
The transmitter then worked fine. Beyond what Dennis said about the redundant
design is the commonality between the transmitter and receiver. This seems
to be the first use of common parts to such a great extent. The cases,
mounts, tuning assemblies and crystal banks are all the same. This reduced,
not only the cost but the number of parts necessary in repair depots.
The only thing that surprises me about a Collins design is the decreased
receiver sensitivity on the higher bands when crystal control is used.
Granted, this would not have been a great problem communicating with another
PT boat half a mile away, but, I am still surprised Collins did it. It
seems anomalous considering their usual attention to detail. The original
dual-dynamotor supply was a great idea. The receiver could be used for
monitoring without the additional drain of the transmitter filaments or
high voltage supply. I suppose that the post-war use of the set did not
require much monitoring, hence the later single-dynamotor design. The
PP-380/U AC power supply is another anomaly. Why did they design an AC
supply with no provisions for the remote control which contained the speaker?
What kind of fixed installation would not need a speaker? Does anyone
have any definitive answer to this? I have a hard time imagining a fixed
station use where a speaker would not be desired. Apparently, the original
designers could not imagine a use where a speaker would not be desired
either! As you can see, I have more questions about the TCS than answers.
I hope that, even if this does not enlighten anyone, it may stimulate
some interesting discussions. Since last spring, when I got the radio
working, we have used it in public displays. The best was on Memorial
Day at a ceremony in conjunction with the Moving Wall. There was a lot
of WW-II stuff including vehicles, tents, weapons, German stuff etc. but
the TCS got the best reviews. We originally tried to find a local ham
who could communicate with us but discovered that the ground wave was
too short for anyone that we could find that had AM capability. Fortunately,
we were able to borrow a working BC-611. We set the scene as a Marine
radio site in the Pacific communicating with forward patrols. We let the
public talk on the TCS to the BC-611 and they got a big thrill out of
it. Visitors ranged from World War Two veterans, many with a tear in their
eye, to college students who did not know when WW-II was (until we go
through with them!). One college age girl told us that what we had showed
her was so interesting that she was going to get some books about the
war and read them. It's this sort of response that makes our work worthwhile.
One of the more personally satisfying visitors was a girl with Down's
Syndrome. She was there with her parents and was really shy about talking
on the radio. Fortunately, my son (about her age) was there and we convinced
her to talk to him when he was using the BC-611. She finally did it and
left with a huge smile. (her parents were also smiling!) I have all parts
for a complete TCS-14 setup in NOS to excellent condition except for a
transmitter. We are also looking for an affordable BC-611 to use in future
displays since we cannot always borrow the other. In fact, we may not
ever be able to use it again as the owner was not a part of our group.
The TCS makes a great radio for public displays because it "looks" like
real radio equipment should look. Compared to modern communications equipment,
the TCS looks like a massive, solid, all-business rig to the public. Now
if I can just keep from touching the antenna connector when tuning up!
(The other Collins design boo boo??) Lenox Carruth, Jr. carruth@swbell.net
Dallas, Texas Collector of WW-II Communications Equipment and Memorabilia
**********************************************************
The Admiral's TCS; Here goes, I was stationed on Coronado
in the early/mid '60s. For some sillyassed reason a friend and I went
to North Island 'Boats and Docks' ( in the shadow of "Bldg 73" the USS
St.Paul) to fix an old RCA radar on an Admirals' Barge or Gig. Well, we
were not real pretty and a tad dirty so folks worried we might 'touch'
something and mess it up. Ike and I took care of the old RDR then worked
on a Raytheon 'Pathfinder', a ten mile RDR, like we had on other boats.
While on the Barge, just on the stbd side of the companion way, above
the RCA, was a nickel or chrome plated TCS. Everything! They even had
shiny metal on the ant loader! We checked it out also, called 2716 Harbor
common and a 32?? freq that I can't remember. Never ever saw a shiny TCS
again. Upon leaving we were told never come back looking like that, guess
we burned out our Military Bearings. Other TCS sets were used commonly
in the following 3 years until I went home from VN in late April 1968.
At the time it was a normal set and nothing special. My first non military
contact with one later ( post Vietnam) was a set in white painted plywood
transit cases/w hardening rubber shock mounts. From what I can tell it
was from a Navy Arctic weather unit that worked on the ice cap back whenever.
I know there were Navy folk in northern China and on the ice in WWII to
track weather changes and later doing Arctic Studies prior to the Nautilus
etc popping through the 'cap'. So..my first TCS is probably one of those.
It had a shot 1st IF can but I got a replacement from a BA member. The
other sets-parts were bought from Ray Mote along with AC and dynamotor
supplies. More cables/accessories came from Robt. Downs as well as Steve
Finnelli. I like the damn things, kinda a token of misspent youth. In
fact an extra TCS RX with HB pwr supply is mated to a shit-for-ugly HeathKit
QF-1 and $5 garage sale DX-35&VF-1. Ed Zeranski This is a private opinion
or statement. home email: ezeran@cris.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ed) For those not familiar with such things as Admiral's
Barges & Captain's Gigs, they look like small PT boats & tend to be decked
out in an extremely goddy manor like a Pimps lemo, or one of those Hispanic
cruisers including the little sissy pomp-pomp things in the windows, but
less the hydrolics that make them jump up & down, (or at least I never
saw one jump up & down). The original Collins designation for the TSC
is 56Q-3 or 18Q-3(trans), 51Q-3(rec), 190Z-2(ant load coil),409M-7(pwr
sup). I have the original blueprints for these. Though the TCS's were
built by at least a half dozen sub-contractors including Stewart Warner,
Air King Products, Magnavox, Sheridan Electro, Meissner among others,
there is absolutely no difference in their qualities or operational excellence.
These are my opinions & mine alone, you are advised to agree with them
at all cost. Dennis Starks; MILITARY RADIO COLLECTOR/HISTORIAN **********************************************************
TCS Antenna Discussion; >I have been thinking about the short TCS discussion
that we had a few >weeks ago and a big question comes up. No one has ever
discussed the >antennas that were used with the TCS. Strangely, the manuals
only >mention the "20 foot whip" and don't show any details of the antenna,
>feed line lengths, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think these must have been detailed in the installation
manuals. I've been waiting for one on a Jeep from Sheldon Wheaton for
a couple months now, it may tell the story. >Even more interesting is
the lack of data for fixed installations. >Did they use some kind of vertical?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCS was definitely designed to load a low impedance,
not above 35ohms. This would pretty much restrict it to a short antenna,
usually vertical. & is also the reason the external load coil was only
used on the lower freqs. A long wire? A dipole? How did they feed these?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
diffenatly none of these, it will not properly load
into a dipole without a 4/1 transformer or high value air variable in
series with the antenna. Coax was available then, & I think for runs more
than a couple feet it was used. >What did they use on the larger ships?
-----------------------------------------------------------
The TCS was almost always mounted on the bridge, or
close to a weather deck, for larger ships, that's what the control head
was for, put the radio where you want, then the control head were it's
needed, exactly as it was done in my day, & is in evidence by the TCS
control heads still in use on URC-9's in the early 80's. It's most common
shipboard duty(though not restricted to) was intra ship coms, used the
same way as the old HF/AM marine short range radios used in 40,50,60's
& replaced by VHF in the early 70's. All these types were mounted on the
bridge, tuned a short whip pretty much right out of the radio. Even the
late model ones that looked like a CB did this. There seems to have been
no provision for coax output. Did they just run a wire all the way to
the outside of the ship and up the mast? --------------------------------------------------------------------
see above, I think coax was used, & in some variants
of the TCS they might have either been supplied with that capability,
or a field change was avail(like the noise limiter). Even at that, many
WW-II & later types designed for use with a whip, or external antennas,
did not have coax connectors, they had an external terminal box, see BC-1000,
620, 659, 1306, GRC-9, GRR-5, PRC-47, PRC-74 etc. Even though many radios
were meant to be used with coax, binding post for antenna connections
were retained, this for the same reason that binding post were also present
for headphone etc on some equipment. Because combat conditions might not
allow for expedient connections in the event connectors/feeds are damaged.
Can you envision a TCS on the bridge, taking fire, the antenna wire cut,
& if you can find an ET he comes up with his soldering iron to fix it.
Believe me, you can't get an ET when your not being fired on! But any
dummy can strip back some wires & stick it in some binding post. This
was the total design of the TCS from the beginning, you could fix the
thing while being shot at. Variants of the TBX have both binding post,
& connectors for all external equipment except the power supply, this
includes headphone, mike, CW key, antenna etc. In short, lack of a coax
connector does not at all mean that a set was not to be operable with
coax, or that it wasn't. >Considering the detail that most manuals (at
least the Army ones) go >into about antennas, it is strange that the Navy
manuals are so quiet >on the subject. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we are fortunate to have the detail that we
do. Navy manuals in large part were written by the contractor, Army manuals(except
for the preliminary s) were written by the Signal Corps. Collins is notorious
for busting up their manuals into volumes, one for each part of a system.
Do you suppose there are people in the group that >actually used the on
board ship and know the answers? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All those that have had personal/military experience
with the set have already contributed their knowledge, in all those cases,
the TCS was mounted, or used as outlined above. >What do use for an antenna
on yours? ----------------------------------------------------
I alternately use a 20ft whip made from a CB 5/8 wave
ground plain with the base coil jumped & the ground radials removed, can
be fed with a single wire or coax. The ant is bolted to the side of the
house, I also use it with my PRC-47, & others meant to directly load a
whip. I also use a dipole with a large variable capacitor in series, but
a 4/1, or 2/1 transformer would be much better. Rule of thumb, the TCS
will directly load up any vertical that approaches 1/4 wave at the highest
freq you intend to use. Only bad thing here is, a vertical is a long range
antenna as it applies to ham use, it will jump right over the top of stations
less than 200 miles away. How do you feed it? -----------------------------------
any way you want within the guide lines of the above
>thing that I have used is an 18 foot whip with a 2 foot wire to feed
>it. That is my portable demonstration setup and it works fine with a
>ground stake or some radials but that is not practical for the house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The length of the vertical does not need be 20ft, this
figure is only used because it is the longest that can me used on a vehicle,
or self supporting aboard ship, & because it becomes resonant at the highest
freq the TCS can operate at(12mc=19.5ft). Use any length you want, provided
it is not longer than the HIGHEST freq you wish to op at, I/E (10mc=23.4ft),
(7.2mc=32.5ft) etc. I know your limited as to what your wife will let
you use in the living room. Personally, I'd get rid of er. But an alternate
suggestion, just drill an 1/8" hole in the wall behind the radio, run
a #12 insulated, solid copper wire threw it, up the wall into the attic
& dispense as needed. Lenox Carruth, email: carruth@swbell.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Starks; MILITARY RADIO COLLECTOR/HISTORIAN military-radio-guy@juno.com
**************************************************************
New Comers Questions/Sugjestions; Discussion, TCS,
PRC-17, PRC-1, BC-222, Jap Stuff, & More. by Hue Miller, & Dennis Starks
Note, the below is a discussion between me & Hue Miller. He has been asleep
for a couple months & didn't know we were here. So just now is coming
up to date. Make no mistake, Hue is no dummy(like Ralph & Danny), these
questions are posted in attempts to further investigate the history and
reasoning behind our treasures, & generate further discussion. Hue in
fact is one of the most respected & knowledgeable collectors this country
has to offer(don't tell him I said that, I'll deni it!), he might even
be as smart as me(I didn't say that either!). One thing is for sure, he's
been at it much longer than I have(age before beauty, that can be repeated!).
Dennis is someone really saying the PRC-17 survival radio is rare?? not
on the west coast. btw i surely would like to find the manual for this.
i daydream abt tweaking one of these up to 2 meters or somethin, altho
i'll likely postpone this forever. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time I commented on the PRC-17, that one was
the only one that I'd ever heard of, or new to be in anyones hands, sense
then a second has appeared. I don't have one myself. Now 3, thats not
real common for 20 years of lookin. BTW I don't like hearing that something
is common, when I don't have & can't find one for myself!. now re TCS,
has anyone encountered the aluminum or stainless steel cabinet? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never thought much about stainless or aluminum TCS
cabinets, are they still Black crinkle painted? I have had a couple the
paint couldn't stick to, could have been either. Also, are we aware that
some models, tcs-5 for certain, per manual, were intended for land vehicle
use and so had wider bandwidth? also why did FAIR's last TCS-12 xmtr ads
say this model "extra desirable for CW" ?? there's no difference that
i can detect. now that the broadcast band has expanded to 1700 kc/s i
surely wish i had kept at least one of the many TCS i have owned. i saw
the last new TCS distributed by Navy MARS at NAS Sandpoint Seattle at
the end of 1976, when HF am usage was ended by law. i think there were
5 ( more or less ) new crated units given away. i hope some were kept
together but that's probably in vain, i believe the oldfart hams liked
the transmitter for tty use and ditched the rest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean to tell me you don't have one TCS!!
I'm ashamed of you! I got too many, maybe someday gotta fix that for you.What
advantage would there be to a wider bandwidth for land vehical use? Fair
Radio's Propagand "extra good for CW" probably was just some promo hype,
like "good marine radio" they put on the BC-223, or the way they also
refered to the MAB, as a marine radio("marine" as in, "for boats"). The
TCS did have a rep for great CW tone. i've long thot that the Army & USAAF
could well have used the tcs for their purposes also, instead of for example
the bc-223 + bc-312, and maybe even the bc-375 + bc-312. if a lightweight
cabinet had been provided, the set could well have been used as an aircraft
liaison set in place of the scr-287. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCS was used in aircraft, as is evidenced by the
aircraft amp/interphone box built by Magnevox in 44, though it's never
been writen what aircraft. The BC-223 being primarily designed for light
armor & scout cars, was dead meat by 1943 being completely succumbed by
all the VHF FM stuff. Granted,there is no comparison between it & the
TCS. The BC-375 was only built after 1942 for one reason, it's a to long
a story to paste here. perhaps the Army kept the TCS in its books for
the army Corps of Engineers, which ran its own tugboats in rivers and
coastal areas. i toured an Army tug at NAS Sand Point in 1961, it had
a Northern Radio Co. 100-watt radio. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very possible, & one I'd never considered.
Several times is WW-II Pacific & Vietnam history we find the Navy turning
over vessals to the Army for whatever reason. These included Tugs, Riverine
Patrol craft, PT boats, Landing craft etc, could it be that these vessals,
being already outfitted with Naval commo equip, the Army would then need
to open up logistic lines for their support, thus the reason for the TCS
being listed in SIG 3,1953? Sounds like as good an explanation as any.
The "Signal Corps" mensions that the Navy/Marine corps clammered after
their superior BC-191. The only reason that I could think of would be
the added power output. This would place the BC-191 between the TCS &
TBW.Of course this series of books has a obvoius bias toward Signal Corp
equipment. & we all know how "superior" the BC-191 was! It couldn't hold
a candle to either the TCS or TBW. Maybe someday I'll write a tit for
tat summery of Navy versus Signal Corps stuff. Guess who's gonna win!
you know, the silly reason i think made me give up all my tcs is that
the dial does not light up. and i dig lighted dials. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats SICK! have you already mentioned the Hallicrafter
TR-35 as a higher-powered HF AM "village radio" ?? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I've never intentionally written any articles about
the OPS series equipment, except to answer some questions, & refer people
to a letter I wrote to Keith Melton a couple years ago which is rather
complete(it's located in the Backmail Files). Numerous radios have been
showing up of possible OPS origin. If you've not read this letter to Melton
you should, Hallicrafters was only one of several companies that built
OPS radios, & those others are not documented at all. The entire subject
is a very interesting & mysterious one that well needs more research,
I'd like to speak with Paul Kats(the horses mouth) but time has not permit
me tracking him down, I once had him located within 20 miles circle of
Washington DC, Rumor has it, that he's back to work for the State department.
Personally I don't like the term "Village Radio" because it narrows the
field to much, the OPS(Office of Public Safety) was involved with many
countries. & every aspect of the history of any item of equipment deserves
recognition. Also "Village Radio" has become one of those terms like "Spy
Radio" that the jack ass's like to tack on the end of everthing so as
to screw you outa an extra buck. I much prefer "OPS series". the circuit
used in Tojo's 94-6 shows up in many USA ham "vhf" publications of the
mid-1930s, among the "5 meter transceiver" ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most definitely true, but the Japs were not the only
offenders. The US BC-222 came directly from the 1935 ARRL handbook, it
continued in US use for most of WW-II in the China/Burma theater do to
extreme supply problems, even by wars end the legacy lived on for this
piesa shit, in that their batteries were being dissected to power the
BC-1000's that finally made it there. After the war China cloned the things
into the late 50's. R you sure that BC-222/322 was ever used in CBI ?
what documentation? i would bet a Monopoly dollar this is not correct.
btw, look at the back cover of the Time-Life book on the Italian campaign
& you will see what appears to be, from the distinctive bag, the scr-194/195
( bc-222/322 ) in use. strange indeed. i am sure that it wasn't used for
very long. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
BC-222/322 was most definitely present in the CBI(China
Burma India), read "The Signal Corps". It was also present when we got
run out of the Philippines. It can also be confirmed in these theaters
by other very simple observations(here's a real simple one of many, if
it wasn't there, how'd the Chinese clone it?) . Another sleeper is the
BC-474(& I aint got a good one), read the backmail article on it. Per
the picture in Time Life, I can speculate several reasons for it's being
there., #1 the photo really doesn't apply to the Italian campaign, & was
one out of their archives, #2 the photo was supplied by the Signal Corps,
in which case, it too might not reflect the Italian campaign(most all
photos that contained radio equipment during the war were supplied by
the Signal Corps),#1,& #2 were very common occurrences. #3,& a more remote
possibility is that when U.S. Forces entered the mountains of northern
Italy, their equipment was ill suited for transport & operation in this
terrain. An urgent battlefield, blanket request went back to signal depos
in the U.S. to search out & immediately ship all of the available old
cavalry sets. Could it be that some of the BC-222/322's where thrown in
with this mess? Where it me, & were #3 is true, I'd pitch the radio &
use it's rather neat carry bag! The deficiencies in the available equipment
is also evidenced by later manuals,& "supplements", that would include
provisions for mule transport, that did not exist in earlier publications(maybe
a lesson was learned). i have heard from 2 sources that the Jap 94-6 was
found in crashed fighter plane. sounds like truly a bs story, but could
it have been carried for troop liaison? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of these came from me about eight years
ago when I referred some guy in CA to you that had one & said it came
from a plane. It is entirely possible & most probable that they did try
to use it for FAC duties. We did the same thing with BC-620/659,BC-1000,
RT-70's, PRC-9,10's, & PRC-25's, It was even done with the BC-222. Early
experiments to prove the feasibility of FM involved the comparison of
the BC-222 in spotter aircraft with the then experimental BC-620, not
a real fair comparison. Perhaps Bill H. can shed some light. btw, the
Nip "bc-611" style copy, is also only a 1-tube circuit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the postwar clone,tis a wartime attempt,
I've never seen a wartime one. the one-tube 611-lookalike Nip set is WW2
production. probably they realized how unwieldy their talkies were in
comparison to the US BC-611. I have one but poor shape, ant and mic /
headset parts gone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be one that even Bill don't
know about!!! Per the BC-611, if it was the second, so what was the first
handie-talkie? also, for the questions file, where did the term walkie-talkie
come from? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first "walkie talkie" was the BC-222/322, the term
was applied by the Signal Corps, originally in pre-war propaganda , then
in the equipments manuals. The term "Handie talkie" is a Motorola registered
trademark, deserving or not. btw i read in a german museum publication
on their Kl-Fu-d ( sorry, brainfade, nomenclature not quite right ), their
Dorette set, that they reported examining the BC-611 but decided it was
too difficult to repair and they were not interested in producing such
a "disposable set". but to me their conclusions sound rather like a case
of the sour grapes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The German comments per the BC-611 article are quotes
from "The Signal Corps", & their info was abtain via captured documents,&
was mostly likely the observations of field commanders. Those in the museum
artical may be the result of an in-depth study by learned folks back home.
Personaly, I would tend to agree with your materials version. Sour grapes
are also possible. i met a fellow in Seattle who owns a BC-611 he found
as a lad after the battle of Arnehm. it was tossed in a ditch after the
antenna broke off. (he replaced it postwar ). it has a camo pattern of
a broad brown paint stripe about 3" wide winding around the set, about
3 turns total. he told me he also found a bazooka, which he enjoyed firing.
what a swell toy! ( re finding toys, one of the aviation mags had an account
of a brit lad, who salvaged a machine gun from a wrecked german plane,
and then used it to fire at german planes when they came over low! he
was about 12 years old! true story! ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put me down for one each of the above, got no
ME's to shoot at, but lotsa Worthogs buzzin by antennas. "O", I want a
the striped BC-611 too. the prc-1 kinda looks like the trc-10 does it??
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, PRC-1 is one of the classic suitecase radios.
First built for the OSS, it was judged to heavy & unsuited, it actualy
predates the SSTR-1. Though the TRC-10 might be considered a re-packaged
PRC-1, set up for operation much like a BC-474 or 654. In fact the TRC-10
uses some common accessories with the BC-654. See below extract from my
book. PRC-1/RT-30;Suite case portable,HF,CW transmitter receiver.Built
into a common suitcase,the PRC-1 was originally intended for use by the
OSS in WW-II.It was however rejected as too heavy,& was only used by them
till the SSTR-1 became available.Later was given it's PRC designation
& adopted for use by special agents of Military Intelligence. As such
the PRC-1 is known to have seen service in the WW-II China/Burma theater
with Galahad forces.Here the operating personnel complained of the enormous
strain in cranking it's hand crank generator do to the high output power
of the transmitter.To compound this problem,it was also necessary to crank
this generator even for receive operation,as no provision had been included
for it's use with batteries. Ops 2-12mc in two continuously tunable bands,AM
or CW(rec).2-12mc in two bands with Xtal control,CW only(trans). RF power
output is 30 watts.Size 18 x 13.25 x 17.25" 32lbs,OD color. Though any
description of the PRC-1 remained classified until 1958, evidence exist
that place these radios in use at least until the early 60's.Sets will
have no identifying marks. Ref.#3,#19C,#23 Hue Miller; ho4bart@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------
Dennis Starks; military-radio-guy@juno.com ************************************************************
Army TCS's; Expanded reason; Though the possible reasoning behind the
Army having the TCS in inventory has been touched on. And Hue came up
with a plausible assumption with my concurrence. Brian has some data that
would further support our recent speculation. Rather surprising too, as
Brian is an ex-marine, & their not generally noted for their vast intellect.
Dennis -------------------------------------------- >
This is very possible, & one I'd never considered.
Several times is >WW-II Pacific & Vietnam history we find the Navy turning
over vessals to >the Army for whatever reason. These included Tugs, Riverine
Patrol craft, >PT boats, Landing craft etc, could it be that these vessals,
being >already outfitted with Naval commo equip, the Army would then need
to >open up logistic lines for their support, thus the reason for the
TCS >being listed in SIG 3,1953? Dennis: During WWII, radio rooms on merchant
vessels, such as Liberty and Victory ships, were manned by Navy Armed
Guardsmen as were the guns placed on these ships. The armament and radio
gear were Navy property, not property of the operating Merchant Marine
company. Further, many of these ships were in Navy service, mostly in
the Pacifac, as A series transports and cargo vessels (AKAs etc.). After
the end of the war,as part of the Unification of the Services bit which
placed the War and Navy Departments under the new Defence Department,
it was decided that the Army would have responsibility for the sea-going
transport of its troops. Many of these previously Naval vessels, along
with the majority of the Liberty troop ship conversions and such merchant
types as the P-2 "General" series, were placed in the new Army Transport
Service. The ships were sailed under contract by Merchant Marine crews.
During the '50s, the Army would therefore have to maintain operational
and maintanance knowledge of the previously Navy commo gear on these vessels.
It would be sensible to assume that this gear remained on these ships
to maintain compatability with Navy and International Maritime service.
Later, it was found that this was not a great idea, and the ships were
returned to Navy control, still sailed by contract Merchant crews, as
the current Military Sealift Command. Brian Scace sarge@nist.gov **********************************************************
TCS TECH TIPS; From Dave Stinson First check
every tube in the whole rig. This can be tedious when you really want
to get a rig running, but this simple task can save a lot of head-scratching
later. Next get some good contact cleaner, light machine oil, light gear
grease, some "Q-tips", some old rags, an old toothbrush, a jug of distilled
water and a good grade of paste silver polish (yep--that's right). On
the receiver-- First thing- don't crank on the switches and knobs until
you get them inspected and lubed. The bandswitch is very sturdy but I
destroyed a section once by cranking on it before I looked at it. Same
with the crystal switch. They can be hard to reach but make the effort.
Both those switches go intermittent without cleaning. They will need good
contact cleaner and the mechanicals will need oiling and greasing. The
back-lash spring split-gear on the receiver tuning cap will need cleaning
and lubing as well. Spray the bandswitch and rock it gently, watching
the wiper contacts to make sure they move smoothly without binding. I
bent one over double because I didn't look first. Look for a bathtub cap
mounted on one of the frame legs of the receiver chassis. This one is
noted for going open and it will kill your audio out. I highly recommend
running the filaments on 12VDC as designed. Less noise. Also, it's a good
reason to build the 12 volt supply so you don't have to mess with seperate
power for the transmitter relays. On the transmitter-- Same treatment
for bamdswitch and other contacts as the receiver. You'll need to burnish
all the relay contacts with either a real burnishing tool or brown paper--
nothing abrasive. Then operate them a few times to re-establish a clean
oxide conductive coating. Put a very small drop of very light oil on the
pivot points of the relays. Now comes the hard part. Trust me on this--
it's work, but you won't regret it. Unsolder the connections to the roller
coil and remove it from the rig. Lay-out an old blanket on your bench
to keep parts from walking-off. First remove any loose dirt and dust from
the coil assembly. What you want to do is disassemble the thing as much
as you feel comfortable with and polish all the bits and pieces, including
the inside of the roller wheel, with the silver polish. Don't get the
polish in the bearings. Rinse the polish off using the distilled water,
rags and toothbrush. Once it's clean, put it in the sun to dry well. Don't
use a stove. Reassemble and lubricate the roller. All this work will pay-off
in easier tuning and less aggreivation. This cleaning is practically manditory
in ARC-5 transmitters, by the way. Dirty loading coils cause all kinds
of trouble there. Operation: Max reliable keying speed is about 25 WPM.
There should be no chirp and very little drift after a couple of hours
operation. They were designed to be stable. The rig was not designed for
a 50-ohm antenna, but you can tune one with the settings of the ANT. COND.
control. For 80 meters and above, set it in SERIES. There isn't enough
cap in there for doing this on 160. You'll need to set it in the center
(no antennna cap) and use an external 0-200 PF variable cap in series
with the coax. Neither of these ways will tune it to 100% design spec,
but they'll get close. If you want that last couple of watts, you'll have
to use one of Mike Hanz's UNUN unbalanced-to unbalanced 4:1 baluns. It
will get you from 12 ohms for which the rig is designed up to the 50-ohm
coax, but it will also eat a watt or two in losses. Your call. Don't let
anyone tell you that you need to slash-n-burn, chainsaw or otherwise "mod"
the audio chain. That's all "hooo-eeee." If you want a rig that sounds
like a broadcast transmitter, buy a KW-1 ;-). All you need is a telephone-size
carbon mic element and the rig will modulate 100% at normal voice. That's
the ONLY "mod" I ever do to any of my military rigs and it works just
fine from the ARC-5, TCS, BC-375, ART-13, etc. Hope all this helps. Others
will have more and better ideas. GL ES 73 DE Dave Stinson AB5S arc5@ix.netcom.com
ed) I can add very little to this as you've covered most of the areas
of concern. Roller Inductor, One thing that need be done while the roller
inductor is out (and it is a bitch to get it in and out) is to check it's
internal contact wire. A wire runs the length of the roller inductor,
down it's center. It cannot be seen when still in the radio. It's a common
fault of this radio for one or the other end of this wire to have a cold
solder connection that will reek havoc on you when trying to load up the
transmitter. Fix it while it's out!! Due to the large gage of solid wire
used in the transmitters output stages, and the vibration these radios
might have been subjected to, bad solder connections are very common in
this area. Suitable mics, the TCS uses an unusually high voltage across
it's carbon mic. Most radios that use carbon mics, and were primarily
designed for operation from a DC power source derive their low mic voltage
from the tube heater supply. But the TCS, given that it was conceivable
that it might be operated from an AC source, derives it's mic voltage
from a tap on the modulation transformer. The resultant voltage drop across
the mic element serves other functions in the modulator chain. As a result,
these radios are unusually impedance sensitive, and many mics will not
handle the higher voltage. While I don't really want to delve into how
carbon mics work, here and just now. The rule of thumb when it comes to
them is that bigger is better. In the case of the TCS however, with their
impedance sensitivity and higher exciting voltage, many mic types will
not work properly. It is a very common, and acceptable practice on most
military radio's of WW-II>late 50's vintage for us to use the carbon element
from a modern telephone handset. In most cases this works very well, but
not with the TCS as there is an impedance conflict. Keeping with our rule
that bigger is better, many might opt to use a T-17, or the standard Navy
equivalent RS-38. But these mics, though they look large and impressive
actually have a very small carbon element, with the RS-38 being the worst.
They will work, but they may not be to the optimum level you might want.
With all the above in mind, the hands down winner for best carbon mic
for use on the TCS and any other military radio is the TS-13 or equivalent
handset of WW-II vintage. They have the largest carbon mic element of
any I've ever seen, and they are the correct impedance. Not to mention
the fact that they also have the best PTT switch in existence. Power Supplies.
If you are not fortunate enough to own one of the many varied(and heavy)
TCS powers supplies. Fear not, for this is one of the easiest radios in
existence to fabricate one for. In fact, you wont even need to build it,
usually just add some connectors/cables. Just about any power supply used
on old tube type business band radio equipment will work. Be it a mobile
vibrator or solid state inverter supply, or one intended for base 110vac
operation. And they can often be had for the hauling off. Keep your eyes
out for an all tube type GE Progress Line or Motorola equivalent desk
top base, or mobile transceiver(their the same radio, in the same cabinet,
with different power supplies). These power supplies will have all the
required voltages with some to spare, and all you'll need do in most cases
is to wire it up. It may be necessary on some of the base power supplies
to add a bridge rectifier to the normally AC heater supply, but that's
about it. Look for those radios that used dual output tubes(usually a
pair of 6146's) as these will have a heavier duty power supply. Heavy
duty mobiles supplies can be distinguished by either their use of dual
vibrators, or in the case of later model type, a solid state inverter
design. One of the nice thing about using these power supplies is that
once you've found the correct/original supply for your radio, you can
modify the old expedient for use with just about any other tube type radio
you want. Dennis Starks; MILITARY RADIO COLLECTOR/HISTORIAN military-radio-guy@juno.com
***********************************************
(The preceding was a product of the"Military Collector
Group Post", an international email magazine dedicated to the preservation
of history and the equipment that made it. Unlimited circulation of this
material is authorized so long as the proper credits to the original authors,
and publisher or this group are included. For more information conserning
this group contact Dennis Starks at, military-radio-guy@juno.com)
|
|