| Author |
Topic: Italeri PT-109 in box review from Cybermodeler Online |
|
Dick
Moderator
|
  
 Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 8:22am
|
Larger image:
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 8:43am
|
And ... doesn't it appear that they are mounted way away from the deck edge? I realize David had commented on that before ... but when Mr. Washiak blew that photo just now, it becomes more apparant.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
PeterTareBuilder
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 11:29am
|
Quote:
Hey David,
I noticed something in the photo on Ballard's book; I think I do see a depth charge behind the guy standing on the foredeck.
|
|
I think you are right that there is a port depth charge. I see that there is no 37 mm anti-tank gun on the foredeck. I wonder if this image is prior to that accident with the depth charge?
It'd be nice if Italeri included the wheels for the 37 mm AT gun so that those who don't use the gun in their build could use it in another area.
Cheers
"Give me a faster PT boat for I'd like to get out of harm's way!" |
Total Posts: 494 | Joined:
Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 11:54am
|
I'm just wondering if this photo was taken while the 109 was under Westholm. Kennedy wasn't her only commander.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:01pm
|
I am seeing something there on the port side, but the photo makes it almost impossible to determine if this is another Depth Charge. The image is of poor quality, although it does seem like the starboard side depth charge is set back. Again, a poor quality photo, and the angle sometimes gives the illusion that you are seeing something that you are not. Tough call here.
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
TED WALTHER
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:10pm
|
It looks like a guy sitting on the deck leaning against the front of the cabin. The port depth charge might also be in the background. Also remember, the one that is shown, fell through the deck off M'binga while on patrol with PT 48.
Take care,
TED
|
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
Hadly
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:11pm
|
It looks like the guy is on the other side of the dark item. It could be any thing and to speculate is foolish. The photo quality is horrible and to guess it is a depth charge is non-sense.
SH
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Michael Benolkin
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:14pm
|
Greetings gentlemen,
When I reviewed the PT-109 (and I do have the kit), I made some assumptions given that the hull is an 80' Elco just like PT-596. Since my 596 is a waterline model now, I don't have a reference to compare.
As for the PT-109 torpedo vs depth charge rack information, I'm not the expert here but when I did research the background for this review, I found the incident written up on Wikipedia which is the source for my information. If it is wrong, I don't have a counterpoint to reference and it sounds like the facts even now are in contention.
To the point that PT-109 would not have been sent out on patrol with a missing rack, while I didn't serve in WWII, my time in uniform did tell me that we improvise when needed, especially when we're operating in austere conditions. Rendova and their larger home port are still at the end of the supply line and they would understandably not have a replacement rack sitting in a warehouse. A dead engine would be a hull-downing event, not a missing rack.
Thoughts?
Respectively,
Michael Benolkin
Owner/Publisher, Cybermodeler Online
www.cybermodeler.com |
Total Posts: 1 | Joined:
Nov 15, 2012 - 5:57am | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:59pm
|
Logically, if you see one depth charge to starboard, and you are aware of what is written in Donovan's book, and Mr. Ross' own drawing of the 109 show two depth charges on the foredeck, then, why is it nonsense to logically think it is the port depth charge?
It would be illogical to think otherwise, would it not?
Quote:
It looks like the guy is on the other side of the dark item. It could be any thing and to speculate is foolish. The photo quality is horrible and to guess it is a depth charge is non-sense.
SH
|
|
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 1:16pm
|
Point well taken Mike, although the smashed deck most likely would have been fixed before the 109 went back out on patrol. Trying to walk around in the dark with what is supposed to be a nice flush deck, only to walk and or trip into the hole would certainly not make any sense. If I was Skipper of that boat, it would go to the base force for repairs. This however brings up a good point. We know the boats would not go out with engines with problems, and all guns needed to be in working order, as well as any radio and or radar equipment. If one tube was malfunctioning would they go out with three good tubes? It makes sense that missing one depth charge would not keep a boat in from the nights patrol, I wonder what the protocol was for boats that needed repair, that might not have the boat at 100%. What kept a boat in from patrol, and what was deemed ok for a boat to head out on patrol that needed something that was not considered critical, if at all.
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
|
