RE: PT boat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: PT boat

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: PT boat - 8/1/2007 10:04:46 PM

spence

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

quote:

_ 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 support the "Amiral's" (mais Je crois qu'il n'est pas un amiral actuel) proposal, wish, or whatever. In item 7 I think he means "more close to the attack of a torpedo bomber rather than "torpedo boat" though. Although they never hit a capital ship with their torpedos IRL the potential was always there and that should figure somehow in the Japanese Player's calculations when planning bombardments and so forth. After all a torpedo which explodes against a hull is not happy news to the ship's captain irrespective of where it came from. Probably require a whole bucketload of new code though so I guess I will not hold my breath for it.

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 61

RE: PT boat - 8/2/2007 9:53:14 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Motor torpedo boat (PT), Tactical orders and doctrine, July 1942:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pt/doctrine/index.htm

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 62

RE: PT boat - 8/2/2007 2:19:26 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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

Yes - there is a first-hand (eyewitness) account by Hara in his book (Japanese Destroyer Captain (which supposedly has been recently reprinted))... the account also makes me doubt the claim that visibility was only 100 yards. Hara's DD shot up what he thought was a PT, but in retrospect was probably only part of the PT that already had been clove into two pieces.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 8/2/2007 2:20:26 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 63

RE: PT boat - 8/2/2007 2:22:55 PM

m10bob

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

I believe this is one of the books' footnotes as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 64

RE: PT boat - 8/2/2007 5:31:50 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

.
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.
[/quote]

It does really depend on the weather. In moderate to heavy winds and seas a DD would be able to go faster than a PT. Light to no winds, the PT scoots away. But I think that most PT commanders would not be operating in bad conditions unless abdolutely necessary.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to rogueusmc)

Post #: 65

RE: PT boat - 8/2/2007 6:50:45 PM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Yes - there is a first-hand (eyewitness) account by Hara in his book (Japanese Destroyer Captain (which supposedly has been recently reprinted))...

Yes... it is reprinted... I am currently waiting deliver of it...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

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 rtrapasso)

Post #: 66

RE: PT boat - 8/2/2007 8:39:10 PM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline