|
Posts:
7
Registered:
1/15/03
|
|
(1 of 13)
Jan 16, 2003 3:05 PM
|
why were pt boats so efective they stopped producing them in the navy
|
|
|
Posts:
9,202
Registered:
10/27/01
|
|
(2 of 13)
Jan 16, 2003 5:05 PM
|
surface radar ended their usefullness as a weapon.
Contrary to the Hollywood image of PT's charging in at full speed to launch torpedos; PT's were weapons of stealth used against merchant ships and barges in narrow confined waters and almost exculsively at night.
Pt's and their British and German counterparts would lie in ambush on a coastal convoy route and launch torpedos as the convoy came in range. As the torpedos hit they would crash start their engines and blast the he11 out of the area before they could be attacked.
As the war went on we improved as did the Germans but not the Japanese radar to the point that an ambush by such craft became very difficult.
After the war our main opponent was Russia who had it's own PT's and used them well into the 1960's. Latter Russia and other nations, but not the USA, developed the Fast Attack Craft using Surface to Surface missiles. The Russian Osa and Komar are examples of such boats.
We prefered to keep our surface to surface missiles on small frigates which were multi-purpose vessels and did not develope the FAC's.
The US prefered to use naval air power and latter helicopters in the roles once used for the PT's for example coastal minelaying. We also were thinking in terms of the nuclear battlefield in which PT's would have no use.
How we would have fared in the narrow seas of Europe against the Russians with their FAC's remains open to debate.
One other nation has built many PT's and FAC's for the defense of it's coasts and that in China. North Korea also has many of these ships for use among it's rugged coast. They are really a defensive weapons system today with limited offensive use in a war environment controlled by US air power.
Our answer to these boats is improved radar and electronic warfare systems as well as vastly improved air power for night operations.
The PT was surpassed by technologies that rendered them obsolete in the 1950's and after the FAC's come into service they fell out of use by most of the worlds navies. The Arabs and Israel had som in the 1970's and still may use them but their wars are fought in coastal waters not the open ocean, and again air power makes this vessel a dead duck if caught at sea.
What made our PT's so effective was that the Japanese were using barges with limited weapons and had no counter for our PT's.
For a more balanced look at motor torpedo boat warfare look at WW2 in the waters off England and occuppied Europe were German R and S boats some times called E boats battled the British MTB's, ML's and MGB's. This was really the better example of PT boat warfare, it's advantages and limitations.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,138
Registered:
1/13/03
|
|
(3 of 13)
Jan 18, 2003 6:00 PM
|
The legendary boat that JFK skippered was the only boat to get run over by a Japanese destroyer in WW2. Was he asleep at the wheel?
|
|
|
Posts:
213
Registered:
6/15/00
|
|
(4 of 13)
Jan 19, 2003 9:33 AM
|
The action was a night patrol, and both the PT boat and the Jap destroyer were operating on a moonless night without lights. The PT-109 saw the Jap ship, but decided to let it go by their position before trying to coordinate an attack. The Japs spotted the PT boat when they were too close to use any of their weapons, so the skipper of the Jap destroyer turned to ram the PT.
"In a land without guns, the man with the boxcutter is king."
|
|
|
Posts:
213
Registered:
6/15/00
|
|
(5 of 13)
Jan 19, 2003 9:38 AM
|
PT boats were effective in the Solomons and in the waters around the Philippines. They were not effective as open-water combat ships. They were designed for harbor defense and for operations in coastal waters.
But, that being said, there are still patrol boats similat to PT boats operating with navies all around the world. The technology of light fast patrol boats, like all other technology, moves on. The P-51 was a great fighter, too, but we stopped production when the technology of jet engines came along.
"In a land without guns, the man with the boxcutter is king."
|
|
|
Posts:
9,202
Registered:
10/27/01
|
|
(6 of 13)
The PT 109 was using the standard
Jan 20, 2003 7:55 AM
|
ambush tactics of PT/MTB warfare developed by the British and Germans.
No one was asleep, unlike the Hollywood movies PT's didn't charge the enemy, but waited silently along the course of the Destroyers and their barges or coastal ships then fired their torpedoes from ambush, crash started the engines and ran like he11!
Kennedys tactics were sound and part of the normal tactical use of PT's.
We didn't know just how skilled the Japanese had become in night observation, they lacked surface radars so the observers on their ships were trained in night operations and were very good.
As you said Capt the Japanese spot the 109 close up and in an effort to blow the ambush by the 109's squadron ram her.
By exposing the ambush the other boats in the 109's squadron have little hope of sinking the supply barges which were the real target not the escorting DD's.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,202
Registered:
10/27/01
|
|
(7 of 13)
One question Capt the US Navy
Jan 20, 2003 8:06 AM
|
other then in Vietnam seems to have left the Fast Attack Craft and Fast Patrol Boat idea in the dust.
I can undestand it to some degree but if we need to go up against Third World nations or terrorists in narrow coastal waters like the Persian Gulf, Indonesia or the Philippines we don't have the Fast Attack Craft to do it.
Does the USN have such craft? I know in the Gulf War there was a big sweat over our lack of small coastal minesweepers, another gaff on the Navy's part in my view.
It seems to me our navy is all carrier and SSN happy and is ignoring the real threat in operations in Third World environments which is mine warfare and FAC warfare in coastal and shallow narrow seas.
I can see a naval officer not being happy about a command of a FAC or a Minesweeper as opposed to a frigate or a carrier, but in a limited war in narrow seas that command of a small ship might be more important then the larger ones.
|
|
|
Posts:
213
Registered:
6/15/00
|
|
(8 of 13)
Jan 20, 2003 1:34 PM
|
That is a part about the Navy that I find hard to understand. Most navies around the world have fast attack craft, usually armed with missiles. I don't know, but one explanation might be that the Navy considers coastal and harbor defense a Coast Guard responsibility.
Personally, I would think that the Navy would WANT to have a large number of smaller ships, since that would give promising junior officers more opportunities to command. In the Army, and officer in pay grade O-3 can expect to command a company, but in the Navy an officer normally does not command unless he is in paygrade O-5 or at least a senior (or selected) O-4.
"In a land without guns, the man with the boxcutter is king."
|
|
|
Etiennel
|
|
(9 of 13)
Feb 5, 2003 6:04 PM
|
I find it hard to believe that anyone was asleep at the wheel...
The PT 109 was on picket duty at the time of the collision.This would include: standing orders to all crew members to their Battle Stations.Both outboard engines would be shut down and the inboard engine at dead slow/maneuvering speed.[Reason; no skipper wants to be dead in the water at any time].He would be maneuvering at a slight angle (usually against the tide) and all aboard peering into the darkness looking for IJN DD silhouettes against the islands.The South Pacific is noted for its phosphorescent phytoplankton(dinoflagellate algae) which produces bioluminescence in the sea water when disturbed.This will appear as ribbons of light coming off from a bow wake and when churned up by 3 wheels (props) and 4500 horsepower,a river of light is left behind a speeding PT boat.The PT boat going dead slow/maneuvering speed with just one engine makes little noise and no sea water that glows.Jap night fighters learned early on that PT boats lie at the ends of these rivers of light.[Deep draft vessels lessen the "glowing effect"].The savvy PT Skippers adapted to this scientific phenemenon with the only drawback being that PT boats don't maneuver very well on one wheel (prop).Sluggish helm response at best.
The PT's "Were Expendible"(but not the men)and not placed on anyone's priority list for parts and supplies,but these were Officers and Sailors of the United States Navy and there were none better to do this job in this time of War.Fighting the Imperial Japanese Navy in the South Pacific or the Italian and German Navies in the Med.,or off the beaches against Fortress Europa on June 6,these seventy-seven & eighty foot mahogany vessel were there to dish it out and take the licks as well.
|
|
|
Posts:
46
Registered:
7/3/03
|
|
(10 of 13)
Jul 4, 2003 11:14 AM
|
|
i sailed on 8 different ships an grew up on the great lakes..my question, how does a P.T. boat get cut in half in the first place, especially during war time??..pt 109 comes to mind...now i am in war time conditions an on duty an a destroyer cuts us in half..i thought when i was young what a heroic story, but later that nagging question of how do you get cut in half comes up..would another officer have faced martial or does family politic play into this..
|
|
|
Posts:
103
Registered:
1/8/06
|
|
(11 of 13)
Jan 17, 2006 9:38 PM
|
well my opinion is that they showed as to much of a target and after jfks boat was smashed in two i don't think it was a grate idea no more.
--
his rifle will fire. will mine? (care of arms is care of life)ww2 poster
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/15/06
|
|
(12 of 13)
Jul 15, 2006 9:41 PM
|
There are strategic reasons why the US Navy has not in recent history adopted PT Boats or fast attack craft.
These types of vessels are of limited range and endurance. Obviously, they can't sail from the US to fight againts potential enemies. Because of their limited range and endurance, one needs to forward base them to be in range of the potential enemy. In the case of the US, this means that we would need foreign cooperation to base them in areas that we could employ them. Not likely given the current political environment. Secondly, because of their limited endurance, you need to rotate vessels and crews to maintain constant vigilance on a particular area. Have you been on a bouncing PT boat for 3 days? It can be exhausting physically. Not to mention that fuel and food is limited. Plus, the magazine capacity of PT boats is limited. Therefore, if you think you need a dozen missiles afloat to defend a particular region, you might need 3 PT sized vessels afloat as opposed to 1 frigate or destroyer sized vessel. You would also need to rotate these vessels every 3 days or so. Which means you would need six PT sized vessels for every frigate/destroyer sized vessel. Cost effective? Not sure.
|
|
|
Posts:
238
Registered:
9/9/07
|
|
(13 of 13)
Mar 8, 2008 10:26 AM
|
> why were pt boats so efective they stopped producing
> them in the navy
I think to answer this question you simply need to look at the role of the navy and US forces in general. We are not fighting an ocean war right now, no need for small craft for patrol or to destroy shipping. The US Coast Guard uses small armed craft for its work and in Viet Nam we did see the use of PT Boat-like craft where they were needed. I'm sure if a use for them arose we would design and build a craft like the PT Boat again.
Trivia questions: John Kennedy is often made a hero for his exploits on the 109 yet he actually could have been court martialed for at least two reasons (two that I have read about.)
Anyone know why?
|
|
|
|
|
