Talk:PT boat

message: I'm not sure if this is worth preserving, but when I found it, the page originally contained:
:"Patrol Torpedo" boat - used by the United States Navy in the South Pacific in World War II. About 40 feet long, wood hull, inboard engine, two torpedo tubes on each gunwale pointed forward, two .50-cal machine guns (?), crew of four (?)
:United States President John F. Kennedy was the captain of a PT boat (PT 109) in World War II.
:FIX this needs lots of work. 
If there was ever a PT boat that only had a crew of four, I can't find it -- I assume the original author was simply guessing.  If I'm wrong, please correct me!  --The Epopt
Yeah, I think this can lose it's "Stub" tag now... nice work :) - MMGB
I was the original author - thank you for doing a proper job with this page. RAE
----
I'm pretty sure torpedo boats existed before WWII, in fact, IIRC, the destroyer class ship was created initially to counter small fast torpedo boats in WWI.  Does someone have references? -- ansible
Yes, the destroyer (Originally "Torpedo boat destroyer" in german) was created to deal with the torpedo boats. All this information looks very good, but I think a good deal of it should be moved to Torpedo Boat as that is the ship class. PT boat is simply a name for a serie of american ships. It is like listing information about battleships under Bismarck... For a reference I would recommend "The development of fighting ships", if you can get your hands on it. Otherwise "Destroyers" gives a rather good overview. Also there is a short overview at global security: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/destroyers.htm  P.S. 13:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "What neither the PT Boat crews, nor their comrades in the submarine service knew in this time frame was that their torpedoes were defective. The American torpedoes ran at depths well below their set depth, and both of the firing mechanisms built into the torpedo regularly malfunctioned. The more squarely the torpedo was lined up on the target, the more likely the torpedo was to fail. Either the torpedo would run under the target, the torpedo would explode prematurely, or it would strike the target and break apart without exploding. Interestingly, early German torpedoes had suffered almost identical defects."
While this applied to the Mk14, the antique Mk8, which might have suffered the deep-running problem, was not designed for or fitted with the Mk6 magnetic exploder, & so shouldn't have suffered prematures (which doesn't exclude the possibility sheer age of the arming & firing mechanisms causing them...). As for duds from square-on hits, this was (AFAIK) exclusively a Mk6 problem; the Mk10 didn't suffer from it, & I doubt the Mk8 did, either. The later Mk13 probably suffered from it & other troubles; it was worse than the Mk14. This issue needs more research & correction.  Trekphiler 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On reflection, I deleted the above as irrelevant or unsubstantiated.  Trekphiler 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: The article says, 
:"What neither the PT Boat crews, nor their comrades in the submarine service knew in this time frame was that their torpedoes were defective. The American torpedoes ran at depths well below their set depth, and both of the firing mechanisms built into the torpedo regularly malfunctioned. The more squarely the torpedo was lined up on the target, the more likely the torpedo was to fail. Either the torpedo would run under the target, the torpedo would explode prematurely, or it would strike the target and break apart without exploding. Interestingly, early German torpedoes had suffered almost identical defects."
While this applied to the Mk14, the antique Mk8, which might have suffered the deep-running problem, was not designed for or fitted with the Mk6 magnetic exploder, & so shouldn't have suffered prematures (which doesn't exclude the possibility sheer age of the arming & firing mechanisms causing them...). As for duds from square-on hits, this was (AFAIK) exclusively a Mk6 problem; the Mk10 didn't suffer from it, & I doubt the Mk8 did, either. The later Mk13 probably suffered from it & other troubles; it was worse than the Mk14. This issue needs more research & correction.  Trekphiler 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I deleted the above as irrelevant or unsubstantiated.  Trekphiler 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming soon

message: On the second level, is that a PT boat you are on? Because it does not look like one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.125.254.254 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal of Honor Rising Sun 

message: 166 Gallons are 628 Liters, not 250. fix'd MikeTango 04:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: The article has this sentence "The effectiveness of PT boats in the Solomon Islands campaign, where there were numerous engagements between PTs and capital ships, was substantially undermined by defective torpedoes." What kind of defects? The Mark 8 was pretty old by then, were these torpedos made new with new defects or were they age-related defects? Is this sentence confusing the Mark 14 torpedo problem the subs were having? The Mark 15 used by DDs was having similar Mark 14-style problems but AFAIK the PTs were okay with their elderly 1917-ish Mark 8 design. Binksternet 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 2 things, as I understand it. First was age (I suspect the warheads had been filled for years, & the explosive got old & sensitive, & prematured, leading to the spurious "hits"). Second, as in the Mk14s/15s, the exploder design was defective (in the Mk14, the contact pistol would crush on impact, rather than fire; the Mk14/15's magnetic feature caused numerous prematures); I may be mistaken, here, because the Mk10 (contact pistol) was OK. USN torpedoes had several (unrelated) design problems, from what I've read; exactly what they were, I'm honestly not familiar enough with the issue to say with certainty, without sources in front of me. And don't forget, PTs also used Mk13 aircraft torpedoes, which had even more problems than the Mk14s. Without specifying the date of the engagement, or the type of firing mechanism (the Mk8 used tubes, Mk13 racks), knowing the problems actually encountered is a bit hard. Feel up to doing some research?  Trekphiler 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More about defective torpedos

message: The Higgins boats that Gen. Eisenhower was referring to was not the PT boats but the Landing Craft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgins_boat
72.27.58.29 (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen. Eisenhower and Higgins boats 

message: It seems like a lot of people are incorporating information that may be better suited somewhere else. Things about the Great Britain Royal Navy MTB's and Steam Gunboats and German S-Boote dont really belong in an article about the US PT Boats. Same goes for the WW1 Torpedo Boats. It is really interesting and good information I will grant, but it seems to be interfering with the overall scope of the main subject of the article, which is after all, PT Boats. Just a thought, maybe somebody knowledgeable about those other subjects could start an article about them and move the info into that other article, and provide a link to this article. 
Also, I fail to see the value in changing every single measurement into its metric equivalent. OK one or 2 examples is fine, but providing parenthetic metric equivalencies for each and every measurement or diameter etc is very detracting from the flow of the sentence. 
Thanks! Jerry 1-23-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.136.3 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is getting to be too big! 

message: Here is a little background research/information I came across concerning US PT Boat torpedo successes against the Japanese Navy (IJN) and the other axis powers (Germany, Italy) found in Robert J Bulkeleys authoritative book "At Close Quarters: PT Boats in the United States Navy", at the beginning of this wikipedia page about PT Boats, it implies a virtually complete lack of success by USN PTs with torpedoes. Well...I beg to differ! read the facts below and decide for yourself! Jerry
* Night of 24 January 1942, PT 41 torpedoed a Japanese transport at Subic Bay.
* Night of  1 February 1942, PT 32 torpedoed and damaged IJN minelayer YAEYAMA in Subic Bay.
* Night of 8 April 1942, PT 34 and PT 41 torpedoed and damaged IJN light cruiser KUMA in action off Cebu.
* Night of December 9, 1942, PT 59 torpedoed and sank IJN submarine I-3 at Kamimbo Bay, Guadalcanal.
* Night of December 11, 1942 PT 44 and PT 110 torpedoed and sank IJN destroyer TERUTSUKI off Guadalcanal.
* Night of January 10, 1943, PTs 45, 39, 48, 115, 43, 40, 112, 59, 46, and 36 in action off Cape Esperance torpedoed and damaged IJN destroyer HATSUKAZE.
* Night of December 24/25, 1942, PT 122 apparently torpedoed and sank IJN submarine I-22 at Tufi, New Guinea, though recent investigations cast doubt on that assessment.
* Night of March 3, 1943, in the wake of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, PT 143 and PT 150 torpedoed and sank the already-damaged IJN transport OIGAWA MARU, 6,493 tons.
* Night of May 8/9, 1943, PT 206 torpedoed and sank a German tanker in Ras Idda Bay during the North African campaign.
* On July 24, 1943, PT 216 torpedoed and sank the 8,800-ton Italian merchant ship VIMINALE near Palmi.
* Night of October 22/23, 1943, PT 212 torpedoed and sank an Italian corvette converted for use as a cargo carrier in the Maddalena-Bastia area.
* Night of November 2/3, 1943, PT 211 and PT 207 torpedoed and sank German subchaser 2206 off Giglio Island.
* Night of May 23/24, 1944, PT 202 and PT 213 torpedoed and sank German corvette UJ-2223 and torpedoed and damaged German corvette UJ-2222 near Vada Rocks.
* Night of June 14/15, 1944, PT 558, PT 552, and PT 559 torpedoed and sank German corvettes TA 26 and TA 30 between La Spezia and Genoa.
* Night of November 2, 1944, PT 308 torpedoed and sank German subchaser UJ-2207 off Portofino.
* Night of October 24/25, 1944, a PT torpedoed and damaged IJN light cruiser ABUKUMA during the Battle of Surigao Strait.
* Night of October 24/25, 1944, PT 323 torpedoed the damaged IJN destroyer ASAGUMO during the Battle of Surigao Strait.
* Night of November 28/29, 1944, PT 127 and PT 331 torpedoed and sank IJN subchaser No. 52 and Patrol Boat No. 105 at Ormoc Bay.
* Night of December 11/12, 1944, PT 492 torpedoed and sank IJN destroyer UZUKI at Palomplon, Leyte.
* Night of December 26, 1944, PT 223 torpedoed and sank damaged IJN destroyer KIYOSHINO off Mindoro.
* Night of January 23/24, 1945, PT 532 torpedoed and damaged a 6,000-ton Japanese freighter in Lingayen Gulf; the ship, its bows blown off, was beached and abandoned.
Source: Bulkeley, Robert J., Jr., Captain, USN (Ret.). At Close Quarters: PT Boats in the United States Navy. Washington, D.C.: Naval History Division, 1962.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.183.121.4 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "decide for yourself" indeed. Just off the top, Fitzsimons, w naval ed Antony Preston (Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons & Warfare {London: Phoebus, 1978}), says Kuma was sunk in January 1944 by HMSub Tally Ho Volume 16, p.1683); Hatsukaze 2/11/43 by U.S. destroyers including Spence (Volume 14, p.1542); & I-22 lost to "marine casualty" (Volume 13, p.1404).  Was Bulkeley using wartime credit, or relying on JANAC? As bad as JANAC was, it was better than the wartime accounting, which couldn't (or didn't) weed out mistaken claims from torpedo failures (for instance).  Trekphiler (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "The list above does not claim that Kuma or Hatsukaze was sunk". Noted. I'd just treat the list with caution, since Bulkeley was a PT sailor & hence had reason to stretch things. JANAC? It's the postwar accounting of Sub Force claims (maybe others, too, which is why I ask), the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee. It relied on both U.S. & Japanese records & was notoriously unreliable, denying credit where there were numerous eyewitnesses & photos, giving credit to boats far away from the cited sinkings; also, Japanese records were in chaos by war's end...& at least some U.S. records from early in the war were pretty chaotic, too.  Trekphiler (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "US PT Boat torpedo success in WW2" 

message: I have a question about how to do something in this article. Under the Heading "Service" about 6 paragraphs down from the first paragraph, it talks about "Barge Busters" and how the Torpedoes minimum depth setting was 10 feet. Then somebody put "(citation needed)". So I have several methods to prove this, namely, we have four real Mark 13 torpedoes on board the PT658 and I also have several US Navy Weapons Technical Manuals. All of these show the depth setting dial is marked between 10 and 60 feet (sorry dudes, it aint metric!) Anyway do I need to cite the specific manual number etc or show a photo of the torpedo or what? Besides, who put that "citation needed" label thing on there anyhow? (It looks like Trekphiler according to the history) Can you take my word for it and remove the (fact)label? I could email you the info if you want to see it with your own eyes. Thanks for your help in advance Jerry (PT658 crewman)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.96.162 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got the manual, cite the number (publication date too, if it's mentioned) & page #; list the publisher as U.S. Government Printing Office, place DC:  Torpedo Manual FM-##-#. Washington, DC: GPO, 19xx. Clear?  Then, delete the   tag.  Trekphiler (talk) 09:45 & 09:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerry, I believe I've got the 1946 cite into the article correctly. Binksternet (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How do I provide a citation needed to remove the label about torpedo depth settings" 

message: This
:"A small 2-man muslin covered cork liferaft was normally mounted on the forward deck, though it was displaced by guns mounted on the bow after mid-1943, and moved to the top of the chart house or farther aft."
struck me as very poorly placed, when the discussion was about PTG effectiveness. Feel free to put it back in the description.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  11:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Family Robinson 

message: To answer the request for citation: these recently destroyed boats are identified as follows: ex-PT308 Higgins in 2006 in Dagsboro, DE, ex-PT659 Higgins in 2008 in Vancouver, WA, ex-RN MGB69 Higgins in 2004 in Chertsey, UK, ex-PT761 Elco in 2003 in Jacksonville Beach, FL, and ex-PT695 Vosper in 2003 in Rio Vista, CA, all destroyed for various exact reasons but mostly due to lack of funding for restoration. This info was available in this article in past revisions but was removed since these boats were destroyed and therefore don't matter anymore. I dont really understand the need for a citation required for this, but there you have it, the names and types of the boats and where they were when they were destroyed. If this does not suit your requirements to explain the citation, let me know what you need to see to be satisfied and I will strive to list it here. Thanks Jerry Jngilmar (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to cite reliable sources per WP:RS. Personal knowledge is not acceptable per WP:OR. - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's really necessary. You've been around WP long enough that you shouldn't need that explained to you. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing of the boats that were destroyed  between 1998 and 2008