PT Boats are awesome

[Dili]

I know where this is heading. So rather than go there, I'll just say that you seem like a nice, impassioned fellow. And I really did appreciate you taking the time to post that excellent link to Bulkelys PT Boat document. It was extremely helpful.

You don't go there because you don't have anything. You challenged me to come with evidence of other PT success against warships and i came and you stayed silent despite that new information.
In short you say that defective torpedos, subpar trained crew and bad doutrine doesn't matter. All PT's should be nerfed no matter what, why you don't say.

come on Dili, "yes PTs were used in blue water, look at this Decima Mas converted explosive boat which shot up an Escort 1 mile from the coast after the boat driver jumped at sea and came back swimming"

Nice, now you resort to changing the meaning of what i said and even erroneously call it a "converted explosive boat". It was not a "converted explosive boat" but a MTSM torpedo boat more precisely MTSM 228 (T.V.Carminati) that released a Torpedo from it's rear. And the propose of refering it is that even a 3Ton(with 3t all weight certainly don't have fuel to go far) small torpedo boat can have a success against an armed ship in right circunstances.

But imagine for one moment that instead of PT Boats-on-steroids, vanilla AE had presented us with Midget subs so powerful that no in-port fleet was safe? What if they were even intercepting TFs and sinking ships at sea? "Bosh", you say "that's impossible! It never happened!" But au contraire say the Midget Sub fan-boys. "Just because they didn't actually do that in the real war is no reason it couldn't have happened if only there were changes in doctrine and training and leadership and tactics"

Midgets and any other weapon should be measured to the best war example that weapon, that is what shows what is possible to be achieved and with that have a good system. The Midgets in this game and since it is harbour penetration also chariots should have upper ballpark what best Midgets and chariots accomplished in War. Then the Japanese or other(Allies also attacked with chariots in Pacific but it isn't allowed in Game) are tweaked to the crew, boat, weapon values that their quality deserve. Likewise the airplane maneuverality should go from worst to the best plane in all War, that way the system is much more correct and odd results have less chances to appear since most of variability are in system.

[LiquidSky]

umm...I think your just babbling now

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Dili

come on Dili, "yes PTs were used in blue water, look at this Decima Mas converted explosive boat which shot up an Escort 1 mile from the coast after the boat driver jumped at sea and came back swimming"

Nice, now you resort to changing the meaning of what i said and even erroneously call it a "converted explosive boat". It was not a "converted explosive boat" but a MTSM torpedo boat more precisely MTSM 228 (T.V.Carminati) that released a Torpedo from it's rear.

Sorry? I thought you knew where the Barchini/MTSM idea originally came from. I probably overestimated the depth of your unbelievable science Doc [&o]
I mean, Google can't always save your ass, you should know that by now.

And the propose of refering it is that even a 3Ton(with 3t all weight certainly don't have fuel to go far) small torpedo boat can have a success against an armed ship in right circunstances.

Yeah nice point made, "small crafts can hurt ships". Thanks, I read about Luigi Durand de la Penne or HMS York. Sorry, I though that what you wanted to say was actually a little deeper than that. So what was your point apart from quoting Captain Obvious then? Because when it comes to making a point, that sounds like "l'hopital qui se fout de la charité". No offense, but well a number of people made better points than you in this very topic already, and Ive been following their thoughts, agreeing to much what was said (even more on "your side of the fence" than anywhere else, really). It's not because you'll post endlessly and attack Kull ad hominem that people will suddenly start to agree with you.

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: Dili
Midgets and any other weapon should be measured to the best war example that weapon, that is what shows what is possible to be achieved and with that have a good system.

Ok, so by following this analogy Japanese subs should be as effective as German and US ones, since those are the best war examples. Sorry, but saying that some PTs in Europe had some successes so US PTs should be given the same ability is like saying that Germans had tanks that were successful, so let's give Tigers and Panthers to Kwantung army in 1943. As people have already pointed, PTs from Europe and Pacific can't really be considered equal.

[John Lansford]

I've seen more daylight encounters with PT boats end up "TF escapes" or "TF withdraws" rather than actual shooting, which seems to me to be realistic.  PT boats don't have the endurance to chase ships from 21,000 yards away; they tended to use ambush tactics at night, so they could hide and evade detection easier.  Daytime battles with PT boats should be rare, and if warships are involved, very hazardous for the small craft.

[AcePylut]

So far, they seem about right to me.

I havent' had anything crazy happen. 

The Jap, after a couple of PT squadrons hit unescorted transports and sunk a couple of transports, decided to provide escorts for his transports.

Since he has done that, the "effectiveness" of my PT squadrons has been nil.  I've managed to sink a total of 1 DD with my PT's since he's provided escorts, and have lost about 3/4's of the PI PT boats (and MTB's from Hong Kong).  That one sinking occured at night, with visibility at 1000 yards.  I haven't been able to get closer than 3k yards since then, and EVERY day my PT squadrons sally forth from Manila, and practically every night they get attacked by DD squadrons and then "evade combat" against everything else as they skedaddle back to base.
 
 

[Dili]

Your unbelivable science made you wrote this:

shot up an Escort 1 mile from the coast after the boat driver jumped at sea

The "After" says everything.

MTSM crew dont jump at sea, they fire a torpedo and return . They are not MT or MTM that are explosive boats . They are MTSM: the "S" there means Siluro or in English: Torpedo.

Sorry? I thought you knew where the Barchini/MTSM idea originally came from. I probably overestimated the depth of your unbelievable science Doc I mean, Google can't always save your ass, you should know that by now.

Nice try, like i shown above you tought they were explosive boats.

Ok, so by following this analogy Japanese subs should be as effective as German and US ones, since those are the best war examples. Sorry, but saying that some PTs in Europe had some successes so US PTs should be given the same ability is like saying that Germans had tanks that were successful, so let's give Tigers and Panthers to Kwantung army in 1943. As people have already pointed, PTs from Europe and Pacific can't really be considered equal.

Read what i wrote, specially this part: "Then the Japanese or other... are tweaked to the crew, boat, weapon values that their quality deserve."


This is a MTSM with a Torpedo

[Dili]

And this is a MTM an explosive boat that the only one crew(MTSM have 2) jumps before exploding against a ship like what happened to HMS York.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Your unbelivable science made you wrote this:

shot up an Escort 1 mile from the coast after the boat driver jumped at sea

The "After" says everything.

MTSM crew dont jump at sea, they fire a torpedo and return . They are not MT or MTM that are explosive boats . They are MTSM: the "S" there means Siluro or in English: Torpedo.

Sorry? I thought you knew where the Barchini/MTSM idea originally came from. I probably overestimated the depth of your unbelievable science Doc I mean, Google can't always save your ass, you should know that by now.

Nice try, like i shown above you tought they were explosive boats.

Are you actually serious or do you really have some issue? I said CONVERTED explosive boat, that means they are NOT supposed to be explosive boat [X(]

My mention to the "jump to the sea" is only related to the fact that as far as I remember he actually came back to the shore swimming for a reason or another... I know they were torpedo boat, I own a book about Borghese, thanks...

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Midgets and any other weapon should be measured to the best war example that weapon, that is what shows what is possible to be achieved and with that have a good system. The Midgets in this game and since it is harbour penetration also chariots should have upper ballpark what best Midgets and chariots accomplished in War. Then the Japanese or other(Allies also attacked with chariots in Pacific but it isn't allowed in Game) are tweaked to the crew, boat, weapon values that their quality deserve. Likewise the airplane maneuverality should go from worst to the best plane in all War, that way the system is much more correct and odd results have less chances to appear since most of variability are in system.

Nice. Your argument has now come full circle and you are contradicting your original thesis. [8|]

[Dili]

My mention to the "jump to the sea" is only related to the fact that as far as I remember he actually came back to the shore swimming for a reason or another... I know they were torpedo boat, I own a book about Borghese, thanks...

They were not converted and they couldn't jump at sea and after that hitting the destroyer, italian sources refer they were machine gunned by German planes when they were getting back.

Nice. Your argument has now come full circle and you are contradicting your original thesis.

Please cite something that i said that contradicts the above. I always defended that PT's should at least be allowed to make the best they could do in war, that is why i didn't wanted them hardcode nerfed. Let's say that a modder want's to make an hipotesis of a Dutch Indias strategy instead of Island hoping, USN probably would have put more money and resources in small ships including PT's and they would be better and also other scenarios like War in Med or Russia.

---

I also have to bring here another point: That British found that 6pdr http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6p ... cwt_m1.htm
were the best weapons agaisnt PT's starting to mount them in old destroyers(working as escorts) replacing main mounts. I think this a point that AA guns were too short ranged and typical DD gun mounts too slow to track PT's. I am convinced that best weapon against a PT's were fighter bombers and PT hulls with guns for British: MGB's specially because being numerous, so a good simulation would rise this weapons in typical scenarios.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Kull



You need a better analogy. Or at least, so say the crews of the Wasp and Indianapolis, among other large surface combat ships sent to the bottom by Japanese subs.

Yes and German and US submarines sent more ships to the bottom than any surface fleet in the world. Most of Japanese shiping was killed by US Subs including CV's. Regardless besides a few high level targets the Japanese Sub Force was pathetically used and basically useless.

Not to mention US Submarines out killed every other weapons platform combined in the Pacific. Including Air and Surface forces.

Again, your analogy is poor and not apropos to this case. Judging from their performance over the entire war, Japanese subs achieved vastly inferior results compared to their American, German, and even British counterparts. But unlike PT-Boats, at least one CAN find examples which show that performance could be improved if doctrine were to change. Most of the Japanese success came early in the war, but later on they faced not only improved ASW technology, but also the fact that most of their late-war missions involved supplying remote garrisons, not hunting enemy shipping.

But leaving aside such "what ifs", reports from those playing the game do not indicate that IJN subs in AE are so overpowered that by war's end they will have sunk more than 184 merchant ships and 10 or so surface combat vessels (the real war totals). In other wordsthey are performing about as well as one might expect. Contrast that with pre-patch AE PT Boats which were sinking as much large shipping in 3 or 4 engagements as the entire PT fleet achieved over the course of the entire war.

Almost every argument for uber-PT Boats stems from the "if only" school of thought. But imagine for one moment that instead of PT Boats-on-steroids, vanilla AE had presented us with Midget subs so powerful that no in-port fleet was safe? What if they were even intercepting TFs and sinking ships at sea? "Bosh", you say "that's impossible! It never happened!" But au contraire say the Midget Sub fan-boys. "Just because they didn't actually do that in the real war is no reason it couldn't have happened if only there were changes in doctrine and training and leadership and tactics"

Welcome to "Fantasy AE"

That is incorrect and your purpose is misguided. The point I made was patrol craft were very well capable of killing surface forces especially transports. I suppose you ignored the German references and their S boats? Doctrine is what we are playing here, I totally change Allied Doctrine because that is what I want to do. I don't believe in losing in Burma so I pile everything I have there to hold it. One could say the Commonwealth could never hold Burma but I disagree and I want the freedom to try and find out regardless of the cost in game. PT boats needed to be reduced but not made obosolete. Which they are.

No one said they didn't need calming down I agree they were too much in release as I have said over and over. My problem is that oil is needed on the loudest joint and moderation is not taken into account. They needed to nerfed that didn't mean they needed to be made useless which they are now.

How about those Japanese Subs on steroids? You defend them yet they are laying waste all over the pacific ocean and soon I am sure the Indian Ocean. The slippery slope knows no end we can start nerfing until we have an arcade.

I never said "that's impossible" I said Japanese Subs were basically warwide useless. They were used unwisely who is to say PT's were used unwisely? You defeat your own argument. You are saying the Subs could have yet the Pt's couldn't. I think that is a contridiction of history.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Besides the Wasp, the Indianapolis, and the Juneau which large warships did the IJN subs sink? (Besides the Kongo, the Shokaku, the Taiho, the Atago, the Maya, the Kako, the........................................................................which large warships did USN subs sink?)

And then someone would start to insult your intelligence and willingly forget about everything that doesn't serve their point - not because it doesn't serve their point, but because it wouldn't harm enough the bad so-called "JFB" who-must-die. Like the YT wasn't finished off by a sub fish, and the Sara didn't spend most of 1942 in a yard because of torpedoes. Right. It's not even despicable, it's pitiful. Go on playing dumb so you can go back home tonight cheering "Damn someone was not even that wrong on the Internet, but I kicked his ass anyway, bloody JFB!".

I used to like WitP community because I seem to remember it was all about fair discourse and exchange between true history lovers and grown-up people. Looks like it ain't the case anymore. You guys behave like a bunch of teenagers who would sell their wife so to get the upper hand in a pointless debate. Jeez, it stinks.

Who are you talking to? You should be clear when you make such quotes because I don't like your tone.

I am sure Kull can have a realistic debate on the subject. But I can play any game you wish including insults.

[Fishbed]

I don't like your tone either. You can stick your "JFB" thing right where it belongs.
If you're looking for a dishonest exchange with such a bias you'd better not try to exchange at all. I don't have to endure being called a JFB just because I don't agree with you (especially when you are willingly leaving such obvious facts aside with the sole aim of bothering us) period. To someone with my family heritage, it's worth any sort of insult. I guess I never called someone a Nazi FanBoy just because he found the Tiger underrated.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Dili

My mention to the "jump to the sea" is only related to the fact that as far as I remember he actually came back to the shore swimming for a reason or another... I know they were torpedo boat, I own a book about Borghese, thanks...

They were not converted and they couldn't jump at sea and after that hitting the destroyer, italian sources refer they were machine gunned by German planes when they were getting back.

Just as a side note for information, are you sure they didn't get sunk at this occasion then? I seem to remember they had to evacuate at a time or another (always found these Decima Mas swimming stories quite impressive...). Got a book at hand? I get no resource of this kind here unfortunately...

[Scott_USN]

which large warships did USN subs sink?)

Kako
Shinyo
Mutsu
Unyo
Junyo
Chuyo
Unryu
Shinano
Shokaku
Taiyo
Asahi
Atago another sank with her while attacking Musashi BB
Agano
Ashigara
Isuzu
Kuma
Maya
On 25 October, between 0300-0330, the Japanese force was attacked by American PT boats and destroyers. Battleships Fuso and Yamashiro were hit by torpedoes and destroyers Yamagumo was sunk, and Michishio disabled, but Mogami was not hit. Fuso and Yamashiro both later exploded and sank.

Nagara
Natori
Ôi
Tama
Tatsuta
Tenryû
Yûbari

All CA BB CL CV

No need to go into smaller craft?

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I don't like your tone either. You can stick your "JFB" thing right where it belongs.
If you're looking for a dishonest exchange with such a bias you'd better not try to exchange at all. I don't have to endure being called a JFB just because I don't agree with you, period. To someone who has my family heritage it's worth any sort of insult.

JFB? Are you serious? I don't play PBEM to start with. Dishonest? I just showed you major warships sank by Subs.

I don't remember bringing up JFB... I may have commented somewhere on Japanese Fan Boys but I don't remembering doing so.

My exchange is not dishonest and PT boats were used well when they were well led and had the right doctrine. Look it up for yourself. Family Heritage? Please I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about PT boats.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I don't like your tone either. You can stick your "JFB" thing right where it belongs.
If you're looking for a dishonest exchange with such a bias you'd better not try to exchange at all. I don't have to endure being called a JFB just because I don't agree with you (especially when you are willingly leaving such obvious facts aside with the sole aim of bothering us) period. To someone with my family heritage, it's worth any sort of insult. I guess I never called someone a Nazi FanBoy just because he found the Tiger underrated.

You can call me Nazi Fan Boy if you like irrelevant to me on any level. Means absolutely nothing to me.

Are you Japanese and confusing the fact that JFB is talking about this game and not nationality? JFB is about people who "are accused" of seeking to get advantage ingame with the Japanese through any means.... Hardly nationality issue more like play time.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I don't like your tone either. You can stick your "JFB" thing right where it belongs.
If you're looking for a dishonest exchange with such a bias you'd better not try to exchange at all. I don't have to endure being called a JFB just because I don't agree with you, period. To someone who has my family heritage it's worth any sort of insult.

JFB? Are you serious? I don't play PBEM to start with. Dishonest? I just showed you major warships sank by Subs.

I am cool with that. I am not cool about the JFB sting

One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view.

nor with your very special way of rebuking any kind of argumentats with the following comment

Besides the Wasp, the Indianapolis, and the Juneau which large warships did the IJN subs sink?

There is no debate about the US boats being way more efficient. But calling us JFB and provide us with partial data in the same paragraph is quite awkward. So if you're calling to be honest, please be exemplary too. I don't care about what IJN subs really sunk in their ill-fated career, but I care about the fact that I am being called a JFB "with a negligible memory" when you forget yourself about Yorktown, Liscome Bay and luckless Sara. It's not the data, it's the way you put it.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I don't like your tone either. You can stick your "JFB" thing right where it belongs.
If you're looking for a dishonest exchange with such a bias you'd better not try to exchange at all. I don't have to endure being called a JFB just because I don't agree with you (especially when you are willingly leaving such obvious facts aside with the sole aim of bothering us) period. To someone with my family heritage, it's worth any sort of insult. I guess I never called someone a Nazi FanBoy just because he found the Tiger underrated.

You can call me Nazi Fan Boy if you like irrelevant to me on any level. Means absolutely nothing to me.

Are you Japanese and confusing the fact that JFB is talking about this game and not nationality? JFB is about people who "are accused" of seeking to get advantage ingame with the Japanese through any means.... Hardly nationality issue more like play time.

Well if it's not an issue for you to be called a Nazi Fanboy, good for you. For some others it is.

It's not (only) about nationality. It's about the fact that I care about epistemology for certain academic reasons, and that I won't accept to get accused with having a selective memory while I am actually trying to be fair.