|
|
Gary Paulsen
MASTER
|
  
 Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 6:21am
|
The picture Charlie just posted is in Early ELCO PT Boats book also and describes the 68 boat as being built with 2 torpedo tubes and 8 depth charges. Hope this helps.
Gary |
Total Posts: 249 | Joined:
Feb 14, 2009 - 6:31am | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 6:23am
|
And, in the photo from Charlie; ...
68 with two tubes and what appears to be four depth charges. In the photo that Mr. Ross shared - the unknown boat had four tubes ...
Leading me to think, that the boat that the gentleman scolded me on is, in fact, the 68.
Garth
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 6:50am
|
This certainly seems to show PT-68 with Depth Charges, although the photo is very early and Stateside. This could have changed before she was even shipped out, as I noticed the early smoke generator on the stern. Tough to say, as PT-66 which may have had 4 torpedo tubes, might have had two removed. This was not uncommon, as Navy specs changed, with the boats taken to Fyfe's for needed changes. And the plot thickens...................
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 7:21am
|
As I am to understand ...
The reason for having the tube/depth charges configuration was because of the shortage of either the tubes or of the torpedoes, so if there was a shortage, why would a boat revert back to a 4 tube configuration?
If the boats were being shipped (in the early war days) because the Navy NEEDED them in combat - why would they waste the time and hold up shipment to put 2 tubes on a group of boats? Wouldn't they ship them as is?
Or, am I being too logical?
I think that the boat that Alex and I think is the 68 and that the boat with four tubes is the 66.
Additionally? Bob Farrell did a drawing of the 68 (available from PTBI) and the scheme he drew on the boat is the same one we see in the photo of the boat that I say is the 68 ...
So, we have Alex and I (through research for a modeling project) and me (being scolded by a former crewman of the 68) who believe it is the 68, we have a PHOTO of the 68 in a configuration which supports my claim, and the photo of the 66 shows depth charges on the foredeck, whereas the boat I say is the 68 does not - WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED by another photo (taken on a tanker) of the 68 which shows NO depth charges on her foredeck ...
So, it MUST be that it is, in fact, the 68.
Garth
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Frank J Andruss Sr
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 9:18am
|
I am finding out that many changes were made at Fyfe's Shipyard, where they added tubes, took them off and added Depth charges. Many changes were made there, as I have seen boats come out of Elco with one configuration, but in a different configuration once in the War Zone. I understand changes were also made in Panama, as well as in Miami. It seems to me that the evidence does support your claim, although I am still not 100% certain, only because of the changes made to the boats, once they left Elco. For now, the project will go on as PT-68 and not PT-66 as I have originally wanted to do............
|
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined:
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am | IP
Logged
|
|
Will Day
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 10:44am
|
I think you are right on to do it as the 68 boat.
Will |
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TED WALTHER
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 12:14pm
|
Alex;
that is a really nice photo of PT 68 and PT 143, where did you find it?
Take care,
TED
|
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
Alex Johnson
Advanced Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 1:42pm
|
Hi Ted - the photo is in Victor Chun's book. ALEX
|
Total Posts: 70 | Joined:
Mar 2, 2007 - 12:07pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 2:00pm
|
Hear is an attempt to extract a little more detail from the printed photo, tough when it is already broken into dots.
On the forward face of the cabin is a number that I tried to pull out the best I could. A good guess would be the number 68.
Like Alex's photo of the 68 you can also see the old style tripod used for the forward machine gun directly in front of the cabin and partially blocked by another elbow.
Frank, I think the 68 is a good call also.
Dick . . .
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Nov 15, 2011 - 2:49pm
|
And, not only does it has the tripods and no depth charges ... but - I just noticed something in Dick's enlargement ...
The man standing on the deck stiffener by the cockpit, behind the man's knee ... you can see a painted eight ball - right where I saw one in a photo that I think is seen on Gene Kirkland's site of the 68 ....
Garth
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
|
