RE: PT boat (Full Version)

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



Message


rogueusmc -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 2:49:04 AM)

I think they filled the Search and Rescue roll in the Solomons too didn't they?




m10bob -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 11:12:53 AM)

quote:

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



Yamato Hugger...We prefer the term "liberated"....[;)]




UniformYankee -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 2:25:02 PM)

We called it 'appropriation'....




m10bob -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 2:33:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UniformYankee

We called it 'appropriation'....



First Shirt: "Clark, take Jones over 'n see if you can appropriate some smokes while Charlie company is on march!"

Clark: "Right, Top!"

Oh, yes...the memories come flooding back.......................[:D]




Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 4:04:17 PM)

"No Sir, that 37mm gun was just sitting there... Didn't look like anybody was using it..."




Mike Scholl -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 5:40:02 PM)

Given the lack of Japanese tanks in the Solomons Campaign, talking the Army or the Marines out of a few 37mm AT guns so you could sink some Japs BEFORE they got to your island was probably no more difficult than "Hey! We got us a case of beer..., do you have a spare AT Gun?"




Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 5:49:00 PM)

Well, there were cannister rounds for the 37mm AT guns. Worked a charm on Bloody Ridge.




Mike Scholl -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 5:52:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, there were cannister rounds for the 37mm AT guns. Worked a charm on Bloody Ridge.


And at the Teneru River... My point was that the PT's were trying to sink the Japs BEFORE the got ashore..., a goal which the Marines and the Army would both find worthy.




Terminus -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 6:05:01 PM)

Yeah, yeah... I got ya...




BrucePowers -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 6:52:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc


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...


With those 3 Packard 12 cylinder engines running[X(]

I don't care if they were muffled.




rtrapasso -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 7:35:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc


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...


With those 3 Packard 12 cylinder engines running[X(]

I don't care if they were muffled.



Rather a moot point because most of the crew was asleep (at least according to several sources)... [8|]

i think he (Kennedy) had the engines off or on severe idle... supposedly there was a brief delay to get them going to speed because the crew didn't open the mufflers when they finally saw the DD bearing down on them.




anarchyintheuk -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 7:40:56 PM)

The combat report makes for a pretty dull read.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-11.htm


Would like to see the story behind this one:

PT-509 destroyed by ramming of a German minesweeper in the English Channel, 9 August 1944.




panda124c -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 8:33:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


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?

4 guys on the 40mm; tracker, trainer, two loaders
37mm AT gun four guys, gunner, pointer, two loaders, this was not the 37mm autocannon which requires only one guy.
war correspondant to write story [:D]
so 16 looks short [;)]




panda124c -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 8:39:38 PM)


quote:


With those 3 Packard 12 cylinder engines running[X(]

I don't care if they were muffled.



Usual operational procedure was to idle along on the center engine only, thus being very quiet to hear any motor noises. This also saved fuel. All three engines were brough on line "crash started" to get the h*** out of there.




spence -> RE: PT boat (7/19/2007 8:55:46 PM)

quote:

...you'd think you'd hear a DD coming though


Steam turbines (WWII DD power plants) are actually very quiet relative to other ship powerplants (in the air anyways). The ventilation blowers for the engine spaces make a lot more noise than the turbines do.
At speed the bow wave probably makes more noise than the turbines.




rtrapasso -> RE: PT boat (7/20/2007 3:03:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The combat report makes for a pretty dull read.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-11.htm


Would like to see the story behind this one:

PT-509 destroyed by ramming of a German minesweeper in the English Channel, 9 August 1944.



She got into a firefight with a bunch of German MSWs - the helmsman was killed, and after the loss of control, the PT rammed the enemy MSW at right angles, and sank. So, she was not rammed, she did the ramming. There was 1 survivor who told the story... see
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mandm/PT509.htm




AmiralLaurent -> RE: PT boat (7/20/2007 1:20:59 PM)

Some remarks from my experience:

_ in 1943 WITP PT boats are massively upgraded and have 2 torps, 2 (or 4) 20 mm, a 37 mm gun AND a 40 mm gun. As seen above, this is setting as the norm close to the maximal armament used as field modifications, and the extra 37mm gun was often added to PT instead another weapon.

_ as for the effects of PT boats vs Japanese ships, yes battles are 1) too common 2) too bloody. In fact the probability of PT boat engaging warships should be lower and most of the times the PT should miss or retreat without being hit rather than press on, score hits and get destroyed by return fire... Another reason for the high PT losses and successes is the ability to create them out of thin air in forward bases...

_ IRL PT boats attacking warships used fast approach and retreat, meaning few hit rate and few losses for them too. They used torpedoes and then fled. AFAIK guns and so on were used against barges, sampans, etc... but not in a gunnery duel against warships.

_ in game the PT can use them without problem and will score devastating hits. The worst I have seen is one 40mm hit on a DD doing 25-30 SYS damage (+ 5-10 fire, bringing the total damaged before arrival to port to 35).

_ you're right only 7 PT boats were sunk by enemy warships in the war, about the same number were sunk by coastal guns (never happen in WITP), about the same number wer lost to friendly fire (never happens in WITP), tens were lost to grounding, storms, accidental fire (never happens in WITP) and several were lost to air attack (and all reports I saw in 1943 proved that Japanese floatplanes patrolling at sea were seen as a major danger for PT, not the reverse way we see in WITP... To sink a PT in WITP you will usually lose 1-3 AC to AA fire and some more to ops).

_ in game term, PT, barges and so on would be better simulated as "naval squadrons". As air squadrons they will be based somewhere and have a range, with missions as "supply transport", "troop transport", "patrol/base defence", "naval attack" (with a range set), etc... That will:
1) limit their range to realistic numbers. No more barges engaging KB 600 miles out of PH, or barges sailing from Kwajalein to Gilberts
2) their deployment would be done as IRL: you load ships and they sail where you want to drop PT/barges
3) op losses will be possible
4) distinction between day/night activity... barges sail at night and hide during day.
5) no more limit on production, so you can have historical number of barges (hundred at the same times) that will so give PT boats something to do..
6) on the other hand, a barge should be worth a victory point, as a transport aircraft is worth it
7) attacks of PT against enemy ships are more close to the attack of a torpedo boat against the same target (a quick attack trough fire by secondary and AA guns and then a quick retreat) than a battle against warships.





Yamato hugger -> RE: PT boat (7/20/2007 5:16:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Given the lack of Japanese tanks in the Solomons Campaign, talking the Army or the Marines out of a few 37mm AT guns so you could sink some Japs BEFORE they got to your island was probably no more difficult than "Hey! We got us a case of beer..., do you have a spare AT Gun?"


My dad was an anti-tank gunner in the 96th. Only Jap tank (operational anyways) he ever saw he said almost ran over him. On Leyte they fired grapeshot at point blank range (50 some troops in front of their gun after 1 banzii attack). He said they used spotters down range and shot at individual troops, like kind of a very long range rifle (Okinawa). They started out with 37mm on Leyte and got 57mm for Okinawa. For operation Olympic, they were training in M-36's. They were scheduled for the 1st or 2nd wave.




ChezDaJez -> RE: PT boat (7/20/2007 10:52:11 PM)

quote:

_ you're right only 7 PT boats were sunk by enemy warships in the war, about the same number were sunk by coastal guns (never happen in WITP), about the same number wer lost to friendly fire (never happens in WITP), tens were lost to grounding, storms, accidental fire (never happens in WITP) and several were lost to air attack (and all reports I saw in 1943 proved that Japanese floatplanes patrolling at sea were seen as a major danger for PT, not the reverse way we see in WITP... To sink a PT in WITP you will usually lose 1-3 AC to AA fire and some more to ops).


Here's a listing of PT boat losses from hazegray.org. Don't know how accurate or complete it is.

This listing includes losses from "surface craft" and "gunfire." Not sure what the difference was but it does list PT-109's loss as due to surface craft so I would assume it includes ramming by enemy vessels. Gunfire may include shore batteries or naval vessels. Its not explained.

quote:

Boat Cause Place Date
PT 33 Grounding Pt. Santiago 15,December 1941
PT 31 Grounding Subic Bay 20,January 1942
PT 32 Scuttled Sula Sea 13,March 1942
PT 34 Airplane Cauit Island 09,April 1942
PT 35 Demolished Cebu Island 12,April 1942
PT 41 Scuttled Mindanao 15,April 1942
PT 44 Surface Craft Pacific 12,December 1942
PT 43 Surface Craft Guadalcanal 10,January 1943
PT 112 Surface Craft Guadalcanal 10,January 1943
PT 28 Grounding Alaska 12,January 1943
PT 37 Surface Craft Guadalcanal 01,February 1943
PT 111 Surface Craft Guadalcanal 01,February 1943
PT 123 Airplane Guadalcanal 01,February 1943
PT 67 Explosion New Guinea 17,March 1943
PT 119 Explosion New Guinea 17,March 1943
PT 165 Submarine New Caledonia 23,May 1943
PT 173 Submarine New Caledonia 23,May 1943
PT 22 Weather Pacific 11,June 1943
PT 153 Grounding Solomons 04,July 1943
PT 158 Grounding Solomons 05,July 1943
PT 166 Airplane Solomons 20,July 1943
PT 117 Airplane Rendova 01,August 1943
PT 164 Airplane Rendova 01,August 1943
PT 109 Surface Craft Blackett Straits 02,August 1943
PT 113 Grounding New Guinea 08,August 1943
PT 219 Weather Attu September 1943
PT 118 Grounding Vella Lavella 07,September 1943
PT 172 Grounding Vella Lavella 07,September 1943
PT 136 Grounding New Guinea 17,September 1943
PT 68 Grounding New Guinea 01,October 1943
PT 147 Grounding New Guinea 19,November 1943
PT 322 Grounding New Guinea 23,November 1943
PT 239 Fire Solomons 14,December 1943
PT 145 Grounding New Guinea 04,January 1944
PT 110 Collision New Guinea 26,January 1944
PT 279 Collision Bougainville 11,February 1944
PT 200 Collision Rhode Island 22,February 1944
PT 251 Gunfire Bougainville 26,February 1944
PT 337 Gunfire New Guinea 07,March 1944
PT 283 Gunfire Bougainville 17,March 1944
PT 121 Airplane New Britain 27,March 1944
PT 353 Airplane New Britain 27,March 1944
PT 135 Grounding New Britain 12,April 1944
PT 346 Airplane New Britain 29,April 1944
PT 347 Airplane New Britain 29,April 1944
PT 247 Gunfire Bougainville 05,May 1944
PT 339 Grounding New Guinea 27,May 1944
PT 63 Explosion New Ireland 18,June 1944
PT 107 Explosion New Ireland 18,June 1944
PT 193 Grounding New Guinea 25,June 1944
PT 133 Gunfire New Guinea 15,July 1944
PT 509 Surface Craft English Channel 09,August 1944
PT 202 Mine France 16,August 1944
PT 218 Mine France 16,August 1944
PT 555 Mine Mediterranean 23,August 1944
PT 371 Grounding Molukkaa Passage 19,September 1944
PT 368 Grounding Halmahera,N.E.I. 11,October 1944
PT 493 Surface Craft Surigao Strait PI 25,October 1944
PT 320 Airplane Leyte 05,November 1944
PT 301 Explosion New Guinea 07,November 1944
PT 321 Grounding San Isadoro Bay 11,November 1944
PT 311 Mine Corsica 18,November 1944
PT 363 Gunfire Halmahera 25,November 1944
PT 323 Airplane Leyte 10,December 1944
PT 300 Airplane Mindoro Island 18,december 1944
PT 73 Grounding Philippines 15,January 1945
PT 338 Grounding Mindoro Island 28,January 1945
PT 77 Surface Craft Luzon 01,February 1945
PT 79 Surface Craft Luzon 01,February 1945


Edit: Oops, forgot to include the listing.
Chez




AmiralLaurent -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 1:54:05 AM)

Well gunfire includes coastal guns (the losses of 7 and 17 march 1944) and airplanne include firendly fire (both loss on 27 March 44).

As for the effect of PT boat attacks, I have not found any report of gunfire on IJN warships, but I found a detailled story of a HMS Hunt DD engaged against German E-boats in the Channel. She fought several battles and was hit by small gun fire several time, one needing 17 days of repair..

See http://www.hmswensleydale.co.uk/1943.htm

So PT boat-like could use guns against enemy warships and hit.





Dili -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 4:42:07 AM)

1943 July 17, Italian Cruiser Scipione Africano alone encounters four British Motor Torpedo Boats (MTB) in the Straits of Messina. In a night action she sank MTB 346 and damaged one of the others PT's (MTB 313) without damage to herself.

Sometimes things go wrong for PT's.




String -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 10:07:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

1943 July 17, Italian Cruiser Scipione Africano alone encounters four British Motor Torpedo Boats (MTB) in the Straits of Messina. In a night action she sank MTB 346 and damaged one of the others PT's (MTB 313) without damage to herself.

Sometimes things go wrong for PT's.


Ah, you see those were BRITISH torpedo boats. American torpedo boats all had J. Wayne as captain. If they had been American then they would've sunk the cruiser with a cunning trap consisting of old socks, an empty beerbottle and two hand grenades.




grumpyman -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 10:13:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

1943 July 17, Italian Cruiser Scipione Africano alone encounters four British Motor Torpedo Boats (MTB) in the Straits of Messina. In a night action she sank MTB 346 and damaged one of the others PT's (MTB 313) without damage to herself.

Sometimes things go wrong for PT's.


Ah, you see those were BRITISH torpedo boats. American torpedo boats all had J. Wayne as captain. If they had been American then they would've sunk the cruiser with a cunning trap consisting of old socks, an empty beerbottle and two hand grenades.


Except for helping out at D-Day Wayne mostly worked the Pacific[:D][:D][:D]






wdolson -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 11:33:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

1943 July 17, Italian Cruiser Scipione Africano alone encounters four British Motor Torpedo Boats (MTB) in the Straits of Messina. In a night action she sank MTB 346 and damaged one of the others PT's (MTB 313) without damage to herself.

Sometimes things go wrong for PT's.


quote:

ORIGINAL: String
Ah, you see those were BRITISH torpedo boats. American torpedo boats all had J. Wayne as captain. If they had been American then they would've sunk the cruiser with a cunning trap consisting of old socks, an empty beerbottle and two hand grenades.


Isn't that more the MO of Captain MacGyver? Though without the hand grenades.

Bill




Mike Scholl -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 2:09:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

1943 July 17, Italian Cruiser Scipione Africano alone encounters four British Motor Torpedo Boats (MTB) in the Straits of Messina. In a night action she sank MTB 346 and damaged one of the others PT's (MTB 313) without damage to herself.

Sometimes things go wrong for PT's.



Especially when they try to chase down a 39 knot Light Cruiser with a bunch of worn down 38 knot MTB's




Yamato hugger -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 4:42:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Ah, you see those were BRITISH torpedo boats. American torpedo boats all had J. Wayne as captain. If they had been American then they would've sunk the cruiser with a cunning trap consisting of old socks, an empty beerbottle and two hand grenades.


You are forgetting the 73 boat. That one alone accounted for about half the Jap navy. And Mr Duke wasnt on it [:-]




Skyros -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 6:36:35 PM)

Which also served in the Med.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

You are forgetting the 73 boat. That one alone accounted for about half the Jap navy. And Mr Duke wasnt on it [:-]





Apollo11 -> RE: PT boat (7/21/2007 6:58:39 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Some remarks from my experience:

_ in 1943 WITP PT boats are massively upgraded and have 2 torps, 2 (or 4) 20 mm, a 37 mm gun AND a 40 mm gun. As seen above, this is setting as the norm close to the maximal armament used as field modifications, and the extra 37mm gun was often added to PT instead another weapon.

_ as for the effects of PT boats vs Japanese ships, yes battles are 1) too common 2) too bloody. In fact the probability of PT boat engaging warships should be lower and most of the times the PT should miss or retreat without being hit rather than press on, score hits and get destroyed by return fire... Another reason for the high PT losses and successes is the ability to create them out of thin air in forward bases...

_ IRL PT boats attacking warships used fast approach and retreat, meaning few hit rate and few losses for them too. They used torpedoes and then fled. AFAIK guns and so on were used against barges, sampans, etc... but not in a gunnery duel against warships.

_ in game the PT can use them without problem and will score devastating hits. The worst I have seen is one 40mm hit on a DD doing 25-30 SYS damage (+ 5-10 fire, bringing the total damaged before arrival to port to 35).

_ you're right only 7 PT boats were sunk by enemy warships in the war, about the same number were sunk by coastal guns (never happen in WITP), about the same number wer lost to friendly fire (never happens in WITP), tens were lost to grounding, storms, accidental fire (never happens in WITP) and several were lost to air attack (and all reports I saw in 1943 proved that Japanese floatplanes patrolling at sea were seen as a major danger for PT, not the reverse way we see in WITP... To sink a PT in WITP you will usually lose 1-3 AC to AA fire and some more to ops).

_ in game term, PT, barges and so on would be better simulated as "naval squadrons". As air squadrons they will be based somewhere and have a range, with missions as "supply transport", "troop transport", "patrol/base defence", "naval attack" (with a range set), etc... That will:
1) limit their range to realistic numbers. No more barges engaging KB 600 miles out of PH, or barges sailing from Kwajalein to Gilberts
2) their deployment would be done as IRL: you load ships and they sail where you want to drop PT/barges
3) op losses will be possible
4) distinction between day/night activity... barges sail at night and hide during day.
5) no more limit on production, so you can have historical number of barges (hundred at the same times) that will so give PT boats something to do..
6) on the other hand, a barge should be worth a victory point, as a transport aircraft is worth it
7) attacks of PT against enemy ships are more close to the attack of a torpedo boat against the same target (a quick attack trough fire by secondary and AA guns and then a quick retreat) than a battle against warships.


I sincerely hope that powers to be will take this into account for some future patch... the PTs are simply too powerfull (but at least not as powerfull as they were when WitP first got out - then they were capital ship killers)!


Leo "Apollo11"




panda124c -> RE: PT boat (8/1/2007 7:59:29 PM)

Another thing to consider, the PT boats went to more guns (fewer torpedos) to because it was easier to sink Japaness barges with guns AND the Japaness started arming their barges with heavy MG's. So PT should take some loses or at least damage from barges.




pauk -> RE: PT boat (8/1/2007 9:07:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Oh my... wait until "AdmiralLaurent" sees this... he lost number of DDs and CLs against those (and mostly from 20mm and 40mm hits)... [;)]

Sighted Typos fixed.


you should fix Admiral to Amiral too...




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171997