Tom, (I thought I'd post to the group since it's relevant)
I'm not disagreeing with you. While I know more than my fair share about
carrier ops, that's the first I've ever heard about 5x5 originating from
there. What I do know for a fact is that 5x5 has been used (forever) as an
indication of signal strength and clarity by radiomen and Ham operators. In
particular when almost all long range communications were conducted with
morse, a system of brevity for reception confirmation was required to ensure
receipt of radio messages, in particular when antennas had to be tweaked to
get the right bounce of the atmosphere or whatever. (Something still done in
SPECOPS
HF/VHF long range commo) It is possible that pilots, themselves required
to do much
"work' in the radio/communications world, could have started spreading
the term around for other uses. In fact five by five now has widespread usage
in all kinds of ways but usually means everythings peachy. (more or less) <g>
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I'm not disagreeing with you. While I know more than my fair share
What I do know for a
> fact is that 5x5 has been used (forever) as an indication of signal
Actually, now that I've seen some of the explanations, I'd have to say that
some of the cases came from the comms background, although any references by
pilots relating to glidepath (such as the one in aliens) is derivative from
the Aircraft Carrier grid.
Having built AM and FM transmitter systems myself, they are twitchy
beggars (when not made solid-state). And the antennae and any
couplers used along the way are major offenders. Tuning the antennae for long
distance work is probably a lot less painful than it would have been in years
gone by, but your comment above recalls to me the story of the SAS guys in
desert storm (Bravo Two Zero) that hadn't been given the right frequencies for
the part of the desert they were in so their comms didn't work. I just never
knew that the phrase 5 by 5 in a comms environment had to do with signal
strength and clarity. You learn something every day....:)
Tom.
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> 2. The commo plan or lack of and tehshortocming s of their commo
Someone should have known 1. The freqs that would work in the desert were not
the ones they had been given 2. Testing the comms gear BEFORE you leave is a
wise idea
> 3. The E&E plan lacked basic alternate communication signals to alert
They had Beacons with built in radios but they didn't work for some reason I
forget. They had some alternate comm to an AWACS, but it got retasked (I
thought at the last minute) and so their backup wasn't there where it was
supposed to be. But you'd think some other methods would be in place.
> 4. They carried too much stuff on the operation. Obviously they were
They did lug a lot of kit. Just because you can doesn't mean you should....
and just because you think you can because of who you are doesn't mean you
actually can.....
/************************************************
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Having built AM and FM transmitter systems myself, they are twitchy
Talk about a disaster! While teh human side of B20 shows the great resiliance
of SAS operators, it doesn't cast teh SAS in general in to good a light.
Obviously, the whole affair was horrendously planned:
1. The mssion they were given (and accepted) was way beyond the capabilities
of that team. In fact there was at least two team misisons in there.
2. The commo plan or lack of and tehshortocming s of their commo equipment is
enough grounds for both the squadron comms officer and the team commo guy to
get fired.
3. The E&E plan lacked basic alternate communication signals to alert SAR.
4. They carried too much stuff on the operation. Obviously they were suffering
from invincibility syndrome (Note: SEALS in Grenada and Panama suffered
heavily for this flaw also.)
Piss Poor Planning leads to Piss Poor Performance as we see again and again in
real life.
> You wrote:
> They had Beacons with built in radios but they didn't work for some
You'd think that if all else fails, we can go to "Will pop purple smoke" or
whatever.
> They did lug a lot of kit. Just because you can doesn't mean you
Like that MP officer that led the assault on the dog kennel in Panama? Became
the darling of the feminists for being a woman leading troops into combat. No
one made much noise about it when she got medboarded out of the Army for
stress fractures of the hips. Why? She got into a machismo thing about "Well,
if you've got 70 pounds in your pack, I'll put 75 in mine." There is a line
between HOOAH and DUMB, and she crossed it. Traveling light is plain common
sense.
> At 16:04 02/09/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Became the darling of the feminists for being a woman leading troops
> machismo thing about "Well, if you've got 70 pounds in your pack, I'll
True but I suppose she had to work a hell of a lot harder to win the same kind
of respect a male officer would get. Such is the way of the world. Whats the
normal loadout of these people in any case?
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> They had Beacons with built in radios but they didn't work for some
It's been a while since I read the book but I believe they "had the wrong
crystals". Whatever. Even so there are other visual and what not
communications systems to establish bona fides along one's E&E corridor.
> You wrote:
> True but I suppose she had to work a hell of a lot harder to win the
Giving yourself injuries suffient to get medboarded out does NOT win respect.
It makes you a laughingstock. Knowing your limits is a far, far better thing.
I don't know what MPs normally lug, but it can't be
that heavy--they do have Hummers organic to their unit. And for
Christ's sake, a company commander never has to haul _that_ much.