Gunner Quinn
(Continued from Part 3.)
Applying P.A.C.E. to a Commo Plan
For every communication requirement, always have an alternative or substitute option to accomplish the same task. For example, hand and light signals and whistles are appropriate alternatives for a security operation.
As a last resort, a signal fire, fog horn, or air raid siren could be for emergency communications. However, I should let the user make the final decision. Stay off the beaten path as much as possible and increasingly so as the threat conditions escalate. As threats learn and evolve, so should we. Continually improve your security operation and commo plan that is an essential adjunct to your primary job, security.
Technique is More Important Than the Radio Specs
How one uses their communications equipment is more important than the equipment itself. For example, I can use directional antennas on two scanners or suitable receivers on both sides of a communications circuit to listen to very low-powered 1/4 to 1/2 watt FRS radios at either station as far apart as 5 miles away. Low Level Voice Intercept (LLVI) attempts would be mostly defeated. Only a drone directly overhead could DF the signal. The cost of this equipment would be minimal.
For those who are adventurous and technically inclined, I can refer these would-be pirates to my earlier articles, Pirate Radio For Sea And Land, and A Low Power Communications Station In A Bucket, both published on Survivalblog.com. For those ready for a deep dive and for those who are very serious patriots, you will need for future reference and instruction the book The Guerrilla’s Guide to the Baofeng Radio by N.C. Scout.
Rediscovering Forgotten Technology: The Field Phone
Some of the following is relatively obscure information about field phones not covered elsewhere that I am aware. Field phones, in my opinion, are not antiquated nor obsolete, but sublimely important in this day and age. Not even the most advanced surveillance technology on the planet, nor in space, can compromise our COMSEC if we are using field phones.
A list of the important advantages of field phones or other stand-alone hard-wired telephony or Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) should be considered, as well. Other legacy technology and techniques such as low powered HF and short skip propagation, and other forgotten, yet not obsolete technology as old as black powder cannon should be on the table. Field phones were first used during World War 1 alongside what are now considered to be antique rifles and artillery shells that could have fired cartridges that used gun cotton or cordite (.303 British) or black powder as propellant. What was old is now new and unanticipated, or under appreciated, yet this technology has proven itself after more than one hundred years of service.
The USMC was the last service to discontinue the use of analog field phones. (Several service branches still keep digital field phones, as war reserves, and they still see limited use.) Get yours while you still can and duplicate all sources of technical information available to keep it functioning as intended or as designed, and indefinitely. The same principles used to operate field phones can also be applied to the current landline telephone system. It is also possible to purchase modern telephone equipment to operate in a similar fashion as field phones, yet the expense and more complicated technology involved make these systems less likely to sustainable during the worst conditions imaginable. Extreme simplicity and extreme reliability would be my preference. It should be so simple that a nontechnical person could install and maintain it.
Abandoned telephone lines could be re-purposed during a long-term grid-down collapse. Use of existing copper line with reconfigured commercial phones or field phones could operate well at distances beyond 10 miles if line voltage is increased from a minimum of 9 VDC to upwards of 24 VDC, if needed. It would be entirely possible to restore at least a small part of an abandoned telephone system. Think Pettycoat Junction — a fictitious Hollywood creation and location at the end of an abandoned railway line.
Field Phones
The technology that can be used to actually secure our communications security is not difficult to understand or implement. Yet the pursuit COMSEC requires plenty of radio discipline and vigilance. Because of the importance of, and difficulty of maintaining an adequate level of communications security in this day of age of drones, and given the proliferation of satellites, and affordable equipment that can be used to scan the airwaves in various ways, actual COMSEC is increasingly difficult to achieve. Given the complication and expense of sophisticated digital radio communications that are technically beyond the average user, the common man should consider the use of at least one pair of field phones that serve as the bedrock of his commo plan.
In high-threat conditions, a negligent radio transmission of any kind could be as serious as a negligent discharge from a firearm. For example, anyone can purchase an RTL USD Dongle for $30 and download the software at no charge and turn their laptop or tablet into a poor man’s spectrum analyzer that is similar in its basic function as the base equipment that the FCC uses to hunt down transmitters that are not compliant with FCC regulations. For those who wish to employ higher levels of communication security, I again recommend the use of field phones wherever possible. The following is a continuation of a recently published article, and discusses some details which were not previously covered.
The Ideal Solution
Field phones are a 25-cent solution for a million-dollar problem and require little to no expertise to operate and they provide the highest level of communication security possible. These defeat the most sophisticated high-tech surveillance satellites and loitering drones that are capable of detecting one-quarter watt of RF power. It is the most reliable and sustainable communications that the common man can find and they are affordable. Field phones are ideal for static positions, and yet can be practical for field operation given the appropriate and very light weight WD-36 aluminum commo wire that is one third the bulk and weight of WD-1A steel commo wire is used in combination with lighter weight field phones, or very light weight converted commercial phones.
In addition, one half mile of WD-36 wire fits inside a small spool called a ‘donut’ that attaches with ALICE clips onto the same era pistol belt and LBE (Load Bearing Equipment). The ‘donut’ of wire allows the wire to be quickly dispensed by one man as he walks or runs from a Forward Operating Base (FOB) to an LP/OP (Listening Post/Observation Post). One mile of WD-36 Assault Wire can retrieved and easily fit on a single DR8 spool. WD-36 wire is the right tool for the job. Alongside lighter in weight portable field hones the burden is reduced. Where less commo wire is needed, perhaps only a few hundred yards will work if it is retrieved.
I would recommend lighter in weight and rock sold reliable field phones such as the Swedish M37, or similar era Erickson brand European field phones from the 1960s. If you can source a pair (or more) of Norwegian NATO-spec field phones, they are ultra-light in weight. However those are hard to find, and not as robust as TA-1 or TA-312.
While I appreciate WW2 EE8s and have a collection of 6 that I have repaired and restored to function as designed, the Erickson brand European military phones are typically found in very good to excellent condition at a lower cost than the superb TA-312 and the old EE8. The Erickson military field phones are generally in much better operational condition than EE8s or TA-312s. With the exception of most of later models that are the TA-312 field phones, aging stocks of U.S. field phones that include the popular TA-1 that require no batteries and is ultra lightweight so the extent that is can be attached and suspended by LBE in a water tight hard case. Unfortunately, these are not usually found in excellent repair. And while they may function, the carbon powder in the receiver and transmitter are often found to be not up to ‘spec’ and the volume too low to be serviceable. As these use no batteries, and when the TA-1 phones are functioning correctly, these are ideal for shorter runs during field operations. If you can pay the big bucks for excellent condition examples, they would be worth buying.
Unfortunately, the TA-1s are now often found to be unreliable, unobtainium, or just plain too expensive for the average guy if in good operating condition. Given their maintenance issues and lack of available spare parts, and installation of parts that require a certain level of expertise, the TA-1 would not be my first choice.
As it is relatively simple to make very lightweight field phones from discarded commercial phones that are lighter in weight than the TA-1s, converted commercial phones could be pressed into service, however they are not nearly as rugged as purpose-built military phones. But these are a viable option if housed inside a plastic ammo can. The Swiss Military field phone sets the highest standard for reliability and durability, yet these are built to last, albeit heavy in weight. There is always a trade-off. Choose wisely.
(To be continued tomorrow, in Part 5.)
Read the full article here