PT Boat Forum


Moderated by: Dick, Jeff D

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

Prev Page | Next Page | Page: 2 of 11

Back to Topic Index Page 49 | Replies: 109 | Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

 Author  Topic: Pure bilge (oxymoronic, isn't it?)
Michael Vorrasi

Advanced Member
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Michael Vorrasi  Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 4:26pm
Ted, the account that I recall reading as most trustworthy in my opinion, follows the red line in your diagram, however farther to starboard. The hit was placed just in front of the fwd. tube and it sheered off the starboard side of the boat including the starboard engine with it. So the red line would pass roughly through the 20mm mount on that same vector. The only issue though, is that a hit that far forward leaves the forward water tight compartment open, so maybe it was a similar vector line, but hitting just aft of the forward bulkhead line, maybe at mid point on the fwd tube. The reason I favor that red vector (but more to stbd). is simply that I think more of the crew would have been crushed or killed on any of the other lines in the diagram.

Mike

Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am | IP Logged

  Will Day

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Will Day   Send Email To Will Day Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 5:57pm
Gawd, at least there are no color arguments in this latest rendition of the epic

Will

Total Posts: 1904 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP Logged

  David Waples

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of David Waples  Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 7:16pm
Quote:


I have a hard time believing Dr. Ballard would state that. It goes against the official account of the incident. But I don't have his book, can anyone verify his saying that or is this more pure bilge?





You should because at least in his own book he doesn't say that. In his book, Collision with History, The Search for John F. Kennedy's PT-109, Dr. Ballard started the expedition under the assumption that the boat was cut in two as that's the official record. It's also the recollection of the crew. THEY WERE THERE.

In Dr. Ballard's book he doesn't get to the point where they find the boat until the very end. To cut to the chase Dr. Ballard's team found an object using sophisticated sonar, rectangular in shape measuring approximately 23 x 40 feet. Keep in mind these are sonar images. Richard Keresey arrived and reviewed the material as well. They found exposed what they believe is a USN torpedo tube like that used on PT-109. Richard Keresey arrived and reviewed the material as well and believed it to be a torpedo tube like he used on PT-105. The evidence was reviewed by a Navy board and it was determined it was a PT Boat and based on the documented evidence of every USN PT decided it was probably PT-109.

I re-read the material and Dr. Ballard does not say anything about the hull being complete. He thinks the stern half is intact and buried. They have no idea where the bow section went because after interviewing one of the natives who investigated what was believed to be the bow section it turned out to be a Japanese vessel. Dr. Ballard drew the conclusion that the bow section just went down somewhere else.

Decide for yourself but there is no firm evidence that this boat was PT-109. There is a high likelihood that it is based on official documents and interviews with those who were there.

Why Garth started this rant on his Facebook page is a mystery to me. If anyone has some documented proof that Dr. Ballard said the entire hull was intact and never cut into two pieces, please point it out to me because I can't find it. If you can prove it I'll be the first to say I was wrong. For now I put a lot more stock in Dr. Ballard, Mr. Keresey, and the official record than the rants of a frustrated author.

Jerry, you'll be pleased to know that Dr. Ballard didn't draw any conclusions about the color of PT-109. I take your ribbing in good fun because I probably deserve it. :-)

Dave

David Waples

Total Posts: 1608 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP Logged

  TED WALTHER

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of TED WALTHER   Send Email To TED WALTHER Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 8:23pm
Gent's:
I just enlarged the original writing I labeled the tracks of approach with on my PT compass rose with. check it out.
Take care,
TED

P.S. look up his original 1961 diagram at the JFK library website.

Total Posts: 2893 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP Logged

Jeff D

Moderator
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Jeff D   Send Email To Jeff D Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 3:45am
OK WHO THE HELL OPENED UP THE 109 CAN OF WORMS AGAIN??? Oh wait...

Thanks guys, and thanks David for researching the book. I now know less than I thought I did. I'll guess we'll never really know what the explosion and 3 heavy engines knocking around did to the aft section.

I was going to add what's the definition of 1 piece but decided not to.

To go with Ted's nice drawing, here's the locations of the forward water tight bulkheads:





Total Posts: 1882 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP Logged

  TED WALTHER

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of TED WALTHER   Send Email To TED WALTHER Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 7:36am
Jeff;
Thanks! you reinforced my statement, All forward watertight bulkheads were ruptured. The RED line on my diagram is the line drawn by JFK in 1961. That is 015 degrees. So again, how did the forward hull float for so long?
Take care,
TED


Total Posts: 2893 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP Logged

Jeff D

Moderator
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Jeff D   Send Email To Jeff D Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 12:06pm
You're welcome Ted. The very forwardmost chamber must have been somewhat intact at least. Who knows what radial damage was done to it even if it didn't take a hit. And I'm not even guessing at exactly where the hit took place... or how much of her bottom was left. Maybe one day we'll have the tech to at least see the shape of what the worms haven't eaten.

Garth found his reference on youtube and gracefully shared it:

For Will Day, David Waples, Jeff D. .............
Look here: from 5:40 (4:00) on .... he said it is intact! Damn it all, I'm NOT the f*cking idiot and ass you take me for David and Jeff!


I watched the video, the only remote reference to its being whole was a CG of a half buried boat in the sand which Ballard probably had nothing to do with. Then a shot of Ballard in a boat pointing at the water and saying "we now know PT 109 is right here!" or similar. No reference to its being whole whatsoever. Here's a screenshot of the cgi:



A link to the video, it's under 6 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElI451TxsTg

He also mentioned a reference:
Additionally, see the comments related to that video:
woodenmajor
2 years ago
the two vessels did not "collide" ,the IJN destroyer skipper SPOTTED the PT 109 (a much smaller craft ) and INTENTIONALLY ran it over ,this was a fairly commonplace tactic against enemy submarines and smaller craft ,especially at night ,when it might be very difficult to find it again . essentially ,the lookouts(and skipper) of PT 109 were caught napping and run over by a ship they should have spotted first ,given its much ,much larger size and the frothy white bow wave as it approached .


Sigh.



Total Posts: 1882 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP Logged

alross2

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of alross2   Send Email To alross2 Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 2:55pm
I watched and listened to that video three times. Ballard makes absolutely no comment about the boat being intact or in pieces.

Al Ross


Total Posts: 904 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | IP Logged

  Jerry Gilmartin

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Jerry Gilmartin   Send Email To Jerry Gilmartin Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 3:01pm
Ok as much as I despise this subject, I must add my 2c. Ted, in your diagram showing the 3 tracks, all of them seem to imply that the destroyer cut the boat in half in exactly along a laser-straight line. This concept seems too convenient to follow real life. The bow of the Amagiri was pretty sharp, but I would be willing to bet it was at least as wide as 4 inches on the very front. Now imagine cutting your small boat in half by swinging a 2x4 board. Yes it will get the job done, but I doubt the result will be in a straight line as shown in the drawing. Why is this important? The entry and exit points of the cut could be in radically different spots thus leaving the forward bulkheads intact to enable the bow to float. I can imagine the hull of the 109 sort of 'wrapping around" the front of the Amagiri before it finally pushed through making an extremely jagged slice with not much left to determine exact entry and exit points. Again just something to consider. I also favor the blue line compared tot he red line, knowing that JFK drew the red line and he was there, but then again it was night and whether he based this line on the resulting cut or did he base it on the glance he may or may not have had momentarily at the time of the collision, we will never know.

Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR

Total Posts: 1230 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm | IP Logged

  TED WALTHER

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of TED WALTHER   Send Email To TED WALTHER Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 6:10pm
I have always liked how with all this new CGI technology the representation for a PT Boat still has the Lindberg battery covers on it.:0)

Jeff ; That is a quote in from another website correct? WOW!

Jerry;
Sorry, the lines are a reference only, I am not suggesting a laser cut. I am also with you, as I lead to above, I am questioning JFK's drawing, which providing that the bow floated for 24+ hours(upright for 6 hours before capsizing), his diagram makes no Naval Architectural sense to me. UNLESS the blue line(or something in this vicinity) was the true path of approach, then 3-4 damaged, but still functional water tight bulkheads could still sustain the section floating for so long.

But you did hit the nail on the head "Why is it so important"? It's not, I was just trying to keep in form with Al's excellent title: "Pure Bilge",
I was stirring the Bilge Water!!
Take care,
TED
P.S. Don't you remember I have a red flag next to my name on the Washichek OPS board. It's not there for nothing



Total Posts: 2893 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP Logged

Prev Page | Next Page

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


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