PT Boats are awesome

[Panther Bait]

Weren't the German and Brit MTBs that were used in the North Sea something like 1/3 longer then the American Elco PT Boat and 40-50% heavier?

Seems like extra length and weight would make them more stable weapons platforms, particularly in heavier sea states.

On another note, I would think that using PT's boats en masse (as in using 45 together in one concentrated attack like Chickenboy suggests) in the dark, would run a huge risk of collisions and friendly fire when and if they went into evasive mode. Forty-five 80-foot boats zooming around in the dark at 35+ knots sounds like a night mare to me.

Mike

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Weren't the German and Brit MTBs that were used in the North Sea something like 1/3 longer then the American Elco PT Boat and 40-50% heavier?

Seems like extra length and weight would make them more stable weapons platforms, particularly in heavier sea states.

On another note, I would think that using PT's boats en masse (as in using 45 together in one concentrated attack like Chickenboy suggests) in the dark, would run a huge risk of collisions and friendly fire when and if they went into evasive mode. Forty-five 80-foot boats zooming around in the dark at 35+ knots sounds like a night mare to me.

Mike

Sounds like 4th of July on Long Island Sound to me...

[racndoc]

Lt. John Brickley(Robert Montgomery, USNR) put 2 torpedoes in a "Mogami Class cruiser" in deep water in "They were Expendable".

[tigercub]

Just my 2 cents would want to be on a DD firing a 5incher at a PT then being in a PT trying to hit a DD with a Trop that is only just faster than the DD if you are lucky.In most cases it would be a one sided battle....but also the ocean is a deadly place for the careless.

Tiger!

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

Lt. John Brickley(Robert Montgomery, USNR) put 2 torpedoes in a "Mogami Class cruiser" in deep water in "They were Expendable".

Thanks be to Hollywood, otherwise there'd be no examples of successful deep water PT Combat! [;)]

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Kull
My opinion is that they didn't because they couldn't. Even moderate swells would make these things painful to ride in, much less shoot from, plus they lose one of their biggest assets which was to attack from and escape to the coastal shallows. But it's also possible that they didn't because of lack of opportunity. I'll grant you that it would be hard to prove which of the two is correct.

Both the Germans and the British used MTB's in the Channel and the North Sea..., two bodies of water not known for their placidity. While I'd agree that really rough weather could hamstring PT's, you shouldn't overstate the case.

Here's a description of the PTs' longest Blue Water run (since nobody else wants to do the research to beat me down, I have to do it myself) [8D]

SIX MONTHS elapsed between the firing of PT 34's last torpedoes off Cebu and the first firing of torpedoes at Guadalcanal by boats of a new Squadron 3. During most of this time there were no bases from which the short-range PT's could go out to meet the enemy. They were not designed to patrol hundreds of miles to sea, but to deliver sudden punches close to shore and relatively near their bases. They met the enemy only once during these 6 months: on the fringe of the great Battle of Midway in June 1942.

Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 1, then commanded by Lt. Clinton McKellar, Jr., was given 3 days' notice late in May to make its boats ready to proceed under their own power to Midway, 1,385 miles from Pearl Harbor. This was the longest run across open water that American PT's had ever made. Except for PT 23, which broke a crankshaft and had to turn back the first day, the boats made the run without strain, fueling from patrol vessels and a seaplane tender which met them at Necker Island, French Frigate Shoal, and Lisianski Island.

"At Close Quarters", (Bulkley), Pp 79

Once they got to Midway, they didn't do much, but yes, they could travel long distances across open ocean. How successful they'd be in combat in such an environment remains a mystery, although their performance elsewhere could be considered a clue.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Kull
My opinion is that they didn't because they couldn't. Even moderate swells would make these things painful to ride in, much less shoot from, plus they lose one of their biggest assets which was to attack from and escape to the coastal shallows. But it's also possible that they didn't because of lack of opportunity. I'll grant you that it would be hard to prove which of the two is correct.

On the issue of PTs, my opinion is that they didn't because they didn't-not that they couldn't. Why didn't they? Undertraining, poor torpedo performance, dilution effect, access to timely intelligence, failure of high command to apply their strengths more appropriately, etc.

In game terms-other than perhaps lowering the 'naval experience' levels of the crew to reflect their minimal anti-naval torpedo experience-no hard code changes are in order.

I appreciate the thoughtful posts. However, what DO you consider to be the measure of PT Boat effectiveness as torpedo firing naval vessels? Doesn't it seem logical that ships confirmed sunk or ships confirmed hit counts as the only true measure of effectiveness in the war? I say it's the ONLY metric that matters. And by that yardstick, we can only conclude that PT Boats failed miserably as torpedo platforms. They were marginally successful in every year and in every theatre in which they operated, both with and without radar, and whether experienced or not.

The record speaks for itself if we want to discuss the PT's ability to destroy barges and seriously disrupt enemy naval formations. But that's it. And so far, all I've heard in opposition to the "terrible torpedo platform" theory is a big catalog of excuses and "if onlys".

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

However, PT's against AK's would be a very fair fight and the results above perfectly acheivable. Good call sending them in and the opponent will think again B4 sending unescorted AK's!

I'm beginning to wonder. I spent the last hour or so trolling the web looking for stats that would indicate PT Boat effectiveness, and my conclusion is that - the war on Barges excepted - they caused about as much damage as midget subs. Just try and find ANY proven, documented success against a large warship. Even one. They did have marvelous PR, but that should not translate over to in-game effectiveness. If the combat engine can't be tweaked to give them the heavy nerfing they so richly deserve, I'd recommend giving something akin to the "zero bonus" to Destroyers when facing PTs. Historically, even near misses would destroy these things.

Exactly. I am not aware of any as well. The reason: they were brown water and tough to find fights and JAP never sent unescorted AK's anywhere near them. They used fast transport DD's and the PT's stayed away.

OTOH, without PT's, JAP might have been tempted and this forced them to use more escorts. So PT's were useful in that regard. They kept the IJN honest.

Someone mentions Surigao Strait, but that was '44 and by '44 this wasn't an equal fight. Losses, supplies, everything had greatly diminished the IJN. In '42 no USN PT group would have lasted against DD's and the few attempts never happened as the PT's could not close. If you have doubts, read "Japanese Destroyer Captain" Pretty sure out of print, but you might find a copy on inter-library loan.

[PaxMondo]

Read somewhere long ago that USN PT's couldn't fire their torpedos in swell above 15 or 20 ft.  Can't remember where.  If someone finds a reference on that, let me know.  That would allow for an easy fix.  Travel as they might, but blue water swell at 15 ft is common and that would limit the boats operational [as in make war] area.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

German S-Boats had success in attacking and the Royal Navy became very cautious of them. I am not sure what their kill numbers are but they did break up supply convoys in the Med and attacked british ships around Baltic and North Seas.

The US PT boats were also feared or if not feared they did cause considerable problems just by being in the area of operations.

S-boats have been nearly twice? as big as American PT-boats. And while they had success in the channel it also soon became a suicide commando to be the crew of an S-boat. And S-boats didn´t kill off the Royal Navy either, PT-boats in AE can do that with the IJN. Well, they also could with the IJN´s DDs in WITP but not to such an extend as in AE.

But it´s looked at so not really a lot to worry about. I trust the guys will come up with a solution.

[Dili]

we can only conclude that PT Boats failed miserably as torpedo platforms. They were marginally successful in every year and in every theatre in which they operated, both with and without radar, and whether experienced or not.

So now you put your head in sand. I posted about Med. In Med even a 3 Ton PT with one Torpedo put HMS Eridge as a total loss. The incompetence of US Navy in Pacific as no relation with S-boots and MAS boats of Germans and Italians. British MTB also had some successes.

And by that yardstick, we can only conclude that PT Boats failed miserably as torpedo platforms.

You didn't explained why they failed as torpedos platforms. Many other countries had PT's that worked. Maybe training? Maybe Doutrine? Maybe issues with Torpedos? No for you it is the boats that have some bad mojo.

Post Edit: The Game should if possible manage the issue of PT boats by crew quality values.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Dili

So now you put your head in sand. I posted about Med. In Med even a 3 Ton PT with one Torpedo put HMS Eridge as a total loss. The incompetence of US Navy in Pacific as no relation with S-boots and MAS boats of Germans and Italians. British MTB also had some successes.

I agree some opinions here are way too exaggerated but please, please Dili, stop with that Med non-sense! You talked about action off the Cape Bon, that's a 90km strait - to take the Solomons as a landmark, that's shorter than the length of Malaita island... Come on. We agreed on having them try out one or two hex of open sea in combat mode, but stop pretending the North Sea, the Channel, the Baltic or any point in the Mediterranean qualifies for "open sea" as some of us defined it. Distances are ridiculous at any rate.

So let them attack, but as a HR, I see no-point in letting them go on a death ride 3 or 4 hex away in a vain soon-to-be fuel-less journey. And the biggest problem remain: the PT is still a much more efficient and nimble platform as it is supposed to be, and needs to be nerfed in a way or another - while I totally acknowledge the "player effect". Myself, in a PBEM, I'll always fancy not to give an order I wouldn't follow myself when I am playing on the Allied side. Some desperate situations call for desperate measures. But when you see how crews are being expended by digital admirals, I'll admit everything seems to be a desperate matter.

[Dili]

2 DD's were sunk by Bad weather in Med in WW2. Photo of Firedrake in Med: http://www.hmsfiredrake.co.uk/firedrake10.htm Read the caption to see the usual bias about Mediterranean.
Another: http://www.hmsfiredrake.co.uk/firedrake25.htm

Weather is the issue not the distance.

So let them attack, but as a HR, I see no-point in letting them go on a death ride 3 or 4 hex away in a vain soon-to-be fuel-less journey.

I have no problems how you play the game.
If they are fueless they take the punishement because of that.
If you are upset by distance from coast why don't you edit their ranges? It's simple and easy put them with 160 or 240 miles range. Besides all ships and airplanes shouldn't not have their typical max range since they most certainly do not go straight line and sea currents and sea state can hit comsumption. Plus there are tactical needs , a ship can certainly make the double of distance inside an Hex just because it is in combat.

Btw i have a note about US PT's weapons in Mediterranean MK-8 Torpedo "several failures with erratic behavior, http://funsite.unc.edu/hyperwar/USN/Clo ... /PT-6.html, at least a period with >60% failure rate"

[Fishbed]

I am not upset with the range Dili, I am upset with the fact that mid-sea intercept are gonna be possible for PTs operating 400km away from their bases, that's something else entirely. [:o]

And thanks for the tip about the Med, I heard fairly well about the weather already (les vagues scélérates, tout ça),: my point wasn't about the weather in itself, it was about the fact that being caught in a stormy weather in the middle of nowhere is not like being caught in a storm somewhere between Tunisia and Sicily... Storms are bad, but even worse when you're 200 klicks from any kind of quiet place. And I doubt any axis PT was ever more than 100km away from a friendly coast wherever they would operate and fight in the Mediterranean. [:)]

If you are upset by distance from coast why don't you edit their ranges? It's simple and easy put them with 160 or 240 miles range.

Is that a joke? That "why don't you edit their range/speed/XP in the editor" stuff is getting more and more ludicrous. We're talking about long-term solutions to possible unbalanced behaviours, this kind of "do it yourself" chat really resolves nothing. [8|]

Let's sit and talk. I said I was open to any opinion, but let's keep it fair. Taking a single instance when PTs were inefficient and make it a rule is as doubious as quoting an event happening on the far side of the world in different navies, with different boats, in different conditions, and make it a natural fact. My 2 cents.

[Dili]

it was about the fact that being caught in a stormy weather in the middle of nowhere is not like being caught in a storm somewhere between Tunisia and Sicily

Why? Harbours are closed in storms. Many modern ships went against coast and were sunk in stormy weather, more than those in middle of Ocean

Is that a joke? That "why don't you edit their range/speed/XP in the editor" stuff is getting more and more ludicrous. We're talking about long-term solutions to possible unbalanced behaviours, this kind of "do it yourself" chat really resolves nothing.

Why? having editable fields and the more broad game possible the better. I have no problem if the less range is the default and those that want bigger range edit it.

Taking a single instance when PTs were inefficient and make it a rule is as doubious as quoting an event happening on the far side of the world in different navies, with different boats, in different conditions, and make it a natural fact.

The problems of American PT's were because they were American not because they were PT's. So editing the crew of american PT's and the weapons, and boats will fix the issue.

[Fishbed]

Why? Harbours are closed in storms. Many modern ships went against coast and were sunk in stormy weather, more than those in middle of Ocean

Why? Because you want to give your men a chance damn! Strange how few here ever consider the human factor...!
No-one in Earth would send PTs to intercept KB in the 200 nm away because IRL it would be both pointless AND criminal! The game doesnt ask you to keep your conscience clean, but at least it shouldn't allow you to benefit in any way from such actions, while right now you could even hope for a lucky result because of the combat system...

Why? having editable fields and the more broad game possible the better. I have no problem if the less range is the default and those that want bigger range edit it.

Why? because when it comes to game mechanics, if anything is broken, you're not gonna resolve it just by forbidding PTs to go to the sea. The whole combat sequence with PTs may need a refit (and was refitted) and changing the range isn't gonna fix anything. I still want to have my PTs fly from island to island, Im not gonna kill their autonomy just because it would make open ocean intercepts 6 hex away in the wilderness less likely. They shouldn't even be likely, or end up giving any kind of positive result damn

The problems of American PT's were because they were American not because they were PT's. So editing the crew of american PT's and the weapons, and boats will fix the issue.

Well lets see what happens after the first patch. If the devs found the need to nerf the PT, they probably had a reason to do so...[;)]

[Chickenboy]

Rather than revel in the back and forth, I propose a middle ground for some things to try with PTs.  This may help address some of the thoughts expressed thus far:
 
1.  For operation in hexes that are not adjacent to land, operational SYS damage in PTs is quadrupled.  This simulates the additional damage and difficulties of operating in a 'blue water' environment.  One could make this weather-related as well-PTs going out into 'severe storms' may take immediate SYS damage.
 
2.  Crew experience ratings (naval) should be lowered.  This reflects the fact that few PT boat Captains ever trained on anti-shipping torpedo exercises and were thus largely untrained in this M.O.
 
3.  PT boat TF formation could be limited (as is ASW) to 4-6 to simulate difficulty in coordinating large numbers of attacking PTs.  This was a common HR in WiTP that seemed to limit the effects of unhistoric vast armadas of torpedo-spewing PTs from overwhelming a qualitatively superior force.
 
Some additional things that I would recommend JFBs consider:
 
1.  New game, new paradigm.  Improvise, adapt and overcome.  You *must* escort your ships with capable escorts.  If you are concerned about submarine attacks, ASW platforms such as subchasers or PBs may be sufficient.  Against PTs or other surface threats, SCs and PBs are insufficient.  If you have a high value asset (large LCU that you would like to land), you'd better protect it accordingly.  DDs in an escort role AS WELL AS attached surface combat escort may be necessary.  Sweep known PT sanctuaries with capable surface combat ships.
 
2.  PT boats thrive in the littorals where they can sneak in and deliver a punch at close range.  Or at least that's their theoretical strength.  Avoid these situations of strength for the PT.  Yes, that means that KB is at risk of surface intercept while winding its way through some narrow DEI strait, as IRL.  Avoid these bottlenecks where you can-heavily escort anything that moves through when it must.
 
3.  Try to time the unloading of your amphibious convoy to daylight hours.  Better to have your escorts engage the PTs during daylight hours at range rather than engage in a knife fight in the dark, as is the PT's want.
 
4.  Low-level PT hunting aircraft.  Sweep known PT sanctuaries with low-level strafing fighters.  The IJ forces will have air superiority locally almost everywhere and functional air supremacy in some areas in the first months of the war.  Use your superior AF to shoot up PTs.
 
5.  Select ships that can unload your LCUs faster in the danger zone.  It takes longer (and therefore the TF is in an exposed position of risk longer) to unload an cargo-loaded xAK than it does an amphibious-loaded AP on the beach.  Plan accordingly to get in, drop off and scoot before you make yourself a tempting target for a SCTF or PTs.

[Dili]

No-one in Earth would send PTs to intercept KB in the 200 nm away because IRL it would be both pointless AND criminal! The game doesnt ask you to keep your conscience clean, but at least it shouldn't allow you to benefit in any way from such actions, while right now you could even hope for a lucky result because of the combat system.

Why not if they are for example damaged carriers from a battle and PT's have that range?

There are many things in this game that you are free to do that would be "pointless and criminal". You could use merchants as a bait or suicidical and many others. Btw sucidical and insane operations were made by both sides too.

The naval combat system has many issues, but that is not because of PT's. So the fix needs to be universal. Then we could see if there are specific PT issues.

[Zebedee]

How would people feel about limiting PT torpedo range to 1000 yards to reflect their historical usage? If your PT boats get to that kind of range without being engaged, then fair enough with the carnage.

Has anyone had any success with spotting and hitting PT boats at night using patrol aircraft?

Will be interesting to see what changes have been made for patch 1.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Dili

No-one in Earth would send PTs to intercept KB in the 200 nm away because IRL it would be both pointless AND criminal! The game doesnt ask you to keep your conscience clean, but at least it shouldn't allow you to benefit in any way from such actions, while right now you could even hope for a lucky result because of the combat system.

Why not if they are for example damaged carriers from a battle and PT's have that range?

There are many things in this game that you are free to do that would be "pointless and criminal". You could use merchants as a bait or suicidical and many others. Btw sucidical and insane operations were made by both sides too.

The naval combat system has many issues, but that is not because of PT's. So the fix needs to be universal. Then we could see if there are specific PT issues.

Are you obtuous in the real life too, or is it just now? I mean, wasnt it clear I was mentionning going after the Dec 7 Kido Butai off Oahu or am I just plain stupid?
Fanboys, whatever they are dying for, are a plague, you just cant talk to them.
I am gonna wait for the patch and enjoy the ride, far away from both PT-haters and PT-masochists.