Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am
wrote 1. The U.S. military gave up using morse code modes for long-haul HF communications in 1948, longer than a half century ago. Plain, simple fact. Plain and simply innaccurate, Len. Whatever you say, Hans. :-) I was referring to the major message traffic handling which enabled the tremendous (and superior) logistics capability of the U.S. military keeping its worldwide presence during and long after the end of WW2. I was not attempting to impugn the United States Navy with any negative criticism. The USN was the chief encourager and supporter of early radio communications in the United States. So much so that, at one point, the USN wanted to control ALL radio, military AND civilian! [reference: "The Continuous Wave, Technology and American Radio 1900- 1932," by Hugh G. J. Aitkin, Princeton University Press, 1985] Early radio required morse code skill due to the primitive technology restricting communications to using on-off keying codes. Note: The vast majority of communications used on-off keying codes then despite some experimentation with voice, time-signal, and teleprinter communications which worked but did not survive in those exact modes, even when the vacuum tube became feasible. The US Navy used Morse for long-haul HF communications with its surface fleets well into the 1960's and with its submarine fleet into the 1980s from stations NAA (Culter, ME), NLK (Jim Creek, WA), NPM (Honolulu), NAU (Peurto Rico), and VKE-3 (Northwest Cape, Australia). You forgot one station. And it is "Cutler, ME" and "Puerto Rico" isn't it? :-) The majority of communications insofar as message traffic was done as I stated, by teletypewriter. Yes, there was a Fleet capability using morse code mode as you say. I have no conflict with that. However, looking at ALL communications necessary to maintain that Fleet, my historical sources still point to the teletypewriter as being the major "traffic" handling device for all branches since the beginning of the USA's involvement with WW2. I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for either communications or Alert signalling or did in the late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that, I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of that has any indication of morse code capability. The USAF promoted single-channel (single-user) SSB on HF in the latter half of the 1940s for Strategic Air Command communications. Of two major developers, RCA and Collins Radio, Collins capitalized on that experience to design, market, and sell "SSB" HF radio equipment to amateurs and commercial companies alike. That started the changeover from AM voice to SSB voice in amateur HF bands. However, commercial and military SSB, multi- channel (rather multi-circuit) radio equipment was up and working on HF from the very early 1930s. During WW2 and after, that multi-circuit SSB bore the brunt of messaging traffic (via TTY) for all branches of the U.S. military. The early top-level cryptographic communications in The Fleet (from at least 1940) was the "rotor machine" teletypewriters, according to at least two texts on cryptographic history from the 1960s. Those enabled unbreakable communications in the Pacific of decrypted Japanese fleet instructions and is considered part of the essential means to win the Battle of Midway. That "rotor machine" method was never compromised by any nation (friend or foe) until later-generation equipment was captured intact on the USS Pueblo. An example of that machine is on the USS Pampanito floating museum website, there labeled as "SIGABA." From other sources, those machines were, essentially, modified Model 15 or Model 19 teletypewriters made by Teletype Corporation. My use of "plain, simple fact" phrasing is just copying Miccolis' use. He likes to use that in his technique to destroy opposing viewpoints by claiming that the least example of an exception totally and completely "destroys" any rule expressed by an opponent. It does not, but he persists. shrug BTW, the only bell-bottoms I wore were as a civilian, none of them in blue, and had zippers, not buttons. :-) |
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 |