Talk:Motor gunboat

message: The choosen examples are bad. Both are not typical. Most of the MGB were much smaller (about 70 foot) and less armed.--WerWil (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to simply have a list of MGB types here, with links to the companies that built them, and pages of individual MGB articles where written. I've started with the Cambell & Nicholson link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  not exemplary examples 

message: Article assumes knowledge beyond what could be expected of a lay reader: please provide more information. What are turret positions A, X and Y? (article notes: "By 1945 MGB 658 carried two power-mounted QF 6-pounders in the A and Y turret positions")--mgaved (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Std RN practise is to ref to positions alphabetically fore to aft. A is forward-most, B immediately behind that, C, D & E roughly midships, X & Y nearest the stern, generally. (Rarely, Z, too.) Exactly where they are on any given ship depends on the number of actual positions, so an MTB will have A in the bow, X sternward of midships, & Y dead aft.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  18:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this explained in any wikiarticle? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming convention given here: Gun_turret#Modern_turrets GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's nice to try and be standard with gun placement naming conventions, there still seem to be two minor issues: One is that the amidships position would be a 'Q' position (second amidships would be 'P' if present) in standard RN nomenclature (rather than C,D,E); secondly that it's not clear that RN Coastal Forces boat crews ever referred to these positions by letters. Most first-hand written accounts refer to 'forward', 'aft' positions etc or by weapon type ('pom pom', 'Oerlikon', 'machine-gun' and so on). Boats seem to have been very intimate affairs for the crew and there does not seem to have been the same degree of formality as in RN large ships. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:B533:2903:D6B0:CF8C (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information required: turret positions 

message: Dear wikipedians, seems that this article could be further improved is more verifiable sources could be located. E.g.: the list of MGB types seems incomplete, description too brief, service too succinct.  Also lots of citations missing. Any help will be greatly appreciated.  Regards,  DPdH (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion 

message: The article states that MGBs were particularly vulnerable to mines. I admit that I have no references for this, but given the shallow draught of the boats, I do not think this is very convincing. Regards Marinebanker (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If floating mines means drifting mines, yes, a hit would certainly destroy the boat. Drifting mines were however, to my knowledge, seldomly used and generally not very effective. If floating mines means moored mines,  MGB would just run over them without striking. Regards Marinebanker (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough shallow-draft Coastal Forces motor vessels were in fact lost in minefields that I think we can put the debate to rest. As small and fragile craft, when they did hit a mine it was catastrophic (29th MTB Flotilla, operating BPB 71.5-feet type, lost two boats to mines in 1944; MGB 109 - another Type 5 - mined off South Foreland 7th Feb 1943) so I think that a 'vulnerability' to mines is a fair comment. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:E042:D9E6:ABC2:CA62 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vulnerability towards mines 

message: (1) No mention of the origins of the MGB (small, fast Motor Anti-submarine Boat, known as a M.A./S.B. - usually pronounced "Masby" - when submarines were discovered not to be the threat, but E-boats were, these were fitted out as gun boats. See The Battle of the Narrow Seas: The History of Light Coastal Forces in the Channel and North Sea 1939-1945 by Peter Scott; also Stand by for Action by William Donald.)
(2) The "vulnerable to mines" nonsense is dealt with by "... the Motor Gunboat (MGB – See Appendix I) which could safely override minefields..." Night Action  by Peter Dickens (one of the coastal forces "aces" of WW2) and the fact that it has had a citation needed for ages.
(3) Though there is mention of the role of MGBs in defending the vital coal convoys from the Tyne and Tees to London and the Southeast, this major part of the usage of MGBs is dealt with in just one sentence. This needs substantial historical expansion. Among other things, the article could explain how, as the battle developed, MGBs started seeking out E-boats before they even got to the British side of the North Sea - so disrupting any attacks before they started.
(4) The article should mention the co-operation between MTBs and MGBs in attacks on German shipping on their side of the North Sea. This includes the bolder MGBs passing at high speed very close in front of enemy shipping and dropping depth charges to sink or damage them (since, at that stage, they did not carry torpedoes).
(5) The ultimate merging of the role of MGB and MTB.
All subject to further research/finding of additional sources.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That all sounds great!  Thanks for working on it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

text: RCN 29th MTB Flotilla lost two of their BPB Type 6s (G-types) to mines in 1944. These were the same hull as the Type 5 MGB (standard war production short boat). I think the matter needs no further debate, but perhaps an expansion of when the danger became worse, if the difference is much known? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:E042:D9E6:ABC2:CA62 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this article (just a few of them) 

message: I've added a further detail to the section on BPB co. 70-feet boats. These vessels were of varied provenance, with earlier boats being RN ordered and later vessels being ex-French. Notably, the original armaments of these boats was considerably modified to the 1942 configuration. In 1941, many of these had twin LMG turrets carried amidships - exactly as seen in the article's photo of the 66 boat working up at HMS St Christopher, but already carried an Oerlikon cannon, while RN vessels at the same time were carrying make-do weapons like Rolls 2-pdrs. Ultimately, these twin Lewis turrets were removed from the French boats' coach-houses and the two twin HMG turrets were mounted further forward on the boats.
It's safe to say that these early boats, with their very non-standard origin and specifications, perhaps warrant articles of their own. There is information on them and the Type 'C' Fairmile (a boat with a limited 24 unit run) has its own, after all. I can't help thinking that, if these had been aeroplanes, they would already have said articles for each class and type. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:B533:2903:D6B0:CF8C (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armaments and continuous early improvement