PT Boat Forum

Moderated by: Dick, Jeff D

The PT Boat Forum ª PT Boats of WWII ª  PT Boats - General

Prev Page | Page: 4 of 4

Back to Topic Index Page 1 | Replies: 33 | Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

 Author  Topic: Italeri PT-109 in box review from Cybermodeler Online
Drew Cook


Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Drew Cook  Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 2:48pm

Before Dick may "make these last two pages go away..."

I certainly didn't mean to cause such a fuss over the PT 109 torpedo/depth charge incident.

I was just tired of what, to me, is a completely speculative story, which someone at some point in time has laid down as fact, about this depth charge not being replaced...and that the 109 patrolled after the incident with one depth charge, and was in the one-depth charge configuration when rammed and sunk by the Amagiri.

There's just no written or oral evidence to support that.

And Ted, you state definitively it was the starboard depth charge that crashed through the deck. Why do you say that, when it was written that the port hull was struck by the heavy wave that jolted the torpedo into the depth charge? It stands to reason it would have been the port forward torpedo and port depth charge.

I didn't know Michael Benolkin got his PT 109 "missing depth charge, cradle, and toe rail" information from Wikipedia, so I'm sorry I was so harsh with my comment on that part of his review. Wikipedia, unfortunately, has inaccurate information in some of it's entries.

In my opinion, this is one of them.

Total Posts: 1305 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am | IP Logged

Jeff D


Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Jeff D   Send Email To Jeff D Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 5:04pm
If a large wave hit port, the boat would have listed to stbd and gravity could have jarred the torpedo loose. Or, the boat righting itself and hitting the following trough could have done the same for the port torpedo...

Ed, those depth charges were mounted pretty securely. I'm guessing the rack would have been damaged badly.

Until a report on the incident shows up we won't know.

Total Posts: 2193 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP Logged



Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of PeterTareBuilder  Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 7:27pm
Hi there.

Discussing and speculating on what, why or how something happened or looked is what makes history so interesting. Just think, this incident happened only about 69 years ago. With all of the controversy surrounding it, is there any wonder that historians have so much trouble agreeing on other military historical events?


"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

David Waples


Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Waples  Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 9:18pm
First thanks to Dick for cleaning up the thread.

Now, obviously the Wikipedia article is wrong. It appears that you can edit or suggest an edit somehow. Has anyone tried to do this?

Ed, I try to separate fact from opinion when I make a posting. I think I'm getting better at it but sometimes I'm probably guilty of muddying the waters. Certainly opinions I had from years ago have been proven incorrect with time and evidence.

I wrote Mike at Cybermoder Online separately and he's holding to what is written on Wikipedia rather than from Donovan's narrative. That would not be the course I would take but it's his site and he can do as he wishes.

I think it's good to discuss these questions in history. It's important to share evidence and remember to identify our guesses and ideas as what they are when we share them so that we minimize confusion. It's also important to be respectful even if you don't think you're getting it back in return.


David Waples

Total Posts: 1673 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP Logged

Prev Page

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Lock Topic


Forum Legend

New Member

Reply to topic

More than 25 posts | Full Member

Reply to topic with quoted message

More than 50 posts | Advanced Member

Edit Message

More than 150 posts | MASTER

View profile

More than 300 posts | TOP BOSS

Email member