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: PT 109 What was left after the crash?
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=2470

Okay, I heve seen the movie, read the book, read At Close Quarters, etc...today I watch the National Geographic special about the search for the 109 and while I voved the visuals of the Solomons and the interviews...I'm left with a question. Did the foredeck remain afloat like shown in the movie? Did the destroyer actually cut her in two or did the aft stern sink when the gas tanks exploded? Just womdering/

Posted By: Jeff Sherry | Posted on: Feb 4, 2012 - 4:29pm
Total Posts: 84 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:04pm

Ok, sorry folks. Looks like I used my elbows to post that last one. Sorry for the typos.

Posted By: Jeff Sherry | Posted on: Feb 4, 2012 - 4:32pm
Total Posts: 84 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:04pm

Reg Evans the coast watcher reported what may have been the hulk of PT-109 floating in the water. Being as how they made the boats, I would bet the bow may have floated for sometime before going under. Reports claim the 109 was not sliced in two, but hit a glancing blow, just forward of the starboard gun turret, and continuing on towards the dayroom . Friction/sparks caused the gasoline under the dayroom to ignite, thus causing an explosion. Weight of the three engines, caused the aft section to break away from the stern, and I would suggest sunk pretty quickly. I understand there are action reports, and first hand accounts, which do vary.

In my many conversations with Motor Mac, Gerard Zinser, he claimed that they hung onto the bow for several hours, before swimming to Plum Pudding Island. In the movie, we see the bow turn over, but Zinser could not remember this happening, and in fact said the fires from the boat burned out very quickly, probably caused by the wake of the destroyer passing through ( his words, not mine) and dispersing the gasoline on the water. He also claimed never to notice or see the bow go under, as they were pretty much concerned with getting out of the water as fast as they could. Zinser, when I asked him also thought that the engines sunk the stern almost immediately, and that the 37mm on the stern had broken loose and sunk. He did not remember if their were depth charges still attached to the bow, but they did use the planks for the 37mm gun to make their swim.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Feb 4, 2012 - 5:43pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Jeff, Go back two pages to Franks topic of" PT 109 Painting" there you will find a little gem of an after action report from the files of the Kennedy Library with what appears to be LT Jg Kennedys signature at the top left corner.

Enjoy.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Feb 6, 2012 - 1:47am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Hi David,
I looked at that cursive writing you mention in the top left corner of the "after action report", and I do not think that is John F Kennedy's signature. It appears to be a routing mark, likely put there by one of the Squadron administrative staff, to ensure the document was routed to JFK's attention after it was typed. I have compared this "\LTjg Kennedy" with the bona fide signature of JFK on the Foreward of the "At close Quarters" book, and the two signatures dont resemble each other even remotely. Look at both of them anddecide what you think? Jerry

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Jerry%20Gilmartin/AtCloseQtrsforewardpg2JFKsignature.jpg[/image]

Jerry Gilmartin

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Feb 6, 2012 - 2:24pm
Total Posts: 1473 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm

I agree Jerry, JFK's real signature is hard to decypher. The action report signature is too clear.

Here's some reports of the incident including the full report (listed as C) of the snippet I posted:

(A) Copy of ComMTB Rendova action report of 1-2 August 1943.
(B) Copy of ComMTB Rendova action report of 7-8 August 1943.
(C) Copy of Intelligence Officers' Memo to ComMTB Flot One of 22 August 1943.

[url]http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-11.htm[/url]

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Feb 6, 2012 - 3:41pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

My personal guess is that the overturned hulk of the 109 probably slowly settled as it drifted south down Blackett Straight, and then sank to the bottom of Ferguson Passage where it joined Blackett Straight, after being hung up on part of a reef south of Naru (aka Gross, aka Cross) Island for a while.

That's exactly what Austrailian Coastwatcher Reg Evans radioed to "KEN," the coastwatcher control on Guadalcanal, from his perch on Kolombangara.

Evans radioed KEN at 0940 on the morning of August 5th, 1943, the fourth day after the ramming: "...object now in Ferguson Passage drifting south...position half mile se (south east) Gross Is..." A couple of hours later, Evans radioed "Now certain object is forepart of small vessel ...now on reef south Gross Island."

Later still that day, Evans messaged "Hulk still on reef but expect will move with tonight's tide..."

I think the hulk of the 109 then sank after it moved off the reef "south of Gross Is" with the tide and current -- if what Evans had been observing all along had been the overturned PT 109.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Feb 6, 2012 - 3:51pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Hi Jerry,thanks for clearing that up I do not have a copy of JFKs signature so it was good of you to post one to be able to conpare.

I also think that the 109 will one day be found at the bottom of Ferguson passage close to Cross/Gross/Naru/Nauru island (pick one same island many names!!).

This because Evans 5th Aug. signals first put the hull afloat half a mile SE Cross Is. then on the reef South Cross Is.

Then Kennedy and Ross arrive on Cross Is. on the 6th. Aug. clear the Is. for Japs find the Jap supplies and the Jap vessel one mile east on a reef but do not see anything SE of the Isl, were Evans has put the 109.

A clear indication that Evans was right and she has at least been moved by the tides overnight.

So thereby opening another can of worms until someone with enough willpower and backing goes looking for the 109 again.(As I do not think Ballard has found the major section of the hull in Blackett Strait)

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Feb 6, 2012 - 11:32pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

I felt all along that PT-109 was never really located. I still think her engines, at 2,950 lbs each, should be in the general location of the crash. These were never found, and for that matter the guns, radio, and other metal objects were never located. I think at this point to find the hull would be next to impossible as any wood properties would have long ago been subjected to the Sea. Not to start a debate again, but I think Ballard's claims are subjected to doubt, in my mind. I did not see enough evidence to prove this at all. A rusted few photographs of what looks like a tube, and mind you, looks like, does not prove anything. Show me the engines, with some nomenclature and I will then get excited. I tend to believe what first hand accounts were related to me by crewmen Gerard Zinser, my friend..............

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Feb 7, 2012 - 1:44am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Hi Guys;
Well if we took the book, the movie, and the Zinser report, the hull was cut from the front of the starboard .50 cal gun tub to somewhere in the vicinty of the front port corner portion of the dayroom. This angle of approach would definitely rupture the port fuel tank for sure, and most likely, probably the centerline also.
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Feb 7, 2012 - 5:51pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Hmm, on were the major portion of the hull may be (take this with a pinch of salt guys!)

JOKE

Fred sees Barry at night looking for something on the ground ,
Fred walkes over to Barry and says can I help you look
Barry says that would be great I just lost a $100.00 dollar diamond
Fred helps Barry look for a while and after covering a fair area without succes Fred asks Barry were did you lose it
Barry replies over there in the dark patch
Fred asks "then why are we looking here"?
Barry answers "the lights better over here"
Fred "**&&%%$###@" AND WALKS OFF

And this brings into perspective Roger Ballards statement in his book Collision With History "It is to hard to search Ferguson passage so we will concentrate our search in Blackett Straight which is like a mill pond compared to Ferguson.

Ballard got lucky and found what the experts agree is a Torpedo tube from the PT 109 But as Frank has asked were are the other large items of the boat.

It was also put forward in Ballards book that the 109 would have been dragged down soon after the men left her due to the weight onboard but if she was shedding items such as her torpedo tubes (one of which may be Ballards find) she may have remained afloat a lot longer than the experts have allowed.

Over to you Frank ,Jeff and Dick what is your take on this, sorry I did not mean to exclude you Jerry, my mistake.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Feb 7, 2012 - 6:43pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

I was also dissapointed in the National Geographic Special-didn't really find anything. Great visuals and talking to the 105's skipper and he natives but no actual positive confirmation was a let down.

Posted By: Jeff Sherry | Posted on: Feb 12, 2012 - 4:32pm
Total Posts: 84 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:04pm

I have the Ballard book at home, Frank and I were just talking about this the other day. Ballard was in Chattanooga for a seminar at the Tennessee Aquarium and on the radio for a couple of hours. He talked Titanic to PT-109 and more. I'll crack that book open again and post anything I see in there.

________________________
USCG Aux AUXCHEF
I am a proud Army Strong Dad who has a deep appreciation for all who serve and have served our country.

Posted By: whitakermk | Posted on: Feb 20, 2012 - 5:50am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Gentleman,

In my humble opinion I do not think the boat was sliced in two. I think the boat was struck at a very narrow angle to the centerline, leaving the bulk of the stern attached to the boat. Two reasons for this thought was McMahon"s description of what he observed just before going in the water. I am still mystified how McMahon stayed with the boat so long, and avoided the Amagiri's screws, riding the starboard engine. The second reason was the sharp angle of the floating bow section, which the crew had difficulty staying aboard. It is possible that two if not all three engines remained with the hull.

All speculation, but if Amagiri merely took off the starboard side of the boat a great deal of the boat would remain intact yet the aft end would sink due to loss of integrity in the tank compartment, engine room and lazerette. The debris field (such as it could be with such a small craft) would be indistinguishable. Limited to a torpedo tube and maybe one engine.

Bill

Bill Smallshaw

Posted By: smallwi | Posted on: Feb 20, 2012 - 10:27am
Total Posts: 134 | Joined: Jun 21, 2007 - 3:02pm

It seems to me that the existing conventional wisdom, for many years after the event, had the boat being completely cut in two, with the stern, heavy with the three engines, sinking, and the bow remaining afloat.

Recent, revisionist history seems to have the Amagiri running over the boat at a very sharp angle along and over the starboard side, mangling it and causing the stern to flood and submerge under the surface -- perhaps cleaving away a part of the starboard quarter section of the stern, maybe even possibly the starboard engine -- but not cutting the boat completely in two.

It's anyone's guess which is correct. Reading interviews with the surviving crew and various written descriptions of the event can be interpreted to make the case for either scenario.

As an aside, Robert J. Donovan, who conducted extensive interviews with the surviving crew in researching and writing his book "PT 109 - John F. Kennedy in World War II," has motor mac McMahon "...climbing over machinery...when a tremendous jolt flung him sideways against the starboard bulkhead and toppled him into a sitting position alongside an auxiliary generator," so -- he wasn't riding the tractor seat atop the starboard engine at all at the time of the collision (and probably wasn't even looking at the engine annunciators when JFK threw the throttles forward in the cockpit).

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Feb 20, 2012 - 7:15pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Here's a thougth about the idea of the 109 being cut in two.

If we look at the collision as cutting across the centre of the boat the 'normal' thing is that as the boat is struck the two sections of the hull tend to be driven down at the point of inpact and up at its outer points.

If this happened in the case of the 109 then it can be seen that there is the possiblity that there would have been a far greater loss of life among the crew as there would have more of them thrown towards the point of inpact i.e.against the destroyers side as she went through the boat.

If we look at the collision as cutting through the boat at a sharp angle and taking the starboard side off the boat the action of the inpact tends to throw the crew over the port side of the boat, allowing for more of the crew to survive as they are being thrown away from the point of inpact.

As always there are exceptions to this rule but as there were a large number of the crew to survive then it tends to show that the side inpact story could be the one that is right in this case.

Just my thougths though.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Feb 21, 2012 - 1:59am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

I have posted this letter from a PT Boater that I interviewed thought it should be included on the message board.

[image]http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt215/BattleshipCove/pt109.jpg[/image]

Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Feb 21, 2012 - 12:11pm
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am

I am posting this letter from a PT Boater that I interview years ago. I had to delete the first version it had to much of his personal information and I do not have his okay to share it publicly.

[image]http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt215/BattleshipCove/pt109sharedversion.jpg[/image]

Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Feb 21, 2012 - 12:29pm
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am

Hmm!, A bit inconclusive to say the least,aside from the fact that there were two PT Boats 117,164 attacked by the Japs strriped and disposed of and remain in Rendova Lagoon to this day, James needs to I.D. himself at least to the rank and reason for being at Rendova in 1944.

Also one has to ask how long the 109 would have lasted bobbing around in the solomons for nearly a year, with the cyclone season turning anything on the surface and free to be sent were ever the seas would send it into crap very quickly.

As there were I belive quite a lot of other servicemen at Rendova with a number of them P T Boat men one would think something like the 109s hull on a beach at Rendova would have been quite an attraction and many of them would have visited the wreck with I am sure many a story told of the visit and as we have here on the board plenty of photos to show around, but this is the first we hear of it?

Makes me think that it is the remains of either 117 or 164 and some wag may have painted 109 on it to display to the new guys as a bit of fun, just as service men do all over the world! ( And I think James got suckered in just as was intended by his new mates! )

Any photos James?

They sure would help.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Feb 22, 2012 - 12:55am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Evans the Coast Watcher reported seeing the hulk floating South in Ferguson Passage, about one half mile from Gross Island. The next day I think Evans confirmed it was a wreck, and on August 5th, US planes had reported a wreck, but was not worth wasting ammo..... I would have thought the rising tides, and currents would have carried the hulk out where she would have sunk. Although these reports exist, Evans nor anyone else got close enough to the wreck to ever confirm it was PT-109 that they were seeing....................... I tend to doubt that James saw PT-109, one year after the sinking on shore.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Feb 22, 2012 - 1:52am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

"James" may have seen what was left of the 117 (the forepart?), or another PT, up on the beach at Rendova.

No way would it have been the 109, or even part of it.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Feb 23, 2012 - 12:19pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

I was at Rendova the first time about Nov 2nd 1943 aboard the 235 enroute to Vella La Vella from Tulagi. We stayed overnight and watched an air raid on Munda air field across the bay. No bombs were dropped on us however. The remains of the PT Boats were on the beach there close to the dock where we tied up. I was aboard 242 at Rendova for about a month in January and February 1944 while half of our crew went on operational leave to New Zealand. (My name was not drawn out of the hat). My half of the crew stayed with the boat and scrapped and repainted the bottom also mounted two additional twin 50's on the bow of 242 for more gun to fight barges. The boat remains were there then also.

C. J. Willis

Posted By: CJ Willis | Posted on: Feb 23, 2012 - 3:21pm
Total Posts: 464 | Joined: Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm