PT Boat Forum


Moderated by: Dick, Jeff D

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

Next Page | Page: 1 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?)
alross2

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of alross2   Send Email To alross2 Posted on: Aug 19, 2014 - 4:31pm
If you read the latest IPMS journal or go to PTBOATWORLD, you'll see a review of the revised Schnellboot in Action monograph. The review is pure bilge, The writer would have you believe it is essentially the same as the original and that one would be better off finding a copy of the original rather than buying this one.

While retaining the familiar format of the In Action series, the revised Schnellboot monograph, written and illustrated by Dave Krakow, is substantially different from, and a marked improvement over, the original multi-author work published in 2003. The revised edition contains 22 more pages and over 40 additional photographs (a few of which are in color). The text is more concise and the substantive errors of the original have been corrected. Four new color profiles have been added.

The original work contained only two general arrangement drawings (an S 38 with kalotte and an S 100), the other classes being represented only by a profile drawing. The revised edition includes general arrangement (top and side view) drawings for all of the classes, as well as beautifully-executed detailed drawings of the torpedo tubes, G7a torpedo, Drehkranz mount for the bow 20mm, perspectives of the 20mm Flak 38 and 37mm Flak M42, radar and radio antenna mountings on the kalotte, and the RZA 5 torpedo sight.

It's definitely a nice addition to any collection of works on small combatants.

Al Ross



Total Posts: 908 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | 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: Aug 20, 2014 - 1:57am
So you can debunk the claim that this book is just a scaled up re-pop of the original book? Sir, please contact LT at your EARLIEST POSSIBLE convenience.



Total Posts: 1926 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | 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: Aug 20, 2014 - 5:24pm
Thanks, Al.

Will

Total Posts: 1920 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP Logged

Michael Vorrasi

Advanced Member
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Michael Vorrasi  Posted on: Aug 23, 2014 - 8:14am
Having both the old and new editions, I can vouch for everything that Al has indicated. The new version is larger and much improved.

Mike

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

Frank Andruss

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Frank Andruss   Send Email To Frank Andruss Posted on: Aug 23, 2014 - 8:54am
Who did the original work and why is it so bad. I have not seen it, so I do not know what Author did it.


Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am | 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: Aug 23, 2014 - 10:47am
The original 2003 work was co-authored by Connelly and Krakow. It isn't a bad monograph and is probably one of the better titles in Squadron's naval line, which is due primarily to Dave Krakow's efforts, despite Connelly's self-proclamations that he is the LEAD AUTHOR.

The primary substantive error in the original is that it describes the S 151- 158 boats as being a British Power Boat Company design, which they were not. Rather, they were a Lurssen design, which is very obvious from the photos included. There are a few other items, but it is still a useful work.

The problem lies not with the original monograph but with the review of the current revision. It clearly misrepresents what the new monograph contains.

Al Ross


Total Posts: 908 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm | 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 1, 2014 - 9:54am
Al, I recently read a post by the same author that may be equally suspect:

You know, often, in the PT community ... I am often criticized for many of my stances on PT-109 - whether or not she was green, had a mast, had one or two depth charges on her foredeck, and especially because I say that Ballard was wrong when he said, with conviction, that the 109 went down in one piece.

Well, apparently, the family of a sailor named R.W. Marney who was lost went down, sold some of his effects at an auction in Boston for $200,000. Part of the collection were some letters from JFK concerning the man's death.

Kennedy's own words contradict Ballard and shore up my opinion in that she was split in two by the IJN AMAGIRI. When will some people (and some of you know who I'm referring to) stop and realize that I know what the Hell I talk about! It just pisses me off!

These are Kennedy's own words!

Your son rode the PT 109 with me on the night of August 12 when a Japanese destroyer, travelling at a high speed cut us in two, as we turned into him for a shot

When the crew was finally united around the floating bow, we could find no trace of him, although every effort was made to find him. I am terribly sorry that cannot be of more help or encouragement to you.


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?



Total Posts: 1926 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP Logged

Drew Cook

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Drew Cook  Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 1:56pm
Jeff,

I think the Ballard claim of "being in one piece" was based on revisionist thinking/historythat the boat was "run over and mangled" by the Amagiri, (the mangled stern lying below the surface) and not "cut (completely) in two."

There's a beautifully-done painting of the incident in Ballard's book "Collision With History - The Search for John F. Kennedy's PT 109" (even though it shows the boat with its mast up) which illustrates this "run over and mangled" stance quite clearly.

Don't know where this thinking originated, other than perhaps the very, very sharp angle JFK drew of the collision on his Senate stationary back in the late '50's, which doesn't seem to illustrate a straight crash through the starboard twin-.50 turret and behind the cockpit, cutting the boat in two seperate pieces, of which the stern, weighted by the engines, sank. That sketch would seem to lend more belief to the "run over and mangled" theory.

Apparently, although I haven't read it, the new book "Into The Dark Water" by Mr. Domalgalski supposedly states the boat WAS cut completely in two, so...?

This revisionist stuff seems to go back and forth. Who knows? It may be a case of "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." My two cents always thought the boat was cut in two and the stern went down.


Total Posts: 1266 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am | 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 - 1:59pm
Al, Jeff, and anyone else who has an opinion on "Pure Bilge". Jeff after reading what you highlighted, I want to know who is questioning whether or not the PT 109 was cut in two??
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a single object is cut isn't the end result two pieces? This is certainly what I learned in Mrs. Pellegrini's 1st grade art class, Ahhh! I remember as if it were yesterday..... a nice sunny 1969 September morning in Scudder Ave Elementary School at Copiague, Long Island, N.Y.I picked up a piece of green construction paper, took a pair of those blunt kid scissors and I began to slowly cut, and before long to my utter surprise....SHAZAAM! I had two pieces, one in my left hand and one on the small desk I sat at. This same principle was to be repeated time and time again over the years, then it was reinforced when my family moved to the Eastern Shore of Virginia in Mr. Garlick's High School Geometry class. When you cut a single object, it is cut in two.


a PT Boat superimposed on a compass rose to illustrate some generalized angles that have been written. The only one I have issue with is actually JFK's Drawing, even though he was there, wouldn't this angle have ruptured all forward bulkheads? Now with this in mind, if this angle is correct, With almost the entire starboard side of the bow gone, how would it remain upright for over 6 hours, then even after capsizing, how did the bow float for more than 24 hours? even if there was an air bubble formed it would not have lasted that long.

other terms used in print are misleading, such as "cut in half", this is being used as a "generalized" term, meaning two pieces, that are not necessarily meant as 50-50

All that aside, use any one of the colored arrows, and you have a boat cut in two!
TAKE CARE,
TED
P.S. Now I hope this helps to lesson the confusion, but if it doesn't, the for god's sake don't pay any attention to those Japanese reports from the Amagri crew that say PT 109 was painted in the Adapter Camo Scheme!!!


Total Posts: 2906 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP Logged

  Frank Andruss

TOP BOSS
  

    
Post a Reply To This Topic    Reply With Quotes     Edit Message     View Profile of Frank Andruss   Send Email To Frank Andruss Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 2:43pm
I find it hard to believe that the boat was actually cut in half, simply because of the contact with the Japanese Can. That type of force would likely cause a more blunt type of accident, or crushing type of accident. With that being said, there is no doubt the cut in two theory would have to have been caused by the explosion of the gas tanks, which would have pretty much finished the act of the boat being cut in two where the Destroyer began. We know that the stern sank ( where are the engines by the way Mr. Ballard) simply because of the sheer weight of three Packard Engines. Force of the Can hitting the deck would no doubt have crushed and split the decking with ease, but the heavy beams and the type of construction for the Elco boat would have taken this impact. I have been hit on the starboard side of my 24 foot boat back in 1987,by a runaway jet ski doing at least 30 knots (estimated by the Coast Guard) and it was again a massive blunt force hit that actually drove the boat at least 15 feet across the water. The boat did not sink, but was crushed and pretty much totaled

I understand that we are talking apples and oranges here, but in talking with Gerard Zinser many years ago, he claimed that when he came to the surface the boat was a pretty good distance away and burning. Although I do not argue that the boat was in two pieces in the end, I do not think it was caused mainly by the hit of the Destroyer, just my own thought here.


Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am | IP Logged

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