Author |
Topic: Armor plate on PT boat |
|
victorkchun
New Member
|
Posted on: May 14, 2009 - 9:26am
|
I think the armor plate used on Elco 80' was 1/4' thick. Can someone verify that?
Victor
Victor K Chun |
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
alross2
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: May 14, 2009 - 3:18pm
|
From the specs book for PT 565-624:
Portable armor shall be fitted around helmsman's station, of contractor furnished 1/4-inch protective plating, Navy Dept. Spec. R47S33, fitted with raised platforms forward and aft of transverse panel, for helmsman and/or searchlight operator, and fitted with rubber bumpers on two corners on starboard side, satisfactory to the Supervisor of Shipbuilding.
Al
|
Total Posts: 993 | Joined:
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
Posted on: May 14, 2009 - 5:41pm
|
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
BobPic
New Member
|
Posted on: May 15, 2009 - 8:14am
|
I'm sure you are talking about armor on later PTs, but you might be interested to know that PT167 had a 1/4 inch L-shaped steel panel on the port side of the helm station and across the back behind me. We were advised that it was not tempered armor steel and would not likely stop a strafing bullrt, but fortunately we never found out. It was installed by base maintenance without official Navy approval. We did have an officer "from home" inspect the arrangement and we liked to think we had a part in the later design.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: May 15, 2009 - 8:59am
|
I think the removal of this armor plate was more for saving weight on the boat then the Skippers thought process of not being fair to the Crew. You take a big chunk of that 1'4 inch armor plate (L Shaped) and I bet you will find it to be pretty heavy stuff. Heck just think how heavy the splinter shield was on the first installed 20MM Cannon. I have seen this plate, and its pretty heavy stuff. Weight was a constant part of the PT BOAT being a successful weapon, and engineers and others were very strict when it came to extra weight on the boats.
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: May 15, 2009 - 9:59am
|
You're right Frank. It was to save weight. But, I'm pretty sure I'll be told that I'm mistaken on that.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
alross2
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: May 15, 2009 - 1:39pm
|
Quote:
You take a big chunk of that 1'4 inch armor plate (L Shaped) and I bet you will find it to be pretty heavy stuff. Heck just think how heavy the splinter shield was on the first installed 20MM Cannon.
|
|
The Gun and Turret Catalog puts the weight of a standard 20mm shield (1/2" thick) at 250 lbs. Plain old 1/4" STS weighs about 10.2 lbs per square foot, so I suspect the helmsman's shield was at least that heavy. Maybe this weekend, I'll measure the drawings and figure it out; then again, maybe not... The sun's supposed to be out and I drive a convertible..... :-)
Al Ross
|
Total Posts: 993 | Joined:
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
alross2
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: May 15, 2009 - 1:40pm
|
Quote:
You take a big chunk of that 1'4 inch armor plate (L Shaped) and I bet you will find it to be pretty heavy stuff. Heck just think how heavy the splinter shield was on the first installed 20MM Cannon.
|
|
The Gun and Turret Catalog puts the weight of a standard 20mm shield (1/2" thick) at 250 lbs. Plain old 1/4" STS weighs about 10.2 lbs per square foot, so I suspect the helmsman's shield was at least that heavy. Maybe this weekend, I'll measure the drawings and figure it out; then again, maybe not... The sun's supposed to be out and I drive a convertible..... :-)
Al Ross
|
Total Posts: 993 | Joined:
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
Posted on: May 15, 2009 - 1:43pm
|
HEY GUYS . . .
The armor was probably more for wood splitters, you wouldn’t want to disable a skipper and/or a helmsman in the middle of a battle because flying splitters came through the bridge side walls or day room or so on, it surely wasn’t going to stop any big slugs like similar 50 cal or high velocity.
The armor was more then just an L-shape, ELCO blueprints shows it as along the port side then 90 degrees and across the back then another 90 degrees for the shorter inboard wall. The three plates combined and installed would have weighed between 500 and 600 pounds.
I believe, and if I recall correctly, I was told by skipper Earl Brown, with the shield it made the bridge really cramped at times and by removing it, the area really opened up and that some skippers but not all removed it, he kept his. You can see in the photo, JFK still had it up. I think the other reason is great folk-lore.
Of course I have no clue, I wasn't in ELCO drafting room when they came up with the ideal, nor was I ever sitting on one those beautiful boats.
The Higgins guys didn't get any armor until the 625 series and most of those were headed to USSR. Also the poor Higgins guys didn't even have self-sealing fuel tanks till the 625 series. However they did in 1944 design retrofit kits for the older Higgins consisting of multiple armor plates for exterior hull bolt-on just covering the outside area of the tank compartments or complete overhaul kits to switch-out the existing tanks and completely rebuild the four tank foundations to except new self-sealing tanks - late 1944. Not sure how many of these two retrofit kits were sent out and installed.
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Drew Cook
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: May 15, 2009 - 2:57pm
|
Neat post of the JFK-109's cockpit armor, Dick, but...
I always thought that "rub rail" along the top of the rear plate was wood...?
|
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined:
Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am | IP
Logged
|
|
|