| Author |
Topic: Question About the Gunboats from PTs |
|
TGConnelly
MASTER
|
  
 Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 3:02pm
|
May I ask a dumb question ...?
The six boats (59,60, 61 and 281, 282, 283 [replaced by 285]) that I collectively refer to as PTGBs ...
Would those boats be considered to be PGMs? Like the PGMs converted from the 110' SC hulls, ...
Here's the reason I ask:
On NAVSOURCE, in the PGM section - they list the SC hull version of the PGMs.
What do you think? |
Total Posts: 287 | Joined:
Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm | IP
Logged
|
|
alross2
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 3:48pm
|
No. The PTs were not officially redesignated PGM, therefore, they are not PGMs. PTGB is a spurious designation, as it did/does not exist as an official acronym.
PGM is an official USN designation for a specific group of vessels, in this case (USN WWII) eight converted 110' SCs and 24 converted 173' PCs.
Al Ross
|
Total Posts: 994 | Joined:
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
MASTER
|
Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 4:08pm
|
Thank you, Mr. Ross, ....
And, people, I apologize ...
It was PTs 282, 283, 284 and 285, ... the 282 replaced the 284. My error. I admit it. |
Total Posts: 287 | Joined:
Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
MASTER
|
Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 4:13pm
|
For the record ...
Yes, I realize that PTGB is not a official USN designation ... but the boats were PTs and then, converted to gunboats ... so, in my OPINION, the term PTGB "seems" to fit.
Mr. Ross ... Do you think they might be considered as MGBs? |
Total Posts: 287 | Joined:
Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm | IP
Logged
|
|
 |
Tracy White |
New Member
|
Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 8:05pm
|
PTGB would be more of a colloquial term - while it may fit, it might also lead people astray if they don't realize it wasn't an official designation. Kinda like battleship gray.  Sort of a double-edged sword there.
Tracy White
Researcher@Large |
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Will Day
New Member
|
Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 9:51pm
|
How about BadAssPatrolBoat?
Will |
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
David Buck
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 11:57pm
|
OK Will I would like to see someone put that on their PT Boat model.
Of course it would have to be a model of one of the afore mentioned Gun Boats.
Could create a fair amount of comment in the old club House What!
D.buck |
Total Posts: 332 | Joined:
May 4, 2008 - 2:59am | IP
Logged
|
|
Jeff D
Moderator
|
Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 2:35am
|
Nice Will, very to the point. Maybe we can have a "fantasy designation" contest to see who can come up with the best one.
|
Total Posts: 2203 | Joined:
Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
MASTER
|
Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 5:47am
|
Hey Guys?
Do you think that, even though the Navy did not designate these six boats as PGMs ...
Would YOU consider them to be PGMs or MGBs?
PGM stood for PATROL, GUN, MOTOR and MGB stood for MOTOR GUN BOAT ...
Both really do fit these boats ... what do you think? |
Total Posts: 287 | Joined:
Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm | IP
Logged
|
|
alross2
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 9:07am
|
MGB is not a USN designator. They are what they are - PTs that had their torpedo tubes removed and guns added. They remained designated as PTs until placed out of service or redesignated as small boats.
What you or anyone else 'considers' them to be is irrelevant. They are what the Navy designates them.
Al Ross
|
Total Posts: 994 | Joined:
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|
