| Author |
Topic: Question About the Gunboats from PTs |
|
alross2
TOP BOSS
|
  
 Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 5:34pm
|
Kendall,
I don't know of any PTs transferred to the US Army Air Corps, but a number of 63' AVRs were. Your Dad's boat, C-26654 was built by Harbor Boat and was a Design 314 boat. Holtham's book on the 63' boats lists her but does not give any dates or information beyond the hull number.
If she was transferred to the USAAC, it would probably have had a P or Q number. I;ve never seen a PC designation for an Army boat. Post war, if she was still in service, she probably would have been given an R number.
Al Ross
|
Total Posts: 993 | Joined:
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
David Waples
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:30am
|
How about we don't re-write history. This posting is on every modeling board out there and it only confuses everyone. I see no point in it.
David Waples |
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined:
Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP
Logged
|
|
 |
alross2 |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 5:01am
|
Quote:
How about we don't re-write history. This posting is on every modeling board out there and it only confuses everyone. I see no point in it.
David Waples
|
|
What a novel idea, Waples...
Al
|
Total Posts: 993 | Joined:
Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 6:29am
|
My question was designed to maybe start a honest, open, unbiased discussion trying to engage people as to what they felt and thought. That's it. Nothing more. It was not asked in an attempt to rewrite history or confuse people.
I was just asking what I thought was an interesting question that hopefully would garner thoughtful answers and opinions.
Sorry Guys. |
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 6:55am
|
I now have a headache from all of this, can we please move on, and talk about something like Will sending me his old PT BOAT for restoration.
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
JBG327
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:12pm
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
c
You asked what do you [we] think. The consensus seems to be we don't think that your naming (un)convention makes sense. A PT boat is a PT boat no matter what armament she carried, until officially renamed by the Navy Department.
You calling them PTGBs introduces an incorrect term and no matter how much you want the term to be official or correct it is still a made up term that is wrong.
JG
|
Total Posts: 74 | Joined:
Sep 29, 2012 - 2:40pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:15pm
|
| Never mind. I thought it would be a "fun" discussion ... |
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Will Day
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 7:54pm
|
@ Frank: I had the boat already to ship to you, but now I have to wait and decide what to call it. . .
Will |
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Will Day
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 7:54pm
|
@ Frank: I had the boat already to ship to you, but now I have to wait and decide what to call it. . .
Will |
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Jeff D
Moderator
|
Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 8:02pm
|
Take your time getting it right Will. Frank is like his cats, he'll patiently wait to pounce on a PT.
|
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined:
Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP
Logged
|
|
|
