| Author |
Topic: PT torpeodes.... |
|
Drew Cook
TOP BOSS
|
  
Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 3:05pm
|
Interesting information from Jeff D., thanks for posting it.
Also interesting that he doesn't recollect the rear cockpit armor on the 103-class 80' Elcos.
There are plenty of vintage photos showing the rear cockpit bulkhead in place on 103 and later-class 80-footers in the forward area. I'm certain these were standard Elco factory installations, not "cooked up" in the field. On some boats the small fore-and-aft "wing" at the starboard edge of the rear cockpit bulkhead was removed, and on others the entire assembly was taken out, but there were many others that retained them, PT 109 for one (check the JFK-in-the-cockpit photos) and PT 117 for another (her high rear cockpit armor shows clearly in the destroyed-117-at-Rendova photo on page 121 of "At Close Quarters").
|
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined:
Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am | IP
Logged
|
|
 |
TED WALTHER |
TOP BOSS
|
 Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 3:46pm
|
Drew;
On 80' Elcos number of Skippers had it removed because they felt it gave them an unfair advantage in action engagements while the boats gunners and torpedomen were standing out in the wind. Plus it really did allow for easier access to the helm if the cockpit rear splinter shield was removed. Alot of the first series 80' Elcos had this removed by early 1944.
TED
p.s. the 80 Elco was the only one with this type of armour, Higgins did not have this plate and on 77' Elcos they only had a small fold up shield that nobody used except to mount a radio antenna on as in PT 61's case or as a seat.
|
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 8:36pm
|
Ted . . .
Higgins PT Series PT 625 - PT 660 most of which were sent or schedule to be sent to Russia (23), state side (9), had the bridge completely surrounded with armor plate including the wind screen. I have some illustrations below that illustrate this.
Armor was attached to the wind screen and top, then stretch along the side and ended at the gun turret, then another 90 degrees turn as it stretched halfway across the back. I assume the helm wall (back of chart room) had armor plate.
Dick . . .
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Jeff D
Moderator
|
Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 4:07am
|
Beautiful drawings Dick, thank you for sharing!
And thank you also G. R., interesting photos.
Glad to share Drew, I'll let Jack know he is appreciated. He sent this in response to my torpedo questions:
Q: Can you tell me about the performance of the Mark VIII torpedo, and if any feedback about them was sent back along the chain of command?
How would you like drawings of the components that we each had to do during Torpedo School? Remember, these are not shop drawings by draftsmen, but by a 17-year-old kid who was assigned the task.
As far as performance and feedback, I can give you the speed and depth setting, but as what is now an E-4 and E-5 (TM3/c and TM2/c) no one ever included us in any briefing -- if indeed any briefings as to performance were held. Besides, what could we do about it? All shop maintenance or repairs were done either on a tender (rarely) or at an MTB Base. They just swapped us torpedoes. I'm not sure why the Ron had Base Force torpedomen -- did they augment the MTB Base or what? Wasn't my job, so I didn't care.
When we got the MK 13s, we were elated due to their each being + or - a thousand pounds lighter, 6 knots faster and we got rid of those hated tubes. I don't ever recall any Ron 5 boats getting to fire a MK 13, however. And I can't remember when we changed -- was it at Rendova???? Not in my log.
Q: Yes Jack, I'd love to see the drawings. Are they done by you? As to performance, I was more interested in your personal observations, not "official" specs.
Yes. Each student in torpedo school had to make these drawings on which we were graded.
The 103 only fired four fish in all of its history as far as I know, got three explosions supposedly, Japs lost no ships, so somewhere a reef got smaller ????? It was protocol to launch and turn quickly due to the MK VIII's slow speed of 27 knots. It was also protocol to launch at low speed, then haul ass in another direction.
Q: Interesting, from what I've read you guys did a lot more damage with your guns than the boat's namesake. I've also read that early war torpedoes had more than their share of issues, compounded by higher-ups not willing to listen to sub commanders telling them of the problems.
Yes, we were primarily MGBs as the Brits designated some of theirs. That's why I eventually became the mortarman, shooting the 60mm mortar to "hold piss call" along the coasts where Jap soldiers were thought to be encamped. Bang one in every now and then. I could also shoot flare shells to illuminate targets -- one didn't go off, but sailed over the row of hills and set ablaze an apparent Jap fuel cache somewhere opposite Dyaul Island -- west coast of New Ireland -- my second fuel dump!!!!
If I had been running the war (with today's knowledge) I'd have dumped two of the torpedoes and added more .50s. I did see a couple of boats with 40mms on their foredecks -- PT 59 was one, the other was an Elco 80 from some other Ron.
The early war torpedoes to which you are referring were the Mark 14s carried by subs with new magnetic exploders that were defective. Destroyers carried Mark 15s and I never heard of any problems with them, except the Japs' Long Lance fish were superb and long-running, although I still don't understand their fire control system to hit moving targets miles away.
I read a book years ago about the awful union running The Navy Torpedo Station at Newport and how the union screwed up most of the programs.
I look forward to seeing his drawings...
|
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined:
Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP
Logged
|
|
G R Powell
New Member
|
Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 5:25am
|
CJ & Ted,
Thanks for your correction of the location and date of the photo. The photographer who took these shots, CPU 9, also went to Green Island because I got some of his photos there too. The first one below he shows to be at Green Island in March of 1944.
The second photo is labeled as Rendova in January. Is this the dry dock at Rendova? Did you have a dry dock at Green? Ted, notice also the camo pattern you mentioned on the other photo.
G R Powell |
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
| |
TED WALTHER |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 5:57am
|
G.R.
From the back round the last photo with drydocks looks like Bau Island Rendova. There should be a third drydock to the left of these, notice the line going acroos the photo? To the right across the lagoon was a small dock, then further left a larger dock. notice the two other boats out in the channel off in the distance. Also notice all the props in the forground! I count 7!
Take care,
TED
P.S. Dick, sorry I forgot the late Higgins class boats, if we got these in the field, presumably for the invasion of Japan, I am sure most of the boats would have "lost" this plate too.
|
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 12:26pm
|
Thanks Jeff . . .
These are 3 of the 40 plus drawings that are part of my Higgins project. There will be exterior and interior views showing the various differences between the various Higgins series. Typical drawings will illustrate the differences between Series 71-94, 197-254, 265-313, 450-485, and 625-660. However in some cases series will be combined. There will be orthographic views of the side, deck, bow & stern, and isometric views of the each interior compartment.
Dick . . .
PS: TED . . . I would image so, that was a lot of steel armor plating to wrap that large bridge – funny how they stopped it just before the gun turrets.
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 12:46pm
|
Dick,
How the @#$%! do you color those? I've been trying to ....... and have been going NUTS.
Garth
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 3:18pm
|
Garth . . .
I create all the artwork in Adobe Illustrator which is completely different then photo imaging (Adobe PhotoShop or the likes) software you are working in. All the line are hard lines like using a pen and unlike CAD (unconnected short little dashes) the the lines and curves are all Bézier curves (continuos lines and planes). To add a fill color the desired area has to be a closed plane limiting the color to stay with the lines. What might be happening in your Photo-Type case the black is broken or not completely closed causing the color to bleed out ever where you done want it.
To add fill color you must close off the area with a pen or brush tool. Make sure their is no white or light gray showing in the line or the color will bleed out.
Dick . . .
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 3:47pm
|
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
|
