(3) Use of inappropriate equipment typf3s. Principally at the joint transmitter station, the equipment assigned was not always the best choice for the particular application. This was true in particular of the T-4 and 96-D equipment provided by the ~~w. This equipment consists of banks of independent transmitters, with power rectifier and modulator common to a &nk of four transmitters, They are intended for use whore frequent and rapid frequency change by remote control is required; therefore, each transmitter is designed to be pretuned to one channel with frequency changes accomplished by switching tianmitters, Khere this mode of operation is not required, the equipment is wasteful of building space. It is also inflexible inasmuch as the individual trmsmitters are difficult to tune and are thus essentially fixeclfrequency. This equipment is also difficult to maintain. In place of the T-4 types, the BC.-61Oor T-368 types would have been more effective. They could also have been used in place of the 96-D types$ inasmuch as the higher power capability of the 96-D was not required for the circuits on which used. Thus, 12 BC-61O or T-368 transmitters could have done the same job as Z5 transmitters of the T-4 and 96-D types, Similarly, the AN/FRT-15 transmitters which w~re used on certain circuits had greater capability than was required, This type transmitter lms provision for renmte frequency selection. It also includes a modulator for AM voice operation. On the multiplex, radio-teletype and fakmile circuits to which 5 out of 8 of these were assigned, these features were not required. The use of BC-339 transmitters modified for operation down to 2 megacycles would have been more economica~ for these circuits. . . . -.