Jump to content
  • 0

Radio vs Wireless


sterling1961

Question

I see many vehicles referred to as FFR or FFW meaning, as I understand it, Fitted For Radio or Wireless. What is the difference between Radio and Wireless? is it just the age of the equipment where the nomenclature changed at a certain time or is it something more fundamental?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

There are two questions.

 

1.The difference between radio & wireless is discussed here:

 

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/195872-wireless-and-radio-whats-the-difference/#comment-1918110

 

2. The difference between FFW & FFR might appear that the FFW had more archaic equipment than FFR installations. Although there might seem to be some truth in that, FFW means equipment was fitted or shoe-horned into a vehicle on a bespoke basis, whereas FFR equipment was installed as a more modular arrangement that could be fairly easily removed & transferred to another vehicle. A vehicle that has been changed from FFW to FFR may include other embellishments, for instance a Pig that has been changed from FFW to FFR also received an additional (4th) antenna mount to cope with the more comprehensive radio set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Good question , probably the best answer I have read is by Pat Ware in his book 'QUARTER TON' , page 148 - I can't vouch for veracity.

 

Convinced me , basically FFW = for use with 'wireless telegraphy' meaning radio equipment for transmission of Morse code , FFR = vehicle intended for use with 'radio telephone' (R/T) equipment , ie for speach communications.

 

At the start - he does state 'some' were both FFW & FFR - seams reasonable to me - BUT what do I know..

Edited by ruxy
spelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think the changeover between FFW and FFR coincided with the roll-out of the "New Range" of radio equipment to the army as a whole (under the project name "Larkspur") after the RAC and RA had been equipped with it. The WW2 and early postwar sets were all designated "Wireless Set" (or in the case of separate transmitters, "Wireless Sender"), e.g. WS 19, WS31, WS88, (WS 12, 33 & 53 were all Senders with a separate receiver, such as the R107, R209, AR88).

 

The "New Range" were "Station Radio" instead, e.g. SR C1I, C42, C45, and Transmitter "T D11" or Receiver "R 230", etc.

 

So I think it made sense for them to change the vehicle designation at the same time. (There are manuals for fitting 'New Range' sets (e.g. C42 and R210) into FFW vehicles (1/4-Ton Austin FFW) i.e. Champ, and so on. The later dedicated radio vehicles (with uprated generators/alternators specifically for radio use) were, I think, all described as 'FFR'.

 

Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The "New Range" were "Station Radio" instead, e.g. SR C1I, C42, C45, and Transmitter "T D11" or Receiver "R 230", etc.

 

 

Not quite. All the New Range transceivers were designated as Wireless Sets originally, e.g. Wireless Set C42. The change to using the term Radio didn't happen until 1960 as part of NATO standardisation. The WS C42 became Transmitter-Receiver C42 No. 1 and the complete installation (set and ancilliaries) became Station, Radio C42.

 

So I think it made sense for them to change the vehicle designation at the same time.

 

In fact that happened in 1956 with the introduction of the range of fitting kits to add a Station Radio to a vehicle.

The suitable vehicles from the standardised CT range to have a fitting kit installed were already designated FFW, having had basics like bigger generator, control panel, additional batteries and power take-off etc built in during manufacture. Once the fitting kits had been added (by REME workshops) the vehicle obviously had to have a different title to denote this change - hence the new title FFR.

 

FFW = Basic electrical kit installed at the factory.

FFR = Radio fitting kit(s) added to an FFW vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thank you all for this helpful information. It looks to me that as FV1609 stated there are two issues:

1. radio versus wireless : this seems to be mainly a nomenclature and age thing due to NATO standardisation

2. FFW versus FFR : This is what I was really asking about and I was a bit unclear but based on the replies it seems to break down to:

 

An FFW had components built in to the original build ( power generation and wiring plus antenna mounts) so that a depot could custom fit communications equipment to it to fit a specific purpose. Any changes to the equipment setup would be performed at depot.

 

An FFR had a standard "Modular" setup that would allow the (more modern) comms gear to be easily upgraded or switched out either for repair or for upgrades in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...