| Author |
Topic: pt washes up in solomons after earthquake |
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
  
Posted on: Jun 3, 2008 - 8:06am
|
Well,
I base my theory on this; Ballard said that the 109 was the only PT lost in that area. But, two weeks prior - the 166 went down. OK, I might be mistaken about the location. However, it is another PT lost in the general area as the 109 ramming. In fact, wasn't "Barney" Ross from the 166? I say someone should do a more thorough search and that someone should be unbiased. Ballard is a friend of the Kennedys. I remember in the special that when they found the tube, he phoned Senator Kennedy and asked permission to blow a little of the silt away from the base of the tube. Why? The wreck is not owned by the Kennedys.
Yes, I agree about the other torpedo tubes, the machine guns, the 20mm, the 37mm and depth charges. Where are they? Where is the wreck's debris field? Just one torpedo tube and you've found the wreck of the 109? I'm sorry, but where is your evidence to support that claim?
You would have had to have found a debris field ... the 50s, the 20, the engines, the depth charges, the other 3 tubes, other metallic fittings and items.
Also, the wreck is intact and whole under the silt? After 60 years? In those waters? Yeah, OK. Let me get up out of my wheelchair and I'll believe that one. We have a whole crew that say the boat was cut roughly in half and Evans even logged that saw an approximately 40 foot over-turned wreck on a reef and didn't an USN PBY see a overturned wreck on a reef as well and now Ballard says the wreck is intact and in one piece?
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Shaneo2
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Jun 3, 2008 - 9:19am
|
For the ease of others and being a new page, the online source I saw shows the sinking of the PT 166 :
8 -25' S 156-53" E
Not very percise, but thats all I saw so far.
Regards
|
Total Posts: 147 | Joined:
Apr 17, 2008 - 10:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Jun 3, 2008 - 12:10pm
|
And where are the 109's co-ordinates?
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Drew Cook
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Jun 3, 2008 - 1:03pm
|
Frank,
I had thought that Ballard was where you place him, too (southeastern end of Blackett Straight, near Ferguson Passage), so I would have thought the 166 sinking site would be farther away in Ferguson Passage, closer to Rendova. You really can't tell the location from the photos of the 166 on fire on page 21 of Victor Chun's "American PT Boats In World War II."
In fact, until T. Garth mentioned it in his post, I had completely forgotten about the 166 being lost in the area -- all the hullabaloo about Ballard finding the tube and torp was accompanied by blurbs that there was no record of any other PT boat being lost near the discovery area. Now that T. Garth has reminded us, the 166 was lost "in the area" also.
As we've discussed before, I thought the "grave site" declaration of the "109" discovery was baloney, but not totally unexpected or inconsistent with Ballard's style - he did the same thing with the Titanic site, as I recall. Sorry, but I don't think Ted Kennedy, or the Kennedy family's wishes or desires, should have had anything to do with that, but I guess it did. Really, the the only reason I figured they wouldn't do any further excavation was due to practicality, because of the extreme depth and almost complete coverage of the remains by the sand -- and Ballard's standard reluctance to "disturb" his undersea wreck finds.
From what I can tell from some very rough calculations of the coordinates given, they place the 166 sinking site south west of the Blackett Straight area, along the southern edge of Ferguson Passage, in the open ocean.
Interesting theory though, T. Garth. Who knows?
|
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined:
Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
 Posted on: Jun 3, 2008 - 1:54pm
|
I had heard from others that Ballard was a legend in his own mind, and one that was difficult to get along with. I had said before that those engines would still be in whatever position they were in at the time of the collision. I would love to know if all three were in the forward position or if only the center engine was in forward and the two wings in Neutral. And yes, what about those three heavy engines ( where are they) and the 20MM, other Torpedoes and the like.
I am certainly no expert here, but would not the stern going down have some type of debris field. Did the Torpedoes break loose when the stern hit the bottom, or did they break loose during impact. Would not the metal casing of the tube be totally eaten away by time, thus exposing the MK-8. Where are the 50 calibers, and the ammo, or the Engine room panels and or gas tanks. Ballard made the statement that they tried to move the torpedo and it would not budge. Why not bring it up? Also, why contact the Kennedy Family for consultation ( was this thier boat and property) Who made the decision not to dig deeper int what was really there. Anyone who knows nothing about PT Boats might be ready to close the book and say the 109 was found. I for one, will never be convienced that this was any part of PT 109 unless more concrete evidence shows up.
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
Shaneo2
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Jun 3, 2008 - 2:01pm
|
From general online reading, which I can not verify the PT 109 is:
8 03 S 156 58 E
What that plot represents I have no idea, was it its patrol area, where it was hit, where it was seen floating. Also again as stated I do not have any idea of set and drift, when the plot was taken etc. etc.
That was just a number I say somewhere online.
Regards
P.S. Between poor charts, difficult war time conditions, different memories and alot of veterans leaving us- it is difficult to get any form of accuracy.
|
Total Posts: 147 | Joined:
Apr 17, 2008 - 10:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Jun 3, 2008 - 2:30pm
|
Frank - you're right in that Ballard is a legend in his own mind. Although - I do agree with him on the point of some wrecks should be considered as war graves or graves as in the case of TITANIC, BIZMARCK, LUSITIANA, LEXINGTON, and I would even lump the BRITTANIC in that group. And, would any vessel lost in action ...
That said, one torpedo tube does not a wreck make.
You're also right in that the stern, as it sank, would have created a debris field that would include the engines, fuel tanks, mufflers, rudders, props, prop shafts. Yes, one would think that a wooden boat being rammed by a steel Destroyer would have its tubes knocked off.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
|
