| Author |
Topic: PT-109 information |
|
John V
Full Member
|
  
Posted on: Sep 6, 2011 - 3:01am
|
Thanks Dick. All kidding aside this is one of the most informative boards I have ever seen. Already I have enough information needed to finish my OOB project and plans for a more complex build. Not only is the information here great but your LINKS to other helpful sights amazes me. Thanks again and sorry if I in any way opened up any "old wounds".---John
|
Total Posts: 45 | Joined:
Sep 4, 2011 - 7:19am | IP
Logged
|
|
TED WALTHER
TOP BOSS
|
 Posted on: Sep 6, 2011 - 8:27am
|
David;
Yes Mr. Iles is still with us, I am working on sending him a list of his crew on PT 48, which I think went with him to PT 125 after RON 6 "loaned" the 125 to RON 3, to replace 48 which was damaged and sent back to Tulagi.
Take care,
TED
|
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined:
Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am | IP
Logged
|
|
Allan
MASTER
|
Posted on: Sep 6, 2011 - 4:42pm
|
All Hands:
I found T Garth's reference to the boats moving under cover of darkness in the war zone and while using their navigational lights to be a bit confounding and then found Frank's response to be reasonable, but....... then I remembered a document that I discovered while doing my research for my book on Div 17 and T.G. 50.1. I have located it and I think it "enlightening", to say the least.
T. Garth: HEADS UP !!
In an Operational Order issued to Rons 32 and 37 by Lt. C.W. Faulkner (Ron 37) on 19 Dec 1944 he states that, while underway and relocating from Tulagi to Treasury:
"4. Use navigation and stern lights when underway until daylight."
Later in that document he orders that all guns "should be manned and ready". It seems to me that at least the sixteen boats moving within this group were using their lights (okay, not their mast lights) while in enemy waters. A "thinking man" would find this odd, perhaps nonsensical. But there it is- an order from a well respected and seasoned Ron commander.
I just wanted to put this out there because I have seen much supposition and I have come to have a great appreciation and an unshakable preference for factual and verifiable information. That is what is going to make my book interesting- and that is what is taking me so d----d long to get her done. Four hundred pages of facts, and counting!
Please, please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended. It's all good!
Allan
|
Total Posts: 161 | Joined:
Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm | IP
Logged
|
|
David Waples
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Sep 6, 2011 - 7:30pm
|
Hi Ted,
That is great news. I hope he's doing well.
Alan, that is excellent information. Just goes to show that you can never assume anything. Red on port, green on starboard, and white on the flagstaff (at least for earlier Elco's). It makes sense, otherwise on very dark nights these boats could be banging into each other.
Dave
David Waples |
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined:
Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm | IP
Logged
|
|
29navy
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Sep 7, 2011 - 4:50am
|
But maybe the key here is the phrase: "while underway and relocating from Tulagi to Treasury:"
If they were relocating and not "on patrol", not expecting enemy action, but still having the guns manned in case something pops up, that would make some sense.
Actually on patrol looking for the enemy and action, then, no, they wouldn't use lights since stealth was the only thing they had going for them.
Charlie |
Total Posts: 600 | Joined:
Dec 28, 2006 - 3:02pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Jeff D
Moderator
|
Posted on: Sep 7, 2011 - 10:08am
|
Allan, thanks for sharing your research. Those three lights would make the boat visibly lit all the way around. One interesting bit is that the navigation light switch on the bridge control panel was a dimmer switch.
The mast light was also known as the anchor light which seems to provide a clue into how it was used. It would be a good overall light while anchored / docked in a secure area. It doesn't make sense to use it during any night operation since it probably killed night vision beyond its limited lighting range. The same maybe with the bow light. All this is guesswork of course, I hope you dig up more reports that explain official light doctrine Allan.
I agree Charlie. Any lights on at night would be highly visible and make this unlikely:
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pt/doctrine/part1.htm#pg11
CHAPTER 4. ATTACK DOCTRINE
Night and Low Visibility Torpedo Attacks
1401. The effectiveness of an attack under these conditions depends primarily on approaching the enemy to close ranges undetected, where a reasonably accurate estimate may be made of his rate and direction of movement.
I hope some veterans can (cough)shed some light(cough) on us regarding use of the various lights. It's one thing to know official doctrine, and another to know if experience taught you guys another way.
|
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined:
Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP
Logged
|
|
CJ Willis
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Sep 7, 2011 - 4:31pm
|
The date of the operational order by Mr. Faulkner was dated Dec. 19, 1944. I can tell you that things were pretty secure from Tulagi to Treasury at that time. There had not been any enemy activity in that area of the Solomons for probably 6 months or more. If they had been running up around Rabaul (New Britain and New Ireland) at that time they sure would not have been running with any lights .Enemy float planes were still operating out of Rabaul.
C. J. Willis |
Total Posts: 464 | Joined:
Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Allan
MASTER
|
Posted on: Sep 7, 2011 - 7:24pm
|
All good points. But lets review: the light at the top of the mast was an anchor light. Anchor lights are standard around the world- a 360 degree light, clear in color, and used to denote that the vessel is at anchor. This is a part of small boat handling doctrine. And when a small boat is at anchor, the anchor light is the only light to be shown.
Now, I think a certain point has been missed here. In my opinion, the mere fact that Mr. Faulkner had to tell the CO's to use the navigational lights indicates that it was an unusual move to take. For sure, he weighed the safety of moving the boats with and without lighting them during the relocation against what appears to have been a limited chance of encountering enemy activity during that move (taking CJ's comments into account here).
I think the original discussing surrounded potential use of navigational lights under some, perhaps unusual, circumstances while operating in the combat area. In light of Mr. Faulkner's order, to say that it was never done would not be accurate, in my view, as evidenced by Mr. Faulkner's order. It really is just that simple.
It pleases me to be able to produce a document that changes a mere supposition to a fact.
Allan
|
Total Posts: 161 | Joined:
Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm | IP
Logged
|
|
 |
Jerry Gilmartin |
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Sep 7, 2011 - 11:00pm
|
Hey Allen,
Good points to be sure, However, it appears that your decision hinges on your defintion of "Combat Areas" From Tulagi to Treasury at the time of Faulkners order in December 1944 was pretty much a backwater, very far removed from actual "Combat Areas".Just as CJ said. Remember, we invaded the Phillipines in Fall of 1944? I think there was about as much enemy activity between Tulagi and Treasury as there was in the Hawaiian Sea Frontier at that time in the war. This would be far different from the waters off Guadalcanal and Rendova in April 1943 when JFK reported aboard PT109. So having an Anchor Light on in a true Combat Area in my opinion was indeed "Never done". Faulkners order is not about a Combat Area, and therefore does not apply to this situation. I love the discussions we have on this board! And Garth is not crazy. Enjoy! Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin |
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Will Day
TOP BOSS
|
Posted on: Sep 7, 2011 - 11:46pm
|
Right on, Jerry. I know I wouldn't have had running lights on if I had been patroling the Slot in '43!
Will |
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined:
Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|
