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: Sort of review of Merit PT Boat in 1/48
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=3586



Finescale Modeler did a video review this week of the Merit 1/48 late war PT Boat. Notice that they backed off from the 596 boat number that Italeri made. Looking at the review I would say that they probably had an Italeri kit they referenced as the design of many parts are similar, but they did make it their own in many ways. For example unlike the Italeri kit the chines are molded into the hull. I can't tell if they molded in the characteristic curves in the top of the hull. The torpedoes don't seem to have the plates in the warhead. I thought the parts were molded a little softly. The chines don't look very sharp. cables on cabins and straps for the smoke generator are examples However as the reviewers pointed out the guns are quite good. Although there's something really strange going on at the end of the .50 cal barrels. Something they did that I liked was providing a large assortment of individual hull numbers.

Tracy, I know you have one. Would love to see some feedback from you as well. Anyway, give it a look at the following link or go to Finescale Modeler web site and the latest video review from their video menu.

It's not for me but I'm not seeing anything that would cause me to tell people to run away. Give it a look.

Dave
[url]http://finescale.com/en/Videos/New%20Product%20Rundown/2014/06/NPRD%20Ep%2040.aspx[/url]



David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Jun 11, 2014 - 7:21pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



I made a few observations on the kit on SteelNavy.

Al Ross



Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Jun 11, 2014 - 7:24pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm




Here is a direct link to Al's comments on the Merit 80' kit, the link also has an additional link to photos Al has posted on his Photobucket page showing some nice shots of PT 588.

[url]http://members.boardhost.com/Warship/msg/1402536581.html[/url]

Dick . . .





Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Jun 12, 2014 - 11:30am
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm



I got the Merit kit. Not a direct pantograph of Italieri's 1/35 kit, but there is no doubt that Italieri's kit was the main, if not the only, research vehicle for producing it. All the little issues with Italieri's kit are present in exacting duplication. Still a nice kit, and a more manageable size. Big enough to go crazy but not so big that putting it somewhere becomes a major issue. I fully agree with Al's observations in his review. I think putting some S curve in the sheer line might be easier in this scale than in 1/35th.

Mike

Posted By: Michael Vorrasi | Posted on: Jun 12, 2014 - 12:22pm
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am



Michael,
Be sure to share your work with us. Have fun with it!
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Jun 12, 2014 - 8:15pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



It's been a busy couple of weeks, and I didn't truly have the kit until this last weekend - I parked it at the local hobby shop before that for others to look over.

So far engineering and fit has been pretty good. Couple of minor gripes (.50 cal gun tubs have locating pins at the top of the structure where they're easier to see even with the guns in place).

Deck doesn't have the gentle S to it as has been noted, but I think it has more camber to it than the Italeri kit.

Also, Al, since Steelnavy posts aren't permanent, would you mind if we re-posted your review here?

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Jun 13, 2014 - 11:43am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Meaningless descriptions such as “Late Type” aside, it appears that the Merit kit is supposed to depict a 565-624 series 80’ ELCO. Overall, the kit compares reasonably well to the original ELCO drawings, but contains a number of rather curious errors that could be addressed to make it a more accurate model.
Some of the more obvious problems include:

a.) The kit hull has a straight sheer; the real boat had a subtle S curve.
b.) The kit deck has a raised lip simulating the margin plank around its perimeter; on the real boat the margin plank‚s top was flush with the top of the decking.
c.) The side windows on the chart house are too far above the deck.
d.) The day cabin roof has a non-existent cable run along its centerline.  This does not appear on the ELCO drawings nor photos of boats in the series.  In the accompanying photo of the 588 boat, it‚s clear this is just a line laying on top of the roof.
e.) On the kit, the antenna trunk on the port side of the cockpit is round; on the real boat, it is rectangular.
f.) The fins on the kit torpedoes are angular at both ends; on the actual MK13s. they are radiused on the leading edge.
g.) The box top art is full of errors and has no value as a reference.
h.) The kit‚s painting guide supposedly shows Measure 31/20L, but the colors are wrong.  The real pattern used two greens (Green 2, Green 3) and black on vertical surfaces, Deck Green (20-G) on horizontal surfaces.

For what it‚s worth, errors a through e are also on the 1/35 Italeri PT 596 kit.  

Photographs of the 588 boat at the ELCO plant prior to being placed in service that illustrate some of these observations can be found here:
[url]http://s73.photobucket.com/user/alross2/library/PT588?sort=3&page=1[/url]

If Merit produces a Higgins or 77‚ ELCO at this level of detail and relative accuracy, I‚d certainly get one.

Al Ross


Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Jun 13, 2014 - 1:54pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm



Dick, what happened to the rest of my post??

Al



Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Jun 13, 2014 - 2:03pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm




Al . . .

It has been repaired. The web doesn't understand most word-processing formatting. HTML coding doesn’t understand the “tab” commands and just deletes everything after the first tab - and that is what happened. Anyone coping text from word processor should NOT use the tab command, replace it with a space in its place. Some web boards will simply replace the tab with a space, unfortunately this one doesn’t.

Dick . . .




Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Jun 14, 2014 - 9:38am
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm



Roger, that. Thanks.

Al



Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Jun 14, 2014 - 10:26am
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm



I finally got a chance to put eyes on the Merit 1/48 PT kit at IPMS this year. As I looked at it what caught my eye right away was the edge decking. It's exactly the same as the Italeri kit to a fault. The most obvious part being at the stern. They even duplicated the round screw covers from the Italeri kit. The reason that's amusing is that the Merit deck does not screw to the hull. Others have pointed out other duplications.

That said I would not say it's a bad kit. It looks like it would build up very nice. But for those who say it's not a copy of the Italeri kit, guess again. Let your conscience be your guide.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Aug 10, 2014 - 9:12pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



That's funny David. Even the screw bosses eh... [:-cool-:]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Aug 11, 2014 - 5:58am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



For what it's worth, Garth was told by Merit that it was not a copy of the Italeri kit because Merit was told by the designer that they hadn't copied the Italeri kit.

Obviously, they know otherwise now

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 11, 2014 - 9:10am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Just curious I know it is very easy to obtain 1:35 figures, almost impossible to find Navy figures in 1:72. I wonder how easy it will be to obtain figures in 1:48, should you wish to make a Diorama................



Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Aug 11, 2014 - 12:24pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am



Only more difficult I'm afraid Frank. 1/48 is mostly aircraft models with the exception of some armor. You may be able to convert some figures such as Africa Corp. They had a bunch of half naked troops running around there too. Maybe Merit will release some figures too.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Aug 11, 2014 - 7:29pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



Merit is hoping to, but there's a lot going on, from what I understand, and it's not going to be soon (probably about the same time as the next PT boat release, would be my guess). I've seen Merit release separate detail sets (1/350th pre-painted aircraft is the first that comes to mind) so I'm pretty sure they're interested.

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Aug 12, 2014 - 1:27pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



b.) The kit deck has a raised lip simulating the margin plank around its perimeter; on the real boat the margin plank‚s top was flush with the top of the decking.

Was that a feature discontinued right before 596? I was just looking over photos of the 588 boat trying to properly locate the dingy on the day cabin (instructions are vague and there's no positive location marks or pins) and noticed that there is a thin raised strip around the perimeter of most of that boat. Merit's isn't 100% correct compared to 588, but there is definitely a raised piece of some sort, clear as day.

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 10, 2014 - 8:00pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Tracy,
I reckon I can see it on 596. I have seen another photo of an unidentified late boat with the raised lip and rivets.

Best Regards,
Stu.






Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Sep 11, 2014 - 8:29am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am



According to a drawing for the plywood decked boats 577-624 the covering board stuck up a bit farther than the plywood decking (although both are 9/16) and was held down with carriage type bolts. I'd guess a few repaintings would make the seam less obvious (thanks to Dick Washichek for the drawing):

EDIT: the covering board is 11/16" on all boats, the same as the 2 layers of deck planks. So it sticks up about 1/8" on plywood decked boats.

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/PT577_624_Deck_Edge_Detail.jpg[/image]

Some other notes on the drawings:
[green]Glue & screw 5/16 plywood doublers to deck under all bitts, cleats, and around hatches.
Covering board planed flush with deck to take all doublers.[/green]

Drawings for the other plywood decked boats PT 486 & 498-545 show a similar construction.

It looks like the Italeri 596 kit had it somewhat right, not the Merit kit which is an obvious ripoff of it.



Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 11, 2014 - 8:46am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



I am not sure if there is any difference in Kits ( probably not ) but I was on Ebay the other night and I saw not only the Merit Kit but the Trumpeter Kit as well. Does anyone know if this is just the same Kit stamped with the Trumpeter name.



Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Sep 11, 2014 - 3:25pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am



First off, I want to say that I'm not here to start fights. I have exchanged correspondence with Al, David, I think Jeff and also Garth. I consider all of you more experts in these boats than I. Where you disagree, I generally just shrug and let the water flow on - I don't care to research every point and come up with my own truth. I've been in enough fights. When I read that this raised detail was wrong, I just accepted it because the experts said so and I'm happy to take people I trust and enjoy conversing with at their word.

This was just something I noticed when trying to figure out where the *#$%@ the day cabin dingy should go. BOTH kits have aspects of this wrong, and both kits have so let's not play favorites here. Regardless of the politics of either kit, if a detail is incorrect it should be honestly noted for others to fix it IF THEY CARE. I don't care enough to scratch build a new dingy and mount, so you know where I'm coming from in this case.

It looks like the Italeri 596 kit had it somewhat right, not the Merit kit which is an obvious ripoff of it.

Both kits have inaccuracies with this covering board. I fail to see, however, how Italeri can have it somewhat right and Merit not, if they did copy it. Was this a statement I'm miss-understanding?

The most obvious part being at the stern. They even duplicated the round screw covers from the Italeri kit. The reason that's amusing is that the Merit deck does not screw to the hull.



Rounded corners were present on PT-588 at least. Both appear to have the shapes wrong, for those that care to fix it. It appears to me that the aft cover plate was wider than depicted (by a couple of inches), the rounded portion should be a little further forward, and the cleat itself had a wide mounting flange.



The extra, wide cover here (port side, about 2/3 back) is much too small on both kits. The lower part is cut off as that's where the photo ended. Note that it is either a separate piece covering the main covering board, or the covering board in this area is much more substantial. Both kits have a small piece that mainly covers the area directly under the cleat itself and are short lengthwise by a carriage bolt or two and should extend further inboard.

We can see in both of these photos that the covering board does appear to stand proud of the deck on the inboard and outboard edges. Both kits depict this, but both kits have some minor shape issues that in actuality are easier to fix than sanding the whole thing off.

Back to the Day cabin dingy, as I've alluded to that a couple of times. I believe this was done in CAD by eyeball and not official drawings. Check out the overhangs on both the bow and starboard (Keeping in mind the boat is flipped, the side closest to the camera is the starboard side). If any of you can get these and the mounting rails in the kits to line up to the photo you're a better builder than I.



Note that these mounting rails differ significantly than what the kit parts supply. Note that the straps DO NOT line up with these rails on the real subject whereas they do on both kits. Doing this right would probably involve locating plans and scratch building the entire thing from scratch. Eh, I'll pass doing that on this kit.

Side question - anyone know if the paint on the day cabin windows was part of a temporary application of some sort, or were they just doing this as a standard late war? Starboard side is nearly identical with the exception of the forward window where the ladder to the hatch is.

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 11, 2014 - 4:35pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Hi Tracy,
Excellent research as we've come to expect from you. The raised boards on the perimeter of the late boats are well known. They're visible in Victor's first book which has several nice shots of late model PT's. I must admit that I had forgotten about the pads for the cleats on the stern which Italeri uses to hide the screws used to secure the deck to the hull. Your photos capture that very well.

I do still believe that the designers of this kit in China had the Italeri kit when they designed theirs. There are features which are duplicated in the Merit offering such as the cabling across the top of the day cabin and the forward starboard window on the same structure. The photos of the 596 boat don't reflect these features correctly. Wasn't it also curious that Merit announced these kits as the same hull numbers.

Again, I'm not surprised nor am I upset by it. The folks at Trumpeter are not the first to do this. Revell admitted to using another 1/72 Type IXC when they did their U-505 kit. They made the same error the other manufacturer made. So Trumpeter isn't the first or last to copy from other manufacturers products. I for one am not upset by it.

Thanks for sharing your research Tracy.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Sep 11, 2014 - 10:11pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm




I am not sure if there is any difference in Kits ( probably not ) but I was on Ebay the other night and I saw not only the Merit Kit but the Trumpeter Kit as well. Does anyone know if this is just the same Kit stamped with the Trumpeter name.



Frank, I tried to find the kit on ebay you were referring to but couldn't. Trumpeter, Hobby Boss, and Merit International are all joined at the hip. It is very common for Trumpeter to release a kit in one scale and then one of the others to release the same subject in another with modifications of course. It's possible that Trumpeter is releasing this kit in other markets. I've seen that before as well. No doubt they would be the same though.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 5:48am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



Here's a nice contrast shot of deck edging between a late model and earlier model PT Boat.
Dave

 photo 2_zps489f146f.jpg

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 5:55am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



Thanks Dave, I kind of thought so but I needed to hear it from someone else.



Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 6:54am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am



Wow, nice closeups thanks Tracy. The Elco drawings are great but it's good to see photos back them up. Planked deck boats didn't have the higher covering board along the sheer, a detail Italeri didn't pick up on with their 109 kit.

I always wondered about the windows with their square corners. I'll see what I can find in the drawings, I'm not overly familiar with the later boats.

I didn't mean that Merit got it wrong Tracy, how could they? I wanted to point out that Italeri was the one to add this subtle detail to a model and that Merit just copied it. Thanks to a certain review of the Merit kit, there's confusion about the kit being original work that could affect a buyers decision to purchase it. With it now obvious it isn't, maybe the reviewer will change his review. Unless he has some reason to keep the now misleading text.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 6:55am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Per your painted window question Tracy, nothing in the drawings but the build manual at hnsa ([url]http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pt/specs/#pg23[/url]) mentions screens:

[green]SECTION R-7.
AIRPORTS AND WINDOWS.

All ports shall be of special type with improved drain pans and scuppers, except in crew's dayroom and chart house sides which shall be fitted with hinged metal ports with integral black-out shutters and equipped with wire mesh insect screens satisfactory to the Supervisor of Shipbuilding. Eliminate windows from forward side of chart house.[/green]

The drawings show the boats had the normal fairly deep inset round cornered windows. The windows look like they might have painted screens over them to me going by the darker look of the paint.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 8:51am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



I honestly don't think the point of if work was copied or not will make much difference. It's the only plastic PT boat in 1/48th scale - if people want a kit (as opposed to being open to scratch building) it's their only option. The real question is if the amount of work the kit presents more than they want to deal with. For some, if you can't shake it and have a kit come out, it's too much work. Others are more nuanced and varied. So, for some the errors that are noted may make it more work than they want to do, but I don't think they'll care so much about the cause of those errors.

Also, for what it's worth, FSM, MSW, and even this board (unless there's a non-intuitive way I don't know about) don't let you edit posts after they're made.

With regards to the windows... The bottom is what intrigues me. It almost looks like the same effect I get with tape when I have applied it for masking and pressed it down on the various surfaces, but not cut it yet, leaving a slight slope from the raised step down. Light would be better blocked from the inside with some sort of curtain, I would think, but painted or otherwise externally covered windows would cut down on glint, if that was a concern.

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 9:20am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Are you maybe seeing the actual window frame through a screen? It looks like you can see it in this zoom, and it looks like hinges and latches on the frame so the screen could be raised (lowered?):


[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/PT577_624_Window_Screen_Maybe.jpg[/image]


Here's a section through the aft guard and deck doubler, again courtesy of Dick Washichek. The covering board ends at the stern and is overlapped by the doubler. The doubler along the stern is 11 wide and ends 30 to either side of the boat center line:


[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/PT577_624_Deck_Edge_Detail_2.jpg[/image]


As to editing, I'm sure the webmaster could easily update a review and would appreciate it being as accurate as possible.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 12:26pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



I think you might be on to something. Looking at it again, there is a hint of a bevel on the corners, which would explain why the one on the starboard side was rounded and these appear squared - the windows are still rounded, these are just squared off screens that extend further out than the windows and we're seeing some of the vertical surface and step "down" (inboard) to the glass through the screen.

So I guess the question now is... how to replicate this look in 1/35th and 48th?

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 2:11pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Okay, okay, okay, I�ll let all of you in on the secrete way to edit a post. However beware many of you already know and do use this feature regularly, by clicking on the �Edit� icon.

There have been many instances where members have made posts then changed them, fine with me, however some current and past members have edited their post to change the story. Just recently on a typical PT 109 flap, the originator of the post modified his comments and attitude after several members objected to the statement, including myself. Then come the readers after the post is modified / toned down, and the new more recent readers criticize those whom were annoyed and objected to the original post, most of whom did not realize the originator changed his post lo look like a little angel being ganged up on by a bunch of brutes, including myself.

I have no issue with changing, modifying, or correcting errors or to make points more clear. But, when a change is made that make others appear foolish, it is not appreciated.

Below the tutorial image show where to click an icon to edit your post. You can only edit posts made under your user name and password. You can not change other�s posts, nor can you delete a post. You can however simply deleted all the text in a post while editing it and clicking the save button. That message will just appear with a blank, but will show you posted. Also be careful when you type your posts �Title� that can not be edited by you or even me, however I can FTP into the site and make manual changes to system files - very dangerous - so if it is really important the title be changed, let me know. Also, I can and you can�t delete a post, if you need a post you made deleted and have good cause, let me know and I�ll delete it.

See below:

[image]http://ptboatforum.com/PTFimages/Edit-Text.jpg[/image]


Dick . . .





Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 4:43pm
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm



The starboard forward is fixed glass since the ladder would prevent a window from opening. On the early boats at least, it is the same as on the front of the chart house. The frame held the plexiglass against the side of the trunk so unlike the windows it wasn't set in.

That will be tough to duplicate for sure...




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 4:52pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



WHAT? I can't change any of Frank's posts?

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Sep 12, 2014 - 10:03pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



No, now everyone can see how you always pick on me. Send me my boat, Stan is getting older every day, and the mailman has asked that I stop running out every time he delivers a package.



Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Sep 13, 2014 - 6:12am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am



Hey Dick, thanks for the tutorial. I actually hovered my mouse over each of those button looking for some alt or title text that would describe what they were, but when there was none I didn't click on them all to see what the did and presumed none of them were for editing.... oh well!

Understand what you are saying about malicious editing; I participate in another forum where that happened a lot and they actually had to implement a bot that would archive original posts and link to them if edited so people could see what was going on. It is, unfortunately, not a rare problem. It's one reason I typically quote what I'm objecting to in my replies.

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 16, 2014 - 11:32pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



I agree, it's great being able to edit your post to correct a mistake or add something you forgot. Although lately I've been using the "preview" checkbox to make sure I didn't screw up an URL and / or image link. It's right in the window where you write a message.

This board is one of the easiest most intuitive boards I've used which is what Dick wanted for us older folk. But I realize not all have been board rats as long as I have and might not pick up on the subtleties. Anyways, Thanks Dick for all you do for us, great tutorial!




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 17, 2014 - 6:08am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



I will add my thanks to Dick for his skillful and wise administration of the Forum and Message Board, and I'll echo Jeff's comment on how easy and convenient it is to edit or add things to posts. I've done so many times.

Thank you Richard!



Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Sep 17, 2014 - 2:14pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am



Thanks guys - No need for thanks . . .

For those wondering what the other "Icons" in the message head do, they are explained at the bottom of the message web page, or this graphic image as thus:


[image]http://www.ptboatforum.com/PTFimages/Icons-Explained-01.jpg[/image]


As to the simplicity, I bought this back in 2003 when the previous software was becoming a hacker/spammer paradise. It has functioned quit well most of the time, all these years. Sadly I just found out the maker of this software (SiteNet BB) (a South African firm) is no longer around, it was a real quick departure. This aside, the program was more secure, very easy to navigate and to read, and more importantly very, very easy to modify for the current look and feel. The older you were, the better the board operated for you. We�ve all seen some younger members or those more literate with technology, make fun of this board and complain - must be because there aren�t 23 separate items running at the same time (distracting to us ole� folks). However it will be soon for a new board!!!!! ! [:-whoo2-:] As soon as I get off my dead tired old butt . . . [:-veryangry-:]'

Dick . . .




Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Sep 18, 2014 - 12:43pm
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm



EDIT: I misread the drawing, the covering board is 11/16 on all boats, the same as the 2 layers of deck planks. So it sticks up about 1/8 on plywood decked boats.

I couldn't find a drawing showing the carriage bolt heads sticking up on planked deck boats nor could I find an image showing them. This shot of the 103's damage shows the deck fairly clearly: [url]http://www.pt103.com/images/torpedoTubes/PT_103_Damage.jpg[/url].




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 25, 2014 - 8:49am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



I found this drawing, again courtesy of Dick Washichek, which shows the carriage bolt heads on the planked deck boats:
[url]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/dwgSectionThroughGunlChineAndKeel.jpg[/url]

100 PTEP to anyone that comes up with an image showing them!




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 26, 2014 - 6:04am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



This is either PT-120 or 140, but is most likely PT-149:

80-G-52532

We know from this image that the 149 boat was planked.but that picture's of no help. PT-120 was the other boat at Nassau Bay that day, and from what we can see in this photo, she didn't have a gun that large on the bow. Port deck edge on the embeded photo looks like it *could* have carriage bolts on it, but it's not clear enough for me to say either way.

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 26, 2014 - 6:20pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Some sort of hardware for sure Tracy. I was just looking at a photo of the 157 boat with a very clear photo of the deck edge and there's no sign of hardware.

I did enjoy the photo of the anti-tank gun. JFK wasn't the only one that thought about putting these guns to use. I've read that they weren't very popular and were replaced by the quicker firing 37mm Oldsmobile cannons. I found at least one photo that has that same guns sight as in the photo you provided and another with a different mount. So we probably had at least 3 boats that included this gun at least for a while.

Thanks for sharing Tracy.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Sep 26, 2014 - 9:46pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



Early on, the 108 had a 37mm anti tank gun in a similar home-made mount as Tracy's photo. (Not the same one though.). So the 108, 109 and whatever boat that is in Tracy's photo make at least three so far. Something is bugging me about Tracy's shot. I think the photo is reversed, printed from a flopped negative. The recoil guard on the 37mm should be on the right side of the breech. In this shot it is on the left.

Mike

Posted By: Michael Vorrasi | Posted on: Sep 27, 2014 - 9:56am
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am



Hi Mike,
Actually the should guard should be on the left side. At least that's how it is on every picture I've seen of them. It's an interesting weapon to model though. If I ever do another 109 I think I'm going to leave it off. :-)
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Sep 27, 2014 - 5:18pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



Hi David,

Yep, you are right! I found this site: http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_37mm.htm .and it is indeed on the left side. That makes it a bit of an oddball in US artillery pieces. Normally, the loader was on the left and shooter was on the right. On the 37mm, it was reversed. I never realized that. I found a few others that also had the loader on the right side, but normal set up, as in most tanks, is for the loader to be on the left The Marines also had an airborne version. Note the second photo down!

Mike

Posted By: Michael Vorrasi | Posted on: Sep 29, 2014 - 11:01am
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am



So, I guess my question is, "what source states the doubler plank and carriage bolts were only on later boats that weren't planked?" Can that source be trusted, or is there evidence that there may have been a transitory period where the planked boats also had this feature?

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 29, 2014 - 3:00pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



What's a doubler plank?

I posted a section of an Elco drawing showing carriage bolts were used on plank decked boats, see the previous page.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Sep 29, 2014 - 4:57pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



OK, my bad, it's just labelled a "doubler" and not a doubler plate or plank. But, if you want to be precise, your drawing is not on the previous page.

Additionally, if you are talking about this drawing it says nothing about planks; the decking is labelled as plywood. I have read that these doublers and carriage bolts were only installed on planked decks and not on plywood decks and this is what I am seeking either clarification or a re-examination of.

The bow photo I posted earlier shows a regular pattern at the deck edge that could be the heads of carriage bolts, but it is clearly a planked deck and not plywood. Given the evolution of design in the US Navy in general, is it possible that there was a transitional number of boats that were planked and did have the doubler and carriage bolts as well?

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Sep 30, 2014 - 8:20pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



Do you think the bolts were green or grey?


Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Sep 30, 2014 - 10:06pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



lol Will.



Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Sep 30, 2014 - 11:56pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am



I cant tell what shade of green it is or whether or not the mast is installed either? Just funnin ya Dave!

Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 2:35am
Total Posts: 1469 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm



They were galvanized color Will. :P

Gar, er, Tracy, let me address your concerns.

[maroon]OK, my bad, it's just labelled a doubler and not a doubler plate or plank.[/maroon]
Ahhh OK thanks. If you want to be precise there were plywood deck doublers located in areas needing extra strength on plywood decked boats.

[maroon]But, if you want to be precise, your drawing is not on the previous page.[/maroon]
This is page 5 (now 6 I see), check the bottom of page 4 for a section through a planked boat.

[maroon]Additionally, if you are talking about this drawing it says nothing about planks; the decking is labelled as plywood.[/maroon]
Nope, I said nothing about planks.

[maroon]I have read that these doublers and carriage bolts were only installed on planked decks and not on plywood decks and this is what I am seeking either clarification or a re-examination of.[/maroon]
Despite the Elco drawings and photos that you posted? Please share your source.

[maroon]The bow photo I posted earlier shows a regular pattern at the deck edge that could be the heads of carriage bolts, but it is clearly a planked deck and not plywood.[/maroon]
Check the post right before your bow photo post. Although like you said the photo is not clear enough for me to say.

[maroon]Given the evolution of design in the US Navy in general, is it possible that there was a transitional number of boats that were planked and did have the doubler and carriage bolts as well?[/maroon]
Can you please post an image of a transitional boat? I like to let the evidence guide my research.



Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 3:55am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Wow. Nice insults. Garth had nothing to do with that; I thought I was asking legitimate questions as someone who doesn't live and breathe PT boats. Enjoy your little circle-jerk self-admiration society.




Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Oct 7, 2014 - 9:37pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



It just never ends here, no wonder some of our WWII VETS don't post anymore, this board has turned into a bunch of Women............



Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 7, 2014 - 11:21pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am



Hey fellow board members cool it a bit ok, there are other problems in the world to worry about so how about we try a little bit to understand that each of us looks at this subject in a little different way to each other and enjoy that difference ok.

Damm now I feel depressed think I'll go yell at the neighbours....

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 12:29am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am



That wasn't very nice Tracy. It's not like you haven't worked with Garth before: [url]http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?fid=102&cid=101&tid=2992&sc=20&pg=1&x=0[/url]. Nor am I the only one to think it sounded like Garth.

You're welcome for the help, keep up the good work on your excellent web site.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 2:33am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Yow!

Tracy -- lighten up, man..

Many of us on this Forum -- published authors and otherwise -- have done many, many years of extensive reading, reasearch and observation on WWII PT boats...



Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 7:56am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am