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: Tube launched torpedo MK's?
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=2513



Greetings,
Does anyone know if anything other than Mk. VIII torpedo's were fired from Elco PT Boats when they were fitted with torpedo tubes? The reason I ask is that some of the photo references I look at appear to have different shaped warheads. Any thoughts on the subject?
Thanks
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Feb 29, 2012 - 9:25pm
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



The Mark VIII or (Mark 8) with the smaller warhead and the Mark XIV or (Mark 14) with the larger warhead were both used on USN PT boats. both with 21 inch diameter to fit the standard USN tubes.

Ref. At Close Quarters and archival images.

Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Mar 1, 2012 - 7:06am
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am



David and Don;
PT 61 also carried MK XV torpedoes at one time during Spring 1943, as related to me by Ken Prescott, they got them from one of the destroyers passing through Tulagi.
Take care,
TED



Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Mar 1, 2012 - 7:43am
Total Posts: 2930 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am



You always see a photo or two of the boats carrying the MK-VIII torpedoes in roll off racks. I saw one the other day in my collection of photo's as PT-169 had one in her starboard roll off rack. Seems that there is enough evidence that points to the boats using what was available...........



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 1, 2012 - 8:22am
Total Posts: 3269 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am



Ted:

Thanks for the info. It makes sense as the Mark 15 torpedo was very similar to the Mark 14 and of course had the same diameter that allowed it to fit in the tubes. I always wondered why they leaned more toward the Mark 8 and Mark 14 torpedoes to be used on the PTs fitted with tubes. Maybe it has something to do with the balance weight along the length the Mark 14 warhead carried a 507 pound charge and the Mark 15 a 780 pound charge. Or maybe the newer Mark 15 were made more available to the Destroyers.


Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Mar 1, 2012 - 12:37pm
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am




Ted:

Thanks for the info. It makes sense as the Mark 15 torpedo was very similar to the Mark 14 and of course had the same diameter that allowed it to fit in the tubes. I always wondered why they leaned more toward the Mark 8 and Mark 14 torpedoes to be used on the PTs fitted with tubes. Maybe it has something to do with the balance weight along the length the Mark 14 warhead carried a 507 pound charge and the Mark 15 a 780 pound charge. Or maybe the newer Mark 15 were made more available to the Destroyers.


Donald Shannon


Hi.

Or maybe there were a bunch of WW1 vintage and betweeen the wars torpedos the powers thatbe wannted used?

Remember the fiasco with the early M-16 rifles because the government insisted that the existing stocks of powder be used even though it had been explained to them that it was the wrong type of powder and the residue from it would foul the action?

Cheers from Peter


"Give me a faster PT boat for I'd like to get out of harm's way!"

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder | Posted on: Mar 1, 2012 - 3:56pm
Total Posts: 494 | Joined: Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59pm



I found this picture from the PTKing web site. Looking at the pictures I've seen of the 105 boat I think this is going to be the look I'm after. It looks like the Mk. XIV has more of a taper and point to it than these Mk. VIII torpedoes. I'm going to cast some up in resin and give it a nice bronze nose.
Dave

[IMAGE]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/David_Waples/PT%20BOATS/MarkVIIITorpedo.jpg[/IMAGE]

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 4:33am
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



The mounts are interesting. Looks like there are three of them, and obviously this shot is long before the "roll-offs" were invented. I don't see what is securing the fish to the cradles.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 7:06am
Total Posts: 1953 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



Those are just come alongs for the Torpedoes. Placed on the deck, they rolled the torpedo into the waiting tube. The weight of the torpedo must have kept them in place until fitted into the empty tube.



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 7:24am
Total Posts: 3269 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am



Hi all,

The simple answer about the choice of the Mk. VIII's for PT use was that it was the only torpedo available in considerable numbers (around 9000 in the Navy's inventory, according to one source) when it was decided to up-rate the boats from 18 inch tubes to 21 inchers.

Production of the Mk. XIV's and XV's was just getting underway at that time, and there were only a small amount of each on hand--and the destroyermen and submariners had first dibs.

I'm not at home right now, but I'll look into this when I get home.

Gene K.



Posted By: comcardiv1 | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 10:22am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered



From: Jolie, E.W. A Brief History of U.S. Navy Torpedo Development. (Newport, RI: Naval Underwater Systems Center). 1978

[IMaGe]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/torps_0001.jpg[/IMaGe]
[IMaGe]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/torps_0002.jpg[/IMaGe]
[IMaGe]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/torps_0003.jpg[/IMaGe]

The full document is here: [url]http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/keyport/html/index.htm[/url]

Al



Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 11:16am
Total Posts: 919 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm



Will, Frank, here's a shot from At Close Quarters showing a tube being loaded. Although shown here as being simple cradles with the crane doing the lifting, they look like they could have rollers and lifts as Frank said:

[image]http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/img/PT-p35.jpg[/image]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 11:22am
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Yes Gene I agree with the notion that they wanted to use up the older inventory of Mark-8 torpedoes early on in WWII. I also believe that the type of torpedoes that were stockpiled in a certain location would also dictate who got what types as you will still see Higgins PT's in the Mediterranean theater as late as 1944 with torpedo tubes. I also think that the Higgins boats with the air-compressed tubes were more likely to retain their tubes longer verses/ the Elco powder charge tubes, with the danger of giving your location away with the powder flash. Also with the lend lease I would imagine they sent a lot of Mark-8 torpedoes over to Europe. Later in the war in the pacific theater you see the conversion of tubes to racks quickly and a better supply of Mark-13 torpedoes.

On a side note: In typical PT Boat field adaptation fashion I do recall seeing either a Mark-8 or Mark-14 in a torpedo roll off rack on an 80 foot Elco somewhere in the Pacific.

FYI the following references from:
The Devil's Device Robert Whitehead and the History of the Torpedo by Edwyn Gray
Naval Institute Press

The Mark-8 torpedo was a 1913 design.

The Mark-13 torpedo was a 1938 design intended for aircraft.

The Mark-14 torpedo was a 1938 design. It was the main submarine weapon in 1941, but faults in the Mk-VI magnetic exploder made it unreliable. In service some 40 years after successful modifications.


Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 11:24am
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am



I found this interesting, a huge image showing U.S. torpedo development: [url]http://www.kbismarck.org/photos/ustorpdev.jpg[/url]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 11:34am
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Hey Don, At Close Quarters also has this shot of a Mark VIII being launched from a roll off rack:

[image]http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/img/PT-p36.jpg[/image]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 11:49am
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Nope - MK13. Note the length of the warhead in relation to the flask body.
[IMaGe]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/mk13.jpg[/IMaGe]

Al



Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 12:04pm
Total Posts: 919 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm



Thanks Al and Jeff great website info/ images on the torpedoes.

Jeff on the image in " At Close Quarters" that's a mistake in At Close Quarters under the photo, that is actually a Mark XIII or Mark 13 aircraft torpedo. It is listed correctly in the illustrations index at the beginning of the book. I never noticed the mistake in the book until now it is in both the old and the new reprint.


Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 12:21pm
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am



Doh, thanks guys.

You were right Frank, the cradles can be used to roll the torpedos in. Note the height adjusters:

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/ptpics/torpedoLoadingCradles1.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/ptpics/torpedoLoadingCradles2.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/ptpics/torpedoLoadingCradles3.jpg[/image]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 12:26pm
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Jeff I made the same mistake it is correct in At Close Quarters just have to read the entire caption. It is a Mark XIII Aircraft torpedo though.

Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 12:28pm
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am



Well shoot, you're right. It says Mark XIII plain as day. I've confused the two in the past but this time it was poor caption reading. [:-stong-:]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 12:50pm
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Hi Don,
I have a picture taken in Rendova Harbour 1943 shows PT180 and PT183 and the boat in foreground has both types of torpedoes (Mark 8 and Mark 13) in roll off racks on the same boat! I found this in the photo files at the National Archives last May. Maybe this is the photo you were thinking of? Jerry

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Jerry%20Gilmartin/PT180PT183mooredwithtentsrendova.jpg[/image]

Jerry Gilmartin

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 1:15pm
Total Posts: 1285 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm



Thanks Gerry great photo I do recall this one it is really unique.

Donald Shannon

Posted By: Donald Shannon | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 2:21pm
Total Posts: 47 | Joined: Apr 24, 2009 - 10:07am



Sure looks like a MK18 tube to me...[:-good-:]

[IMaGe]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/twotypes.jpg[/IMaGe]

Al



Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 2:27pm
Total Posts: 919 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm



This is the only photo I recall of other than MK13s in roll-off racks on US boats. [IMaGe]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i204/alross2/fish.jpg[/IMaGe]

It's from Frank Johnson's book and the caption alleges this is PT 562 with MK8s.

Al



Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 2:53pm
Total Posts: 919 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm



Hey Al,
Thanks for spotting that. After looking at that photo more than once, I realize it looked kind of funny. That sure is a tube up front! I thought it was strange how I could not make out the fins and propellers on the rear of the longer torpedo! Hmmm lets see, maybe thats because it is inside of a tube! Anyway thanks again! Good eye! Jerry

Jerry Gilmartin

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Mar 2, 2012 - 5:58pm
Total Posts: 1285 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm



General question(s) on the photo of the 180 and 183 at Rendova...

Are they pulled up at Lumbari island? Or is it Pau, Bau, or Rendova island proper?

I'm always trying to figure where the boats are/were, in any Rendova photos...

PS - Granted, its something of an oblique angle, but note how close the depth charge is in front of the forward starboard tube on the 183, particularly evident in Dr. Ross's enlargement...not WAY OUT in front along the toe rail...(pet peeve of mine).



Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Mar 3, 2012 - 6:20am
Total Posts: 1284 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am



Good observation on the depth charge. Similar to the 109 photo. Notice how high it sits in the rack on Al's photo. Different rack types?
Dave

[IMAGE]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/David_Waples/PT%20BOATS/PT-109cover.jpg[/IMAGE]

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 3, 2012 - 11:05am
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



A blowup of one of Gene's images shows what might be the same type of rack (behind the man with the cap). It looks like it has an extended track, and rolls across the deck a bit. I can't tell if it is also raised:

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/ptpics/comdesdiv1_morobe_4_Depth_Charge.jpg[/image]




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 3, 2012 - 12:05pm
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Excellent photo. That may be the case for the 109 as well. A little trip across the deck before hitting the water. I would not have guessed that!
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 3, 2012 - 4:15pm
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



Didn't the 109 torpedo one of its own depth charges? That would put it in the usual position. I wonder if they moved them back to avoid that happening again.


Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 3, 2012 - 4:52pm
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



It wasn't as far back as shown on the picture above, but looking at the drawings I have of the 109 I can't see how the tube would track out enough to miss it if it were mounted out on the edge of the deck as I've seen in some photos of boats with depth charges on the bow. If it were mounted slightly back it would explain it. Nothing definitive though.

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 3, 2012 - 7:30pm
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



I wonder if it's a type D (dual depth charge) release track? [url]http://hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/depthtrack/part2.htm#pg35[/url] It's hard to tell without an image with a better view.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 6:45am
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



My take on the close-mounted depth charges on PT foredecks -- like in the photo of the 109 running at sea, confirmed by the photo on page 89 of Ballard's "Collision With History" book -- is that the torpedomen on the boats would quite obviously and certainly have made sure the fish, when launched from from the cranked-out tubes in their firing positions, cleared the depth charges.

It seems logical to me that in the incident when the 109's forward port torpedo was jolted from its tube and knocked the port depth charge through the foredeck into the crew's quarters below (when the 109 was manuvering to deliver a bilge pump to another PT in rough seas), the tubes had probably been cranked back into their non-firing, parallel-to-the-centerline positions. Otherwise, how could the 21-foot torpedo have even touched the depth charge? "Jolted from" its tube would be the same as "fired from" its tube -- the angle and length of travel would have been the same. If the fish had been jolted from its tube when the tubes were cranked out in firing position, the torpedo would have cleared the depth charge -- or so it seems to me.

As have we all, I've seen photos of the charges placed in cut-out sections of the toe rails at the very edge of the deck, at varying distances from the ends of the forward tubes, and also photos of the rail-type racks, which carry the charges much more inboard, rolling them down the rails and overboard when released.

In the particular case of the 109, the photographic evidence shows the depth charges placed at the edge of the deck, with the aft ends of the standard racks roughly even with the aft ends of the toe rails.

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Drew%20Cook/PT61-from-the-foredeck-of-PT109-Searlesville-Russell-Islandsspring1943.jpg[/image]




Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 9:47am
Total Posts: 1284 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am



I took the liberty of taking Al's drawing of the 109 which shows the torpedo tube in the firing position. I estimated the location of the depth charge by taking measurements of the bands and torpedo stop on the 109 photo shown earlier. By the way if you look at the photo the depth charge does appear to be well back from the decks edge.

On the following drawing you can see where the depth charge would have to be at a minimum to be clear of the torpedo firing. You can also easily see that in the stowed position a torpedo sliding out of the tube would easily hit the depth charge as I've shown it in this drawing.

Dave

[IMAGE]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/David_Waples/PT%20BOATS/IMG_0002.jpg[/IMAGE]

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 2:51pm
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



As a side note (that I'm sure has been answered before), were the 109's tubes swung into firing postion at the time of the collision?

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 4:46pm
Total Posts: 1953 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



Dave,

Great schematic. Based on your drawings, I have to change my opinion that the 109's depth charges were at the deck's edge and the rearmost edge of the racks as far back as the aft end of the toe rail.

I think probably the most accurate position, based on the vintage photos and your overhead-view, indicate they were where you've placed the rearmost of the two depth charges/racks in your drawing.

Will, it seems to me, in the torpedo-jolted-from-the-tube-knocking-the-depth-charge-through-the-deck incident, the tubes would have to have been in their non-firing positions. The fish would have missed the charge if the tube had been cranked out in firing position.



Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 5:32pm
Total Posts: 1284 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am



Take into consideration that the black powder charges used, sometimes were moist or could become wet. This actually caused the torpedo to leave the tube at a slower velocity, and the vanes of the torpedo in some instances could actually hit the deck, throwing the torpedo off the mark. Same was held true if the charge was not enough. Will, I would certainly think the tubes were in the firing position before the boats got on station. Can you imagine coming face to face with a target, and trying to train your tubes out in the dark of night. I know if I were a Skipper, that would be one of the first things I would have my torpedoman take care of while still light out. Looks to me from the drawing provided that the torpedo had plenty of clearance to miss the depth charge...........



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 5:46pm
Total Posts: 3269 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am



Frank,

Are we talking about the same thing, or is Will's question referring back to the ramming of the 109 by the Amagiri?

If we were talking about the collision of the Amagiri with the 109, of course the tubes would have been cranked out into their firing positions. The boats were on a combat patrol in enemy waters. The tubes would have been cranked out and locked long before arriving on station, right? From everything I've read, the crews did this before leaving their bases.

If we're talking about the incident in which the 109's port forward torpedo was jolted out of the tube, knocking the port depth charge through the foredeck, this incident happened in the morning, after the boat came off station from a patrol around the Russell Islands.

I'm speculating because of the completion of the combat patrol and the rough seas, the tubes had been cranked back into their non-firing positions, placing the tube -- and torpedo --in line with the depth charge.



Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 6:07pm
Total Posts: 1284 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am



Yeah, I meant tube position at the time of the ramming. I would agree that common sense would dictate that the tubes be cranked outboard, it just seems to me I read somewhere that SOP was to keep them cranked inboard as much as possible because it kept the tubes/fish better protected from the sea and pounding of the hull, plus made for a better balance on the boat.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 10:31pm
Total Posts: 1953 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



I had always assumed that a torpedo "jolted loose" from the tube did not necessarily mean it was having a "hot run"; I would think the length of the fish actually ejected from the tube would tend to vary depending on the circumstances.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 4, 2012 - 10:38pm
Total Posts: 1953 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm




With all do respect to Al (I lovem as much as most of you guys do - but) but, to think his drawing is accurate enough to determine a torpedos trajectory is a little whimsical at the very least and Im sure Al would agree whole heartily. There is an old engineering adage, you never directly scale, measure, plot and/or transfer measurements from the face of a drawing, you can only use the printed dimensional information if indicated.

As Al might say - No Arghhhhhhh intended.

Dick . . . .




Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Mar 5, 2012 - 1:07pm
Total Posts: 1302 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm



Does anyone have an official report of the torpedo into the depth charge incident? A search of the net yielded different accounts. It happened pre Kennedy, Kennedy did it, port depth charge, starboard depth charge. The stories had one thing in common though, an accidental launching during rough seas. It's hard to believe that though. There was a cover on the torpedo firing box, and the fire buttons had key locks.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 5, 2012 - 3:40pm
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



I've never seen an official report. Only the account as written by Donovan in PT-109. As Donovan wrote it. To set the scene the 109 was trying to accept the transfer of a bilge pump from a destroyer.

"Kennedy edged away from the destroyer and was circling back to the damaged boat when the top of a wave smote his port hull with such force that it jolted one of the torpedoes out of its tube. The torpedo banged into a heavy depth charge, a collision that brought together enough explosives to have blown Kennedy and his crew to its, had not the two weapons been set to fire under different conditions. However, the depth charge toppled off its perch, crashed through the deck into the crew's quarters and landed on the bunk above where drew itch was trying to sleep".

There's no clear indication from this account if it was the port or starboard forward torpedo. I have heard but I have nothing official that it was the port tube. Looking at interior drawings I suppose it could be either side as there are crew bunks on both sides and in the same locations. There's no mention as to which side of the destroyer Kennedy was on either.

The rest of the story is that the bilge pump was successfully transferred and the 109 stayed on station until rescued by a PT Tender.

With respect to Dick's comments, it doesn't matter which drawing I look at, based on the photo evidence of where the depth charge was located, it would have to be back away from the deck's edge.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 5, 2012 - 8:02pm
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



I still do not believe that the Depth Charge went right through the deck into the crews quarters and onto the bunk below. I mean come on, did this thing get launched 20 feet into the air and dropped onto the deck, because to me, it would have to be. How far does an ash can sit off of the deck? a few inches when in it's cradle. Think about it, how does a Depth Charge go crashing through the deck. Doesn't make since to me..............



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 5, 2012 - 8:15pm
Total Posts: 3269 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am



Frank, you're right on point. the depth charged crashed through the deck planking, structural frame members and cross blocking and was mercifully stopped by a piece of canvas wrapped around a pipe frame. "the depth charge toppled off its perch." Hummmmmmm

Dick . . .




Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Mar 5, 2012 - 10:14pm
Total Posts: 1302 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm



I sense a word problem here. If a 3150 lb object accelerates at a rate of XX feet per second and makes contact with a 500 lb object on a deck made of wood... I think you get the picture. That's a lot of force. To put it into perspective that's about the weight of my Jeep Liberty condensed into a tube 21" in diameter.

Gents, all I know is what I read and see. We clearly don't have all the facts on the incident but this is what the guys that were there reported to Donovan.

Funny how these conversations often get back to the 109 boat. I started a conversation about torpedoes used in torpedo tubes, which leads to depth charge rack placement, which brings us back to the placement of the depth charges on the 109, etc. Got to love it.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 4:38am
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm



Dave

I see your point, all things lead to PT-109. Still, if a torpedo was slid out of it's tube and hit the depth charge with a force to dislodge it from the strap and cradle, you would think it would have just clanked it, and knocked it clear off the deck into the water. I still say in order for the depth charge to crash through the decking, it would have to have been bounced 10 feet in the air, and even then, I am not sure it would have made it through the structural set up of the decking. Please do not think I am saying that it is impossible, and I do not mean to question anyone who was there, but over the years, some real tall tails were thrown about, when it came to PT-109. Years ago, in 1998 or 1999 I had asked Gerard Zinser many questions concerning the book PT-109, and in the test of time, he could not remember, or told me certain things never happened. Come on guys, do you think a depth charge can come crashing through the structure set up of an Elco deck, without being dropped from a decent height?



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 5:27am
Total Posts: 3269 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am



Thanks guys. I thought about "oh no, not the 109 again!" but I braved the waters since it didn't involve the mast.

You guys are right. A 350lb depth charge is not likely to have punched through the deck merely by being knocked off the rack. Not to mention that the rack held it pretty snugly and it would be really hard to knock it loose. And a torpedo sliding out of the tube would knock it sideways not down. Unless the tube ripped out of its mounts allowing the torpedo to come down on it or the torpedoes weight gave it enough inertia to push it through while still in the rack. If that didn't happen, an accidental firing with the tube cranked in might possibly do it.

The 109, what if what if... sorry everyone. [:-whoo2-:]

Until an official report is dug up, a question mark will hang over this story for me.




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 7:11am
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



THIS IS BETTER THAN A FOOD FIGHT!!

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 7:20am
Total Posts: 1953 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



As instigator, I probably deserve a spanking... (*!*)




Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 8:11am
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Gotta love this board, no one agrees on anything, except that we all love PT BOATS, and that Will owes me a PT BOAT MODEL tucked in his garage, lol..........



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 8:44am
Total Posts: 3269 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am




Yeah, Jeff . . . what am I going to do with you. I think I have to keep you after the Board and make you erase all the Chalkboards for the rest of the day. Maybe make you moderator so you can receive all the ANTI 109 mail.

Frankie - stick to your guns! Like some of us, you and I dont have Physics and Engineering degrees from Whats-A-Mata-U, so what do we know. Life has taught us not to believe everything we read and are told. Just maybe some skepticism and common sense need to be deployed, specially when book deals, movie deals, TV deals, friends-of-the-family are in the mix. Just maybe we dont live in a world of embellishment, artistic licenses, story telling, and lets not leave out hard hitting documented fact finding and objectivity. Maybe Donovan and Ballard need to join forces to find the Fountain of Youth, oh yeah for encouragement lets through in a book deal, TV deal, and maybe a movie deal, to sweeten the factual basis of their find.

Yeah, Will . . . just maybe cafeteria cleaning is in future!

The story line should probably be changed to Because of the turbulent pitching sea between the PT boat and Destroyer, a torpedo was forcably ejected out of its tube and sent hurling towards the forward mounted depth charge, smashing in to it with enough force to launch it twenty feet above the the PT boat. With alarm, Mister Kennedy leap from the wheel of his boat and atttempted to catch or slow down the crushing speed at which the depth charge was traveling after it met terminal velocity. When his heroic feat failed. it came crashing down through the deck, smashing its way into the crew quarters. Mercifully its crushing force was stopped by the flimsy canvas of the top berth, saving the life of a sleeping crew member below. Thank God for miracles - as the legend lives and grows.

I love this stuff,
Dick . . . .



Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 9:04am
Total Posts: 1302 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm



Frankie: Wouldn't you know that just as I was crating up that 5' model to send to you, a torpedo jarred loose and hit one of the depth charges, sending it crashing through the deck and into the crew's quarters. I'll make repairs asap. I'd send it to you anyway for Stan to repair, but I know he's busy rebuilding your wife's clothes dryer.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 9:41am
Total Posts: 1953 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



You funny guy Will. [:-laughing-:]



Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 10:04am
Total Posts: 2034 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am



Just my luck Will, thank the Lord, that depth charge never went off, or Stan would have to start from scratch. I expect repairs will be completed in a timely manner, so you can get that out to me this week. When it rains it pours, as Stan was working on the Dryer, by accident, the Washer hit the dryer, sending the spin cycle into a frenzy, crashing into my newly repaired PT-109 five foot model. As fate would have it, the forward depth charge came loose, crashing through the deck. I think I'll start another book.



Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 11:48am
Total Posts: 3269 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am



Wait a minute you guys! What do you mean the entire world does not revolve around PT109? There are no other PT Boats and all we should do on this board is discuss every aspect of the worlds only PT Boat in excruciating detail! Forever and ever amen! Hah Hah. Jerry

Jerry Gilmartin

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 12:27pm
Total Posts: 1285 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm



I never heard of this so-called "PT 109."

Didn't the Elco 80' PT 103-class production line go right from PT 108 to PT 110?[:-good-:]



Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 3:42pm
Total Posts: 1284 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am



I've actually SEEN the PT-109 Drew, but it looks suspiciously like an ASR boat.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 3:51pm
Total Posts: 1953 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm



Wow, this is a tough crowd. Okay, I'm calling Myth Busters on this one! Until proven otherwise I'm sticking with the book. :-)
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 6, 2012 - 5:26pm
Total Posts: 1637 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm