PT boat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

m10bob -> PT boat (7/18/2007 2:24:10 PM)

Cutaway

[image]local://upfiles/7909/CC02DC4D3F8140BCB41052B33A23DC2D.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 2:26:45 PM)

PT's always fascinated me.



castor troy -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 2:29:24 PM)

what can someone achieve with two depth charges?



Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 2:31:31 PM)

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.



m10bob -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 2:45:48 PM)

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?)



bradfordkay -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 7:06:39 PM)

"PT crews became adept at scavenging parts and supplies to keep their boats running."

The background behind McHale's Navy?



Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 7:09:44 PM)

Well, most military units, irrespective of branch of service, tends to magically contain a master scrounger or two...



mdiehl -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 7:45:30 PM)

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.



Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 7:47:58 PM)

The depth charges on the drawing weren't K-gun mounts; just over the side, same as the torpedoes.



panda124c -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 8:39:17 PM)

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. [&o]

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.



Apollo11 -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 8:54:58 PM)

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.



shangrila -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 9:43:13 PM)

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. 



spence -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 10:38:43 PM)

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).



rogueusmc -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 11:17:20 PM)


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.



Feinder -> RE: PT boat (7/18/2007 11:30:56 PM)

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-



niceguy2005 -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:00:28 AM)

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.



niceguy2005 -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:04:09 AM)


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.



Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:05:56 AM)

Yeah, PT-109 was more or less an accident. Did the Jap destroyer even notice them?



niceguy2005 -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:06:30 AM)


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.



Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:07:32 AM)

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



Mike Scholl -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:49:39 AM)


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....



niceguy2005 -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:50:51 AM)


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.



BrucePowers -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 12:58:15 AM)

My Dutch fighters did not do any of that...



m10bob -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 1:06:41 AM)

Just a reminder..from WWI, the original full name for "Destroyer" was "Torpedo-boat destroyer"...



rogueusmc -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 1:15:46 AM)


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.



rogueusmc -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 1:16:37 AM)


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...



niceguy2005 -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 1:35:38 AM)

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....

[image]local://upfiles/17264/32E815C9855342C2916E29939956DF49.jpg[/image]



Yamato hugger -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 2:08:46 AM)


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?



wdolson -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 2:17:23 AM)


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



niceguy2005 -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 2:28:55 AM)

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.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125