Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

PT boat

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> PT boat Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
PT boat - 7/18/2007 2:24:10 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Cutaway




Attachment (1)

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 2:26:45 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		PT's always fascinated me.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 2
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 2:29:24 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		what can someone achieve with two depth charges?

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 2:31:31 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		More than with none. All the major MTB/PT users in WWII equipped their boats with them, and they weren't just for use against submarines, either. Depth charges could just as easily be used against surface ships, for instance to discourage pursuit.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 7/18/2007 3:46:25 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 4
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 2:45:48 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		They are also great for fishing and places to store your beer.
(O.K. now, by a show of hands, how many people did not know a .45 auto comes with a bottle opener?)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 7/18/2007 2:46:16 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 7:06:39 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"PT crews became adept at scavenging parts and supplies to keep their boats running."

The background behind McHale's Navy?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 6
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 7:09:44 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Well, most military units, irrespective of branch of service, tends to magically contain a master scrounger or two...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 7
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 7:45:30 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I recall, from something I read at least 25 years ago and have forgotten the source, that one thing the PT boat crews may have done with depth charges is toss them in front of Japanese barges. They're basically deployed by something like a K-gun mount as I recall. It's hard to imagine the DCs being very useful in that role though.

In the solomons some were specifically field modified as barge busters. The torps and DCs removed and replaced with various MGs and automatic cannon.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 8
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 7:47:58 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The depth charges on the drawing weren't K-gun mounts; just over the side, same as the torpedoes.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 9
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 8:39:17 PM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Sink two F-Lighters.

You make a high speed pass by the F-Lighter(barge) (usually in shallow water) roll a depth charge off as you go by, set to a shallow depth (that's why it has to be a high speed pass). The depth charge explodes the compression wave strikes the sea bed and reflects upward to the bottom of the F-Lighter causing it to lift up out of the water thus breacking it back. Result one sunken barge.

Since the usage of torpedos decreased during the war most PT's discarded the aft two torpedo's and tubes to lighten the boat, the extra weight was replaced with additional automatic weapons for barge busting (a very poor torpedo target). 20mm, extra .50 cal, 37mm auto cannons from old P39's, rockets, 40mm gun, in one case an M16 gun turrent were all added in combination and singularly.

< Message edited by pbear -- 7/18/2007 8:52:02 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 10
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 8:54:58 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Oh my... wait until "AdmiralLaurent" sees this... he lost number of DDs and CLs against those (and mostly from 20mm and 40mm hits)...

BTW, and IMHO light weapons on PTs (i.e. the forementiones 20mm and 40mm) should be toned down and their usage against ships much more limited... the DDs and CLs should not suffer tremendous losses from engaging PTs...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Sighted Typos fixed.

< Message edited by Apollo11 -- 7/18/2007 8:55:51 PM >

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 11
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 9:43:13 PM   
shangrila

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/6/2006
Status: offline 		I read an account one of a PT dropping it's DC's infront of a JAP destroyer that was in pursuit that was trying to ram them. 

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 12
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 10:38:43 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

BTW, and IMHO light weapons on PTs (i.e. the forementiones 20mm and 40mm) should be toned down and their usage against ships much more limited... the DDs and CLs should not suffer tremendous losses from engaging PTs...



Though I actually don't disagree with your statement much the system presently has the aforementioned CLs, etc sinking PTs in droves.  That never happened IRL...something like 7 PTs sunk by IJN naval craft during the entire war.  So the model is more or less "broken in both directions" now to be more bloody (pretty much the norm for all the models).

A model where the PTs shoot and scoot (and mostly miss) but don't get hurt much in return would be more realistic but maybe a bit more boring (except for the code writers who would have to get the system to produce those kind of results).

(in reply to shangrila)
Post #: 13
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 11:17:20 PM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shangrila

I read an account one of a PT dropping it's DC's infront of a JAP destroyer that was in pursuit that was trying to ram them.

I'd like to see a DD try to ram a PT...if the PT sees it coming, I don't think the DD has a chance.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to shangrila)
Post #: 14
RE: PT boat - 7/18/2007 11:30:56 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I think DDs are too vulnerable to most (actually *all*), "light" weapons.  The problem is, their armor is 0.  And with all weapons in WitP, whether it's a strafing fighter or a PT boat, if the penetration of the attacker is greater than the armor rating of the defender (in the case of DDs = zero), then you take damage.  I think it would be useful to put a little bit of armor on the DDs. 

As I understand the rating system, each point of armor generally equates to 1mm of thickness.  I have no idea the thickness of the hull of a DD, but I'd wager it was thicker than 0mm....  If you set the DD's armor rating at about 5, that's going to make them "mostly immune" to 20mm guns or less (30cal, 50cal, 7mm, 13mm, 20mm).  A 40mm will penetrate.  But you won't have a fighter strafing a DD and putting it out of action on the first pass.

I think fighters -should- be able to damage DDs (at Wake, they even sank one - lucky hit on the DC racks).  But given the constraints of the engine (all or nothing), it's IMO better to make them a bit more survivable vs. the (relatively) smallish weapons.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 15
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:00:28 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Oh my... wait until "AdmiralLaurent" sees this... he lost number of DDs and CLs against those (and mostly from 20mm and 40mm hits)...

BTW, and IMHO light weapons on PTs (i.e. the forementiones 20mm and 40mm) should be toned down and their usage against ships much more limited... the DDs and CLs should not suffer tremendous losses from engaging PTs...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Sighted Typos fixed.

In my games they never do. I have seen PTs open up with 20mm and 40mm guns but never seen any serious damage from it...just my observations

Edit: in fact in my 3x3 game two squadrons of Dutch and Britt PTs got basically slaughtered by 4 DDs. 7 out of 8 sunk and not a single torp hit on the DDs. I think I may have gotten 1-2 shell hits.


< Message edited by niceguy2005 -- 7/19/2007 12:02:37 AM >

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 16
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:04:09 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc


quote:

ORIGINAL: shangrila

I read an account one of a PT dropping it's DC's infront of a JAP destroyer that was in pursuit that was trying to ram them.

I'd like to see a DD try to ram a PT...if the PT sees it coming, I don't think the DD has a chance.

Depending on the surface conditions it shouldn't be able to catch a PT. PTs should be a bit faster and certainly a lot more manueverable...not to mention they fly apart when anything hits it. Get within machine gun range and blast it out of the water.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 17
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:05:56 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Yeah, PT-109 was more or less an accident. Did the Jap destroyer even notice them?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 18
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:06:30 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I think DDs are too vulnerable to most (actually *all*), "light" weapons.  The problem is, their armor is 0.  And with all weapons in WitP, whether it's a strafing fighter or a PT boat, if the penetration of the attacker is greater than the armor rating of the defender (in the case of DDs = zero), then you take damage.  I think it would be useful to put a little bit of armor on the DDs. 

As I understand the rating system, each point of armor generally equates to 1mm of thickness.  I have no idea the thickness of the hull of a DD, but I'd wager it was thicker than 0mm....  If you set the DD's armor rating at about 5, that's going to make them "mostly immune" to 20mm guns or less (30cal, 50cal, 7mm, 13mm, 20mm).  A 40mm will penetrate.  But you won't have a fighter strafing a DD and putting it out of action on the first pass.

I think fighters -should- be able to damage DDs (at Wake, they even sank one - lucky hit on the DC racks).  But given the constraints of the engine (all or nothing), it's IMO better to make them a bit more survivable vs. the (relatively) smallish weapons.

-F-

Do people actually see this in the game?

I usually set the Dutch fighters to strafe on naval attack to get them experience. I have seen them get lots of hits but never score any real damage on ships.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 19
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:07:32 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Me either, but then again, the Dutch fighters don't have much firepower. Maybe if we put a Beaufighter on the job...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 20
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:49:39 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
I'd like to see a DD try to ram a PT...if the PT sees it coming, I don't think the DD has a chance.



Always wondered why this question wasn't asked more in the PT-109 story. How many guys had to be "asleep at the switch" for a DD to "sneak up and ram them"? Plenty of "heroism" after the fact --- but it would seem some "bumbling incompetence" would be needed to get there....

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 21
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:50:51 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Me either, but then again, the Dutch fighters don't have much firepower. Maybe if we put a Beaufighter on the job...

good point.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 22
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 12:58:15 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		My Dutch fighters did not do any of that...

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 23
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 1:06:41 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Just a reminder..from WWI, the original full name for "Destroyer" was "Torpedo-boat destroyer"...

_____________________________




(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 24
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 1:15:46 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc


quote:

ORIGINAL: shangrila

I read an account one of a PT dropping it's DC's infront of a JAP destroyer that was in pursuit that was trying to ram them.

I'd like to see a DD try to ram a PT...if the PT sees it coming, I don't think the DD has a chance.

Depending on the surface conditions it shouldn't be able to catch a PT. PTs should be a bit faster and certainly a lot more manueverable...not to mention they fly apart when anything hits it. Get within machine gun range and blast it out of the water.

Most of the Jap DDs could do 32knots but they took alot more time getting there than the PTs...and the PTs could turn on a dime compared to a DD.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 25
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 1:16:37 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
I'd like to see a DD try to ram a PT...if the PT sees it coming, I don't think the DD has a chance.



Always wondered why this question wasn't asked more in the PT-109 story. How many guys had to be "asleep at the switch" for a DD to "sneak up and ram them"? Plenty of "heroism" after the fact --- but it would seem some "bumbling incompetence" would be needed to get there....


I think they said the visibility was under 100m...you'd think you'd hear a DD coming though...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 26
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 1:35:38 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		I wonder if the 6/43 upgrade makes the USN PTs more deadly, as I think it adds radar. Might explain why some folks see PTs sinking everything and others see their PTs get slaughtered.

My PT boats on most missions....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 27
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 2:08:46 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

I think they said the visibility was under 100m...you'd think you'd hear a DD coming though...


Might have been noisy that night. PT 109 had 4 torps I believe. Cant really imagine why you would need 16 people on PT 658.

2 officers (1 I guess so the other one can go to the can?)
2 torpedomen
2 .50 cal gunners
2 guys on the 40mm
1 (2?) engineers
1 radio operator

What do the other 6 guys do? I guess man the 37mm AT gun they stole and mounted on the bow?

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 28
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 2:17:23 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

BTW, and IMHO light weapons on PTs (i.e. the forementiones 20mm and 40mm) should be toned down and their usage against ships much more limited... the DDs and CLs should not suffer tremendous losses from engaging PTs...



quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Though I actually don't disagree with your statement much the system presently has the aforementioned CLs, etc sinking PTs in droves. That never happened IRL...something like 7 PTs sunk by IJN naval craft during the entire war. So the model is more or less "broken in both directions" now to be more bloody (pretty much the norm for all the models).

A model where the PTs shoot and scoot (and mostly miss) but don't get hurt much in return would be more realistic but maybe a bit more boring (except for the code writers who would have to get the system to produce those kind of results).


By the time PT boats became ubiquitous, the Japanese had realized that taking surface warships anywhere near an Allied base was suicide. After the Solomons campaign (mostly early in the campaign), PT boats rarely engaged any Japanese warships. The only time after about mid-1943 I can recall was at Surgio Strait.

PT boats were a very cost effective short range weapon, and the Japanese recognized that and stayed away. I think the major reason PT boats get so many complaints is that Japanese players try to engage them much more than in the real world.

Though allowing PT boats to sit in open water out of fuel and still be able to put up a fight is not realistic. The surface combat model should take into account the movement point status of each combatant. A combatant that is at zero movement points due to being out of fuel, or low/at zero due to being damaged, should be at a significant disadvantage in durface combat. A fully mobile opponent should be at a major advantage.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 29
RE: PT boat - 7/19/2007 2:28:55 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		In reality didn't PTs serve a much larger role than attacking warships. I generally think of them as coastal patrol ships. Moving supplies and small parties of troops, scouting, general patrol. Not things that really show up much in the game.

I use them mainly around my forward bases to discourage bombardment fleets and raiders. Yeah they get blasted out of the water, but the capital ships expend a lot of their main gun ammo doing it.

Edit: OK I really didn't like that term guerilla warfare ships.

< Message edited by niceguy2005 -- 7/19/2007 2:29:14 AM >

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> PT boat Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890