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


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


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


» Topic: Loading Ammo Belts for .50-cal
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=1435



Can anyone tell me the sequence for the loading of the different rounds into the .50-cal. machinegun ammo belts? I can remember my father running through the sequence as if he was doing it in his sleep but I do not remember the sequence. I'm somewhat certain that the fourth round was tracer, so: armor piercing, incendiary, ball, tracer seems to me to be his sequence. Did it really matter, as long as each type of round duplicated itself every fourth cartrdge? -- Allan



Posted By: Allan | Posted on: Jul 24, 2009 - 7:42pm
Total Posts: 161 | Joined: Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm



On our boat, PT 167, it was optional and depended on the situation. Usually there was a default sequence approved by the skipper, but we changed patterns at times. One rule was that you couldn't insert tracers more often than every four bullets because it would overheat the barrel. We often did it anyway since we loaded our own belts. Sometimes not all types were available and we adjusted the pattern. No one felt there was an inviolate rule. It was sort of shooters choice.



Posted By: BobPic | Posted on: Jul 25, 2009 - 7:09am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Hello Allen

I think the sequence for loading the 50 caliber rounds were:

1. Ball
2. Armor Piercing
3. Tracer
4. Incendiary

Also, the 50 caliber gun was the M2 Aircraft type that had the shorter barrel and perforated jacket. This was a lighter gun and actually had a higher rate of fire. I think that was the sequence, but maybe I am wrong...........



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Jul 25, 2009 - 7:10am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am



We tried to get all our 50 cal. ammo already belted from the base armory. We had clips and a squeezer to belt it aboard but that was a slow process with the equipment we had. It took a while to belt up 250 rounds. Every fourth round was a tracer.

C. J. Willis

Posted By: CJ Willis | Posted on: Jul 25, 2009 - 9:21am
Total Posts: 464 | Joined: Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm



Here's the "official" specs early in the war. Curiously, different type boats have different specs.

Judging by what BobPic said, some recommended loads would overheat the barrels so I'd bet later doctrine manuals had different specs. I'd also bet that most crews figured out what was best and didn't always follow doctrine, again like BobPic said.

Motor Torpedo Boats, Tactical Orders and Doctrine, July 1942
[url]http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pt/doctrine/part1.htm[/url]

MILITARY CHARACTERISTICS

1107
(1) PT 20 type-PTs 20-68 (Elco Boatworks). Length 77 feet; beam 20 feet; maximum draft 5 feet; displacement 95,000 pounds.
.50-caliber:
Allowance-10,000 rounds per gun.
Carried on board-1,000 rounds per gun belted (ratio one Tr. to two A. P.) in four 250-round magazines per gun.

(2) PT 71 type-PTs 71-94 (Higgins Industries). Length 78 feet; beam ____ feet; maximum draft _____; displacement _____ pounds.
.50-caliber:
Allowance-10,000 rounds per gun.
Carried on board-1,000 rounds per gun belted (ratio one Tr. to two A. P.) in four 250-round magazines per gun.

(3) PT 95 type-PTs 95-102 (Huckins Yacht Corp.) length 80 feet; beam ____ feet; maximum draft ____ feet; displacement ____ pounds.
.50-caliber:
Allowance-10,000 rounds per gun.
Carried on board-1,000 rounds per gun belted (ratio one Tr. to one A. P.) in four 250-round magazines per gun.

(4) PT 103 type-PTs 103-196 (Elco Boat Works). Length 80 feet 3 inches; beam 20 feet 10 3/4 inches; max. draft 5 feet 3/4 inch; displacement 100,000 pounds.
.50-caliber:
Allowance-10,000 rounds per gun.
Carried on board-1,000 rounds per gun belted (ratio one Tr. to one A. P.) in four 250-round magazines per gun.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Jul 25, 2009 - 11:51am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



On my gun I never thought the tracers made any difference in the barrels overheating. You had to fire in bursts of about 5 seconds and then let off. If you fired continuous the barrels would get red hot. I have seen them actually sag in the middle between the supports. We had one bow gunner who we could never train to fire in bursts. He would just lay down on the triggers until he shot the whole 250 round belts. He ruined the barrels every time he fired. I will admit it is hard to lay off when the tracers are coming back your way.
C. J. Willis

Posted By: CJ Willis | Posted on: Jul 25, 2009 - 1:57pm
Total Posts: 464 | Joined: Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm



Thanks Guys- very interesting and very helpful. Apparently the Division 17 boats did not have access to ammo belts pre-loaded and had to accept the reloading of the belts as part of the daily work of getting the boats ready for the coming night's patorl. As if they didn't have enough to do. Just fueling the boats through a chamois into a three-gallon pail and then dumping that into the tank took most of the day for a couple of fellows. In that neck-of-the-woods in early 1943 they really didn't have much of anything. -- Allan



Posted By: Allan | Posted on: Jul 25, 2009 - 9:35pm
Total Posts: 161 | Joined: Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm



Dayum CJ, that's hot. Sounds like they weren't too far from having a bullet go through their sides. The aircraft versions of the M2 used on PT boats were really meant to be moving through the air a lot faster I guess.

Allen, that sounds like a bummer job, spending all day with open containers of high octane gas and sucking down the fumes. I bet they kept the smokers far away.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Jul 26, 2009 - 2:08pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Jeff D.:

Fueling was such a problem that Lt. Comdr. Frank Munroe, captain of the tender Hilo, complained to his command about the rediculously dangerous and labor-intensive procedures that put everyone at risk. Two PTs and a couple of Australian vessels were lost at Advance Base Tufi due to poor fueling procedures that resulted in a major fire. Also lost in that fire was most of the gasoline storage, depth charges, etc. The fire burned for two days because there was no means of extinguishing it. Just more of what Div 17 boats had to contend with- and at that point things were actually improving !! But spending your day after a night of patrolling and strafing shorelines in search of return fire reloading ammo belts and refueling the boats while suffering from the pounding headaches of malaria and dysentary while eating only a poor vitamin deficient diet of Spam and hard buiscuts or tinned Australian meat of some unidentified kind in the 90 plus degrees and wanting more than anything else just a little sleep. They had it a bit rough. Getting shot at was the least of their worries, it seems.

Allan



Posted By: Allan | Posted on: Jul 27, 2009 - 7:37pm
Total Posts: 161 | Joined: Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm



Allan: You hit the fueling fiasco directly on the head. We feared fire more than Japs. Crew who were not necessary at the feuling dock generally tried to find an excuse to be absent. Other work demanded that some stay through the long refeuling. Your description of the chow situation was also as though you were there. But most of us kids didn't know better, we just thought it was a war and that was the way war was. I am proud that I was part of it, but do not plan to go back.



Posted By: BobPic | Posted on: Jul 28, 2009 - 5:28am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



The fuelng situation was bad when we were based at Vella La Vella and Treasury. It improved at Green because we fueled at a dock at the end of the air strip. The fuel was kept in tanks and not barrels, piped down to the dock and was much cleaner. I have described on here previously the fueling at Vella La Vella where the boat crews had to help with unloading the drums from the delivering L.C. T.'s. Wrestling 55 gallon drums filled with 100 octane in waist deep water is no easy chore. The fueling situation at Vella La Vella did result in a fire on December 14, 1943 which completly burned the base and all of our Ron 19 supplies as well as P.T. 239 which was at the small dock refueling. We also lost two base force men in the fire.

C. J. Willis

Posted By: CJ Willis | Posted on: Jul 28, 2009 - 10:10am
Total Posts: 464 | Joined: Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm



Bob, CJ, Etc:

You fellas all have much to be proud of- you served in a way that few were asked to. No- I wasn't there, but I have interviewed several of the Div 17 guys. I have put together almost 300 pages of information and am still going strong. I hope that I can publish this sometime so that all may enjoy it. I have some personal diary stuff, boat logs, action reports, war diary and personal recollections. My father never talked about it until he was about 75- then he never stopped and I recorded him. Lots of material, not everything has checked out exactly as he described but it was his best recollection. What I have found from many of the Div 17 guys was that most of the patrol stories have all kind of run together into one large story. But what has actually been very rewarding is when I find an official reference to what is being described by one or more of the fellas. Then I can put dates on it and provide the detail necessary to actually tell the story as a single event. That doesn't happen often, but when it does- Oh, Boy !! Very satisfying. It's all coming together- I have entries for every day that Div 17 existed- puting it together in kind of a "diary" form. No other wat to handle all the bits and pieces of information. After "At Close Quarters" was written, so much stuff and official douments were destroyed- what a shame, actually. But I have found some good stuff that Capt. Bulkley either didn't find or didn't bother with Translation: He didn't destroy it, either.

I work on it every night!! It's become my "fun".

The Best to all you "Originals".

Allan (2nd Gen PT 113, Ron 5, 2, 6, Div 17, 8)



Posted By: Allan | Posted on: Jul 28, 2009 - 7:09pm
Total Posts: 161 | Joined: Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm



Allan, not wanting to get off topic, but you mention "Div 17".
Were Div 17 and Ron 17 different entities?

I saw where in Curtis Nelson's book "Hunters in the Shadows" he described the formation of Division 17 as "Squadron Two at Quadalcanal detached two boats for this expanded area of operations. Newly arriving Squadron 6 provided 4 more. Together they created Division 17..."

I've always been somewhat confused between what was Division 17 versus Ron 17.

I'm sure someone out there can set me straight on this.

thanks

Wayne



Posted By: Wayne Bauer | Posted on: Jul 30, 2009 - 9:24am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Ron:

Division 17 was made up in the States in August of 1942. The commanders took two boats from Ron 2 (PTs 113 and 114) and four boats from Ron 6 (PTs 119, 120, 121 and 122) and designated that as Div 17. They were the only boats that they felt they could spare from the action in the Solomons and still make some kind of effort at keeping the Japanese from making any progress through New Guinea and onto mainland Australia. It was felt that it would be much better both militarily and politically to make the stand on the island of N.G.

Div 17 was sent in there with little preparation, little support and little expectation of success. It is a story in itself- and I'm working on that!

Allan



Posted By: Allan | Posted on: Jul 30, 2009 - 1:51pm
Total Posts: 161 | Joined: Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm



Sorry- I meant "Wayne". Apologies all around !!



Posted By: Allan | Posted on: Jul 30, 2009 - 1:53pm
Total Posts: 161 | Joined: Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm



Hey guys back to the 50 caliber loading sequence, I spoke to several of the PT vets at the PT 658 group and a couple said they did not like to use tracers at all since it was a shining beacon for them to shoot back at. These 2 particular vets were both in New Guinea on PT Boats, and they preferred to use NO TRACERS. I can see their logic. Just another point of view since Bob and CJ and QM were also on the front lines and know their policy on their boats. Most of their missions were at night and I can see how using tracer ammo could give your enemy a frame of reference for shooting back right at you. Just a thought...Jerry

Jerry Gilmartin

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Jul 30, 2009 - 10:16pm
Total Posts: 1469 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm



We were constantly aware of the danger of giving the enemy our position by opening fire first. However, the blaze from the gun muzzles was a much brighter and more precise positioning than tracers. Without tracers there was no way of telling where your bullets were going, especially when more than one source was active. I served as 50 cal gunner as a backup assignment and can not imagine aiming by just pointing the guns in the general direction of the enemy. Shooting at planes compounded the picture. There would be no splashes or other indication of where your shots were going. Our policy was to have a trusty tracer bullet at LEAST every four shells and we often sneaked a fer in between, especially at the front end of the belt. No tracers? For us that would mean no hits!



Posted By: BobPic | Posted on: Jul 31, 2009 - 5:40am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



...also..
The tracer material was situated inside a depression or hole in the tail end of the bullet. It was very visible to the gunner immediately behind it. But we were shot at many times and I remember the gun flashes vividly but can't remember ever seeing tracers incoming.



Posted By: BobPic | Posted on: Jul 31, 2009 - 6:47am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Bob; I am like you, I don't know how you would know where you were shooting without tracers. I do recall very well tracers coming our way from barges. I remember hunkering up in my turret to make the least possible target. Those incoming tracers looked like they were coming right at you then would ver off at the end. Some did hit the boat but we were fortunate that none hit any our crew.

C. J. Willis

Posted By: CJ Willis | Posted on: Jul 31, 2009 - 7:49am
Total Posts: 464 | Joined: Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm



Thanks guys, your stories are invaluable and give me a small insight of what the war in the Pacific was like. Thank you for coming here and sharing with us your time over there.

What a waste with the fuel fires, I'm amazed there weren't more after reading what sometimes went into refueling. It's a good thing PT hulls weren't sparkable steel.

Bob, I had this pic from a 1942 cartridge manual that illustrates your description:

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/cartridge1942_10_M1_Tracer_Sized.jpg[/image]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Aug 1, 2009 - 12:18pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



A little off the subject, but wasn't it Joe Burke who actually boarded a Jap barge during a firefight just like in the old pirate movies?

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 1, 2009 - 2:31pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm