"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.