The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi

ť Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf

ť Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102

ť Topic: Construction
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=1081

I received an E Mail from a gentlemen today, which was very interesting. I will give it to you in his words ( not mine ) so we can discuss.

" Frank, A historical note for your reference. ELCO PT Boats were not the best MTB's of WWII. On a scale of speed, range, firepower, physical endurance, and rough weather survivability, they rate below many of the other MTB's. Higgins boats were used by the Brits and Norwegians, Russia because of their rugged construction and toughness. The Russian's never used any ELCO boats because they were not up to their standards. When the Italians came over to our side, they only wanted British MTB's because the PT's were considered too flimsy.

This is a historical fact Frank. PT Boats were good when they did not exceed their limits.

OK, boys who wans to fire the first shot.......................

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 20, 2008 - 12:39pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Well, as a Higgins fan, I would agree with most of that! ( I gotta take any chance to promote some friendly Higgins superiority!)

I don't know as much about the Pacific as I do the Med, but reading the accounts and seeing the PT's (again, Higgins) that survived:

- Torpedo hits (that didn't explode, of course)
- Ramming E-Boats
- Point-blank shootouts with F-lighters
- Storms that anchored other boats and ships

And, when something was damaged...a new rib here, new planking there and - bam - you're back in business.

As for the flimsy comment...purely inflammatory. Anybody hear of boats just falling apart?

And, as far as the "limits" comment...I can't even begin to count the times a PT has gone faster, farther and harder than it should be able to and it still brought the crew back.

The PT did have its shortcomings. Best MTBs of WWII? Debateable. At the bottom of the list? HA! Not even close...

Grandson of James J Stanton
RON 15 PT 209 and RON 23 PT 243
Check out: www.pistolpackinmama.net

Posted By: newsnerd99 | Posted on: Nov 20, 2008 - 2:03pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

My Boat, PT 302 a Higgins Boat , was not as comfortable as the Elco for crews' quarters. However, we could turn a little tighter than an Elco. Damage was easily repaired and put us quickly back into factory fresh condition.

Hey, PT 302 did its job as far as I am concerened. I am here to tell you about it. Those sharp turns helped us sink a couple of German ships that did not turn quite as sharp as we did.

As far as being sea worthy, don't forget the Tiatnic was unsinkable.

Arthur Frongello QM 3c , Ron 22

Posted By: Arthur Frongello | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 6:16am
Total Posts: 33 | Joined: Nov 7, 2006 - 4:49am

The question is about as valid as asking what is the best car on the road today. As a veteran of heavy action in the Pacific, I've seen some spectacular accomplishments by Elcos and Higgins. Repair? Rate the base crew, not the boat. Our boat, the Elco 167, was destroyrd "beyond repair" twice. We were always operating with one arm in a sling, but the crew, the engines and the guns were always in top shape. I would say the question is moot, to say the least.

Posted By: BobPic | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 10:25am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

I too am a Higgins fan, having ridden P.T. 242 for 13 months in the Solomons. I never rode an Elco but they were supposed to be drier in rough seas. We were on patrol many times with Elcos running along side in rough weather and their crew looked to be about as wet as we were. All I know is we plowed through many storms and never cracked a rib on the boat. 242 was tough and it seemed we were never out of commission for patrol duty. Our crew made over 85 of them.

C. J. Willis

Posted By: CJ Willis | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 11:21am
Total Posts: 464 | Joined: Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm

Bob

Firat and foremost, welcome to our message board. It is refreshing to see someone else who actually served on the boats. Your comments are very interesting and I appreciate your imput. You can contact me anytime off this board at mosquitofleet@comcast.net I would love to talk with you.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 11:22am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Well Frank,

This seems kind of strange about the Russians never using the 80' Elco. If this is true why were 80 footers from Ron's 29, 34 and 35 Transferred to the USSR in late 44 and early 45. And what about all those 80 footers that were transferred to Russia during and after the war from Elco as either whole boats or as kits. Russia also received Higgins PT's during and after the war as well as Vospers made by American companies. Which I might ad were also made for Britain. In fact I remember reading some place that the first batch of US made Vospers for Britain were some what faster than origionally designed.

The British received Elco 70 and 77 footers as Lend Lease earlier in the war and as I recall reading in "Early Elco PT Boats" the British crews serving on these craft were very loyal and worked hard to keep their damaged boats in service for fear of being transferred to another MTB type. The British were also using Higgins PT's transferred under Lend Lease to them during the war and the British transferred these boats to the Italians who used these craft well into the 60's.

Wayne Traxel

Posted By: Wayne Traxel | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 1:20pm
Total Posts: 248 | Joined: Oct 11, 2006 - 5:40am

Well said Wayne, when 59 80' Elcos were transferred to the Russians, I don't know how someone can say they never used them.
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 1:56pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

I believe that everyone will be loyal to the boat upon which they served. My Elco 80' was well worn when I came aboard. The needed engine replacements were made six or seven months later. Nevertheless the old boat did what was necessary. When at cruising speed it was nimble enough to "bend" around floating logs when we spotted one almost too near to miss. The engines were replaced at Mios Woendi. That greatly increased her top speed. After I was relieved, the boat went on to the Philippines and served well there. It was among the many that were burned after the war ended. As reported in At Close Quarters, many of the boats had structural damage before the end of the war, but they were still performing their job.

Posted By: QM | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 2:12pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

I think the answers I have recieved on this subject were the ones I knew I would. Each Sailor ( like QM had said ) were partial to the boats they served on. Each one gave credit to the other, but each thought their boat was better for one reason or another. Both the Elco and the Higgins boats were very well built wooden craft, each capable of performing thier assigned duties.

In retrospect, the PT Boats of WWII were high tec for the time. They provided a platform that fired torpedoes, and could protect itself against threats from the air, land, and sea. The operated in Coastal waters, and proved they could take the punishment of a turbulant Ocean. This was a true testiment to the construction of these speedy boats. Many of these boats found their way into the Russian Navy, who by the way, knew very little about PT Boats. How they could make statements about the boat not being up to their standards is beyond me. In closing, there will always be pro's and con's to the PT Boats, but what they accomplished during WWII can never be underestimated.................

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 21, 2008 - 10:50pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am