[UK-CONTEST] Was NFD originally an emergency capability test?

[GM3YEH]

Good detective work guys!  To make it crystal clear to everyone - I am
absolutely NOT advocating a return to the original NFD rules!  (I do confess
to wearing extremely shiny shoes whilst on site at NFD last weekend though).
 I'm simply interested to establish if my old pal Dave GM2BUD was correct in
questioning the original intent of RSGB NFD as a test of emergency
capability...nothing more...nothing less.

Thanks to Dave G3YMC for the link to the 1947 NFD rules which *do* mention
emergency capability:
   http://www.btinternet.com/~dsergeant/nfd47.pdf
<http://www.btinternet.com/~dsergeant/nfd47.pdf>and to Andy M1EBV (hope I've
got your callsign right Andy?) for the link to the 1937 NFD rules which *do
not* mention emergency capability.
   http://www.andycowley.com/RSGB-Bristol/nfd/index.html

The situation in the USA might have been a bit different with the emergency
capability being an aim right from the very first ARRL FD in 1933.  In a
2003 ARRL General Bulletin about FD rule changes
   *http://www.arrl.org/w1aw-bulletins-archive/ARLB014/2003*
the following is stated:
"The change renews the emphasis of Field Day's 1933 origins as an emergency
preparedness exercise as opposed to a routine contest."   But - this was
written in 2003...so it's not certain from this that the 1933 rules actually
mentioned emergency capability!  We would need to see very early ARRL FD
rules to check.

It seems possible that GM2BUD might have been right after all.  I wonder if
by 1947 some UK radio amateurs had met US radio amateurs in the armed forces
during WWII and realised that NFD being used as an emergency capability test
would be a good idea...and adopted it in 1947?

73
Barry GM3YEH,


>
> An old mentor of mine, Dave GM2BUD (SK), told me on a number
> of occasions that NFD being a test of the ability to operate under
> emergency
> conditions was a myth imported from the USA.  He maintained that this was
> not an original aim of our RSGB NFD when it started.  I've never seen hard
> evidence to confirm or deny this - but I would be rather surprised if it
> turned out that Dave was mistaken on this point.  Anyone out there with a
> good NFD historical library to consult?
>
> 73 de Barry GM3YEH.
>
>