| Author |
Topic: PT 38 1944 1945 |
|
 |
TED WALTHER |
TOP BOSS
|
  
 Posted on: Dec 27, 2015 - 8:34pm
|
All;
After watching They Were Expendable for the umptheenth time tonight,
I am convinced they used PT 38 for the Beach Burn/destruction of 34, the refloat of 34 and the haul away of PT 41.
PT 38 is the only one we have no idea what happened and it makes sense , she was used "up" for the movie. until we can find anything new, I think we should say PT 38 was destroyed during this movie.
Take care,
TED
|
Total Posts: 3018 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
Michael Vorrasi
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Dec 28, 2015 - 10:33am
|
Negative on PT-38 being destroyed in They Were Expendable. I got the book on the filming. They were mock-ups. The 41 boat on the trailer was a port side and stern facade only. It was hollow framework on the other side. Same on the 34 boat burning. Mock-ups, not real boats. (Do you realize the red tape involved in destroying an actual naval vessel to film a private enterprise movie?!!) Hollywood was pretty good at special effects even back then!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786495006?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00
BTW, if you love the movie, get the book!
Mike |
Total Posts: 72 | Joined:
Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am | IP
Logged
|
|
Will Day
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Dec 28, 2015 - 3:58pm
|
I found some of the captioning in "Behind the Scenes" to be a little suspect.
Will |
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
| |
TED WALTHER |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Dec 29, 2015 - 10:02am
|
Mike;
After being in the Navy for 30 years I know about the red tape, but this was a different time, the Navy already knew they were going to get rid of the 77' boats, either by auction or destruction. They were not PT's anymore, they had been redesignated small boats.
The Navy ended up burning ex-PT 39 in 1946-1947, at Solomons Island, Maryland because they could not sell it.
ex-PT 38 is the only one we have no record of so far. Heck, until the photo at Melville surfaced a few years ago, we never even knew she was shipped back from Tulagi. There was no documents stating this. Chip Marshall has researched all the 77' ELCO's, there is even a final structural inspection documents for All remaining 77'ELCO's in RON 3(2) at Tulagi dated in spring 1944, that states all 77' boats material condition, and each boat is listed with all structural deficiencies, with recommended dispositions. However, in actuality, if they did decide to use up Ex-PT 38 for the movie, it would only have taken 4-5 typed pages and a few signatures. Just like those planes the AAF signed over for movies.
Another thing to consider is the Navy went all out for this movie to be made, even having RON 41 send all 12 boats with U.S.S. Brontes(APG 17) to the Washington Navy Yard just for the premier of the movie.
I admit I have not seen this book, but, unless, that book has actual photos of them building the "shell", I am somewhat sceptical.
Take care,
TED
|
Total Posts: 3018 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
bubbletop409
MASTER
|
Posted on: Dec 29, 2015 - 8:38pm
|
I just finished reading the making of TWE and agree with Ted's theory on the 38 boat being used in the movie.
While Mike V is correct that a mock up was used for the final scene of the 41 on a trailer on it's way to Lake Lanau, I found a picture in the book showing what I believe to be a 77' Elco, moored in board of an 80' Elco on location.
The spray rail on the boat in question is neither from an 80' Elco, nor from one of the Huckins used in the back ground scenes.
The scenes where the 34 is pulled from the reef, being re-launched, and finally strafed and burned are ALL of a 77' Elco hull with a modified deck arrangement to resemble the two 80' footers being used in most of the action scenes.
If MGM were going to build a floating real life mock up of the 34, why a different boat than the 41 mock up?
Larry
62 Bel-Air
260 Eagle EXP
79 Cole TR-2 |
Total Posts: 164 | Joined:
Apr 22, 2013 - 11:48pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Michael Vorrasi
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Dec 30, 2015 - 9:09am
|
Hi Ted and Larry,
I went crazy looking for my copy of the book last night, then I realized I brought it to my vacation house. I'll have my paws on it this weekend. The text discussed the 41 on the trailer being a mockup of just port side and stern. In fact, if I am remembering correctly, one of the actors or film crew was injured tripping off of it due to the open frame work, so it was clearly discussed.
Now, the beached 34 boat is a different kettle of fish indeed. I agree it is a 77 footer, mocked up to look like an 80, perhaps for film visual continuity. Initial explosions and fire are pyrotechnics, but I don't believe the actual boat, possibly the 38, under that disguise was destroyed. After a big cloud of explosion and smoke we next see a submerged deck wreckage with a 77 footer's deck house (maybe a spare) and some torpedo tube mockups sitting on top in the flames. I think they filmed a studio wrecked deck mockup with the deck house on it for that scene.
Otherwise, they would have filmed the actual boat going under. I would have if I was the director. Don't forget, TWE won an Oscar for special effects, so those guys were pretty savvy about filming wizardry. The fact that we can now freeze frame each scene was not something the audience could do in 1945!
Mike |
Total Posts: 72 | Joined:
Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am | IP
Logged
|
|
|
|
bubbletop409
MASTER
|
Posted on: Dec 30, 2015 - 12:28pm
|
Mike
I agree that we could be deceived into believing the boat on the beach was indeed destroyed with special effects, while it did survive?
How ever the other two scenes I mentioned were indeed a full size 77' Elco, being pulled from the reef, and being launched after repairs from reefing. They had even fractured some of the planking on the port stern of the hull in the reef shot to portray the damage.
When you retrieve your copy of the book, the picture I mentioned is about half way through. I have the kindle version, so I am not sure of the exact page. The outboard hull is definitely an 80 footer, the inboard hull's spray rail is much closer to the waters surface than either an 80' Elco or those homely Huckins.
So here's my conclusion, there was at least one real 77 footer involved in the film dressed to resemble an 80 footer. Since so much rebuilding of the hull was done to imitate an 80 footer it was probably an empty shell of a hull, and of no further use to the US Navy. I think the final scene does in fact show the end of the 38 boat.
Larry
62 Bel-Air
260 Eagle EXP
79 Cole TR-2 |
Total Posts: 164 | Joined:
Apr 22, 2013 - 11:48pm | IP
Logged
|
|
| |
TED WALTHER |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Dec 30, 2015 - 8:56pm
|
Dick;
Understand all. But, I got to keep shaking the trees about this until something concrete about PT 38 turns up.
Take care.
TED
|
Total Posts: 3018 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
29navy
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Dec 31, 2015 - 7:09am
|
Here's the pictures from the "Behind the scenes" book on the PT Boat mock-up:
Charlie |
Total Posts: 588 | Joined:
Dec 28, 2006 - 3:02pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|
