Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Battlefield communications (was Re: German had the best...)
Message-ID: <1990Jun4.165413.22709@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Jun 90 16:54:13 GMT
References: <15420@cbnews.ATT.COM> <15735@cbnews.ATT.COM> <15927@cbnews.ATT.COM> <16013@cbnews.ATT.COM> <16040@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Distribution: na
Organization: UCLA School Of Engineering & Applied Science
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU
In article <16040@cbnews.ATT.COM> stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) writes:
>
>> [...] Guderian riding around in one of these
>>things).
>
>Yep,
>
>Those radios were SO GOOD they could be heard in the Eastern US and
>Great Britian!  This really is mostly due to the frequency they
>chose to use them on, I believe 27 Mhz(i.e. current day CB frequencies)
>that have a tendancy to propagate around the world if conditions are
>right ;-) So in retrospect...maybe those radios were better for our
>side than they were for the Germans ;-)

We'll I don't think that it matters too very much if the enemy hears your
tatical communications back in his homeland.  Most probably by the time he
can get a message back to his manuver units things will have changed.  It is
much more important that you have good communications (again at the tatical
level) with only moderate security (20 min to break the code is probably more
than enough).

<scw>
-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614
UUCP: ...!{ibmsupt,hao!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU