PT Boat Usefulness

[BBfanboy]

MacArthur does not die if he is in the Philippines when the Japanese overrun them. He reappears as historic when the SWPAC HQ arrives in Australia in 1942. If you fly him out from the Philippines with his HQ troops, you can even end up with two "Dugout Dougs", but this is not a bonus IMO! [:D]

If Yamamoto was transferring by air with his unit and the Allies got an interception (usually by LRCAP) of the transports, it is conceivable that he could be on one that got shot down but I have never seen mention of the passengers being killed when transports get shot down (but I don't watch the air animations). Don't waste time on it - you probably do not get enough SigInt info to know his movements anyway.

[Randy Stead]

I know his death was quite a blow to Japanese operations, but I cannot help but wonder if had he survived, he may have had a positive influence on the recognition of the need for Japan to sue for peace. Perhaps he may even have persuaded the government and military leaders to give up before the dropping of the atomic bombs?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead

I know his death was quite a blow to Japanese operations, but I cannot help but wonder if had he survived, he may have had a positive influence on the recognition of the need for Japan to sue for peace. Perhaps he may even have persuaded the government and military leaders to give up before the dropping of the atomic bombs?

I seriously doubt that as there were people who tried to stop Hirohito's public announcement.

[RhinoDad]

BBfanboy

Figured range of torpedo launch might be important as code would probably have decreased chance of hitting at longer range.

Do not expect reality but surprised at lack of closing, not shooting and just running. PT should be by far the fastest thing on water so should be able to close if not destroyed. Was not expecting good shots or good performance, just not cowardice in the face of the enemy.

But thanks to the tips am confident that PT may actually not just flee.


WW2 era PT boats if on group patrol to fight in line or a V formation similar to a finger 4 of aircraft, unless laying smoke then it was abbreviated to maximize obscurity. It was found in the 30s that it was harder to hit a loose formation of bombers than it was to hit them acting individually. Acting in loose formation resulted in less hits on formation and increase target hits than acting individually. Same time frame also found the same to be true of destroyers making torpedo runs on battleship broadsides. So like planes PT would do their best to stay in loose formation, following lead, for both survival and success.

Torpedo attacks relied on a swarm of torpedoes entering the target area for a hit. It is not a hammer and anvil it is a spread/swarm of torpedoes each a few degrees separated that greatly increase the chance of a hit; same with falling bombs and naval salvos. PTs especially early on had a very high failure rate in launches, it took a number of boats acting as a group to achieve multiple launches.

A bow on bow shot was preferred, as it increased close and lowered torpedo run time, a chase resulted in a slower closing speed and longer run time. Deflection shot is between the two. 500 to 1000 was considered a decisive range and PT strived for that distance in order to get a launch, the same distance was aimed at by submariners. For a PT boat over this range it was slim and none for a hit and slim had left town. This range leaves a runtime of under 30 seconds. There is very little chance for a ship to maneuver in that time, any more time gave the target ample opportunity to avoid the torpedo. Especially when the torpedo was leaving a nice steam/phosphorous wake/trail in the water showing its line of travel. Average distance to target of fired torpedoes in pacific was close to 900 for subs and PTs. It was at this distance that accuracy for various torpedo settings were calibrated for. Outside of this range their accuracy dropped measurably, as if they were not inaccurate enough. Outside this range then who knows at what depth and bearing the torpedo would run; one had to also worry about being struck by your own torpedo as they had a tendency to run in circles. At the decisive range the torpedo would tend to circle through the target(s) before heading back towards you.

Also an attempted launch often enough resulted in damage and injury/death on PT boat, you are not going to carelessly waste a launch when doing so is conceivably going to result in an explosion of the Torp on deck. You tend to hold back until the risk has some possibility of paying off.

So although battle does not make for well coordinated attacks, lead boat fires torpedo then other boats in formation fire theirs. Unless on individual patrol, it was their tactic it was their training it was their practice. Just check out their training manuals from the time if you can get a hold of one; not too many PT sailors left to speak with. Same for bombers, lead releases bombs, other in formation release theirs. More damage to them less damage to you.

[Randy Stead]

Quite possibly so. A lot of the senior military wanted to fight on simply because they feared being prosecuted as war criminals. Far better to go down fighting and die honourably than be hanged ignominiously as a common criminal. I'm currently rereading Stanley Weintraub's "The Last Great Victory" which details the efforts of the cabal to prohibit the surrender. I find it ironic that they waged war and committed atrocities in the name of the Emperor, but then were reluctant to take that same Emperor's counsel to heart.

[RhinoDad]

Two obvious deficiencies.

1. You are not handling your PTs at all correctly.

2. The typical mistake of approaching AE with preconceived ideas of how it should play rather than accepting how it plays.

Copy the relevant text of the Combat Report and paste into a post. That won't provide all the necessary facts to properly explain your mistakes but it does provide a start. To date no relevant hard data about exactly what you are doing has been provided and consequently all the advice tendered to date is speculative.

AE is a game full of abstractions. It is always fatal to expect your own subjective interpretation of the historical record to be slavishly incorporated into the game code. There is simply no substitute to learning how the game handles the historical capabilities and outcomes. Historical outliers cannot be incorporated into game code.

Good with number 1 that is why I asked.

Have to agree with PaxMondo. If one has a historical perspective than that is a good place to start and then figure out how program handles things and make adjustment. Part of the problem is refiguring the game mechanics having played a bit in Vanilla Witp AE and 1st patch then jumping to newest patch which is vary different.

Do not think it is much of a preconceived notion that a PT boat should not continually display cowardice in the face of the enemy. True it was my lack of game mechanics that probably caused it.

Also was just looking for general advice so only general information.

You blokes were very helpful. Thank you.

[RangerJoe]

This attack was not too bad:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Vigan at 80,73, Range 7,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAKL Banshu Maru #56
xAKL Choun Maru #21
xAKL Hinode Maru #20
xAKL Musashi Maru
xAKL Rokko Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Toshi Maru #2
PB Akitsui Maru
xAK Tokusima Maru
xAK Kosei Maru
xAK Yamagiku Maru
xAK Toyokawa Maru, Shell hits 2
xAK Konan Maru
xAKL Arizama Maru
xAK Aki Maru
xAK Chowa Maru
xAKL Jinsan Maru
xAK Koyo Maru
xAK Mansei Maru
xAKL Oridono Maru
xAK Soyo Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Satsuma Maru, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Sugiyama Maru, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAKL Tensyo Maru
xAK Tsuyama Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires (also sank! [:D])
xAKL Tohuku Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Ueizuru Maru, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Unkai Maru #6, Shell hits 2
xAKL Yosyu Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Yasuteru Maru

Allied Ships
PT-31
PT-32
PT-33
PT-35
PT-41
PT Q-111
PT Q-112
PT Q-113, Shell hits 2, heavy fires

Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Japanese TF suspends unloading operations and begins to get underway
Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 35% moonlight: 7,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 7,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 7,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-41 at 7,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-32 at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 5,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages PB Akitsui Maru at 5,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT Q-111 at 5,000 yards
PT-41 engages xAK Ueizuru Maru at 5,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Konan Maru at 5,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Unkai Maru #6 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Tsuyama Maru at 2,000 yards
PT-33 engages xAK Satsuma Maru at 2,000 yards
PT-32 engages xAK Satsuma Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAKL Yosyu Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-41 at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-35 at 2,000 yards
PT-33 engages xAK Tsuyama Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAKL Oridono Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages PB Akitsui Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Yasuteru Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Unkai Maru #6 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Ueizuru Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Mansei Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Toyokawa Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAKL Rokko Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT Q-113 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Yasuteru Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-111 engages xAK Unkai Maru #6 at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-41 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Tsuyama Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Sugiyama Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Soyo Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAKL Rokko Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages PB Akitsui Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT Q-112 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Unkai Maru #6 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Ueizuru Maru at 2,000 yards
PT-35 engages PB Akitsui Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Mansei Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAKL Tohuku Maru at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
PT Q-112 engages xAK Soyo Maru at 3,000 yards
xAK Sugiyama Maru sunk by PT-35 at 3,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages PB Akitsui Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT Q-112 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-111 engages xAK Unkai Maru #6 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Tsuyama Maru at 2,000 yards
PT-33 engages PB Akitsui Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Chowa Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Toyokawa Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Yamagiku Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT Q-113 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Yasuteru Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Unkai Maru #6 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Tsuyama Maru at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Soyo Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Akitsui Maru engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
PT-31 engages PB Akitsui Maru at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages xAK Yasuteru Maru at 6,000 yards
PT-41 engages xAK Unkai Maru #6 at 6,000 yards
PT-33 engages xAK Koyo Maru at 6,000 yards
PT-31 engages xAK Yasuteru Maru at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
Task forces break off...

)

[Randy Stead]

Wow, that was a knife fight.

[RangerJoe]

However, this attack occurred next and I think that it was even better!

Night Time Surface Combat, near Vigan at 80,73, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
E8N2 Dave: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Ise, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CA Mogami
DD Mikazuki
DD Okikaze

Allied Ships
PT-31
PT-32
PT-33
PT-35
PT-41, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
PT Q-111
PT Q-112, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
PT Q-113, Shell hits 11, and is sunk


Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 35% moonlight: 3,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 2,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
DD Mikazuki engages PT Q-113 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-113 sunk by CA Mogami at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-41 at 2,000 yards
DD Mikazuki engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
DD Mikazuki engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-41 at 2,000 yards
PT Q-112 sunk by DD Mikazuki at 2,000 yards
BB Ise engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
DD Okikaze engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
BB Ise engages PT-31 at 2,000 yards
BB Ise engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-41 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-35 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
BB Ise engages PT-31 at 2,000 yards
DD Okikaze engages PT-35 at 2,000 yards
DD Mikazuki engages PT-41 at 2,000 yards
BB Ise engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-41 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
DD Mikazuki engages PT-32 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-31 at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
PT-41 sunk by CA Mogami at 3,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-31 at 3,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
BB Ise sunk by PT Q-111 at 2,000 yards[&o]
CA Mogami engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
DD Mikazuki engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
Bravo M. orders Allied TF to disengage
CA Mogami engages PT Q-111 at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages PT-33 at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
DD Mikazuki engages PT Q-111 at 5,000 yards
Task forces break off...

[RhinoDad]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Alfred
....

AE is a game full of abstractions. It is always fatal to expect your own subjective interpretation of the historical record to be slavishly incorporated into the game code. There is simply no substitute to learning how the game handles the historical capabilities and outcomes. Historical outliers cannot be incorporated into game code.

Alfred

However, the opposite can be quite helpful for me to keep the game realistic: when you see an outcome, puzzle out how in the context of the era (1940's, not 2020's) how this came about.

Remember 2 things about this game to help you moving forward.
1. There are now millions of play hours on it. it is a rock solid game.
2. There are NO bugs in this game. There are only features; almost all of which are historically accurate in the context of the 1940's. Those few which are not (historically accurate) are still features of this game. The latter list is quite small, rarely seen more than a couple of times per game (and since a game takes several real life years to complete many never even notice). Memory leakage is the only one you as a player can control by being sure to re-start the game engine often when playing against the AI. Often means once per day at least; most experienced players restart for each new turn particularly as a GC ages and the save file size grows. PBEM players by nature generally restart the game for every turn, so they rarely (if ever) experience memory leakage issues.

I jumped from vanilla Witp AE and patch 1 to latest official patch. That is about a decade of features added and bugs fixed. Not to mention a much improved AI. It is a bigger change for me than Witp to Witp AE. To a great degree am restarting a steep learning curve. Keep finding myself finding a new feature and wishing I had found it a few turns back. Not much into new game but all the bugs and quirks of the first one seem to have been worked out; and the original had some pretty strange quirks. Added features are incredible and add great depth to game play. Only problem is trying to find it all out as forum has many years of changes incorporated into it so info is sometimes dated.

As one who is probably a bit older than your average game player it is nice to play a game that takes place in an era actually have the feel of the era and not a modernized subjective or cartoonish perspectives full of "You have to be kidding" moments. It is obvious that although spotty information is available that the homework was done. In the few areas that I notice a non historical feel it is rather small and insignificant. Also they are areas that have little if no information available on them. For instance many YPs are missing and equipment and armaments off. But if one really wants to get into the mud than that is what the editor is for.

Your dedication and quality work is very evident in the transition of the game. When playing a game is something of a way of life it is nice to have the game reflect such quality and soundness.

Heartfelt thanks to the work and effort that was put into this. You made an old gaffers day.

[RangerJoe]

Here are some links to help out:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2920431

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4726264

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2260137

[RhinoDad]

Sorry not meant to be a fight. Just one not far removed from the era and experience. Had lots of exposure to training manuals of time and much time spent with those with first hand experience. Can be quite different than what is often portrayed in movies and statistics. Unfortunately, much has been lost through time. This as well as drastically changed tactics.

It was a tough fight especially early on when men were sent in to fight with known defective equipment and lack of proper supplies to fight an enemy that was not understood. One had to deal with not only an enemy trying to kill you but also your equipment that often did the same. Not to mention early on an officer corps that was more of a social club or completely untrained than leaders of a fighting force.

Probably not the best at online communication was mainly just trying to be informative as well as gaining useful game information.

Again, thank you for your helpful information.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Alfred
....

AE is a game full of abstractions. It is always fatal to expect your own subjective interpretation of the historical record to be slavishly incorporated into the game code. There is simply no substitute to learning how the game handles the historical capabilities and outcomes. Historical outliers cannot be incorporated into game code.

Alfred

However, the opposite can be quite helpful for me to keep the game realistic: when you see an outcome, puzzle out how in the context of the era (1940's, not 2020's) how this came about.

Remember 2 things about this game to help you moving forward.
1. There are now millions of play hours on it. it is a rock solid game.
2. There are NO bugs in this game. There are only features; almost all of which are historically accurate in the context of the 1940's. Those few which are not (historically accurate) are still features of this game. The latter list is quite small, rarely seen more than a couple of times per game (and since a game takes several real life years to complete many never even notice). Memory leakage is the only one you as a player can control by being sure to re-start the game engine often when playing against the AI. Often means once per day at least; most experienced players restart for each new turn particularly as a GC ages and the save file size grows. PBEM players by nature generally restart the game for every turn, so they rarely (if ever) experience memory leakage issues.

I jumped from vanilla Witp AE and patch 1 to latest official patch. That is about a decade of features added and bugs fixed. Not to mention a much improved AI. It is a bigger change for me than Witp to Witp AE. To a great degree am restarting a steep learning curve. Keep finding myself finding a new feature and wishing I had found it a few turns back. Not much into new game but all the bugs and quirks of the first one seem to have been worked out; and the original had some pretty strange quirks. Added features are incredible and add great depth to game play. Only problem is trying to find it all out as forum has many years of changes incorporated into it so info is sometimes dated.

As one who is probably a bit older than your average game player it is nice to play a game that takes place in an era actually have the feel of the era and not a modernized subjective or cartoonish perspectives full of "You have to be kidding" moments. It is obvious that although spotty information is available that the homework was done. In the few areas that I notice a non historical feel it is rather small and insignificant. Also they are areas that have little if no information available on them. For instance many YPs are missing and equipment and armaments off. But if one really wants to get into the mud than that is what the editor is for.

Your dedication and quality work is very evident in the transition of the game. When playing a game is something of a way of life it is nice to have the game reflect such quality and soundness.

Heartfelt thanks to the work and effort that was put into this. You made an old gaffers day.

Several of the devs still drop by time to time ... you ever see one in the forums, share your opinion with them ... they will appreciate it.

Alfred had access to the dev forum back when, so he is under an NDA and that restricts his answers to a large degree. BUT, when he states something, treat it as fact. He picks and chooses his commments carefully so as not to get crossed with his NDA.

[RangerJoe]

Maybe that is also why he will usually either quote the manual or certain threads.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Maybe that is also why he will usually either quote the manual or certain threads.

A few of reasons.

1. Can't get into trouble if the info is already out in the public domain. The finesse is in providing clearer context without disclosing that which the devs did not want, for various reasons, to be out in the public domain.

2. Respect. The key devs have always had their posts accepted as if they were the Ten Commandments. I provide the same data and am constantly told that I'm wrong. By people who are absolutely ignorant of what they write. One of my favourite threads is one where I made several posts correcting quite erroneous interpretations but several posters kept on telling me I was wrong and they were correct. This went on for a few pages until JWE/Symon stepped in and quite bluntly stated that I was correct and how, to paraphrase him, the cockroaches always scurried away when a dev entered a thread. That thread died just about immediately following JWE/Symon's post. It wasn't the only time heated threads died when devs confirmed the accuracy of my comments.

3. It is good research practice to provide the primary source documents from which conclusions have been drawn. Too many around here have either obtained degrees from Mickey Mouse universities or have never been exposed to intellectual rigour when undertaking any analysis of an issue. One doesn't need a degree from a top university in order to properly analyse something. Transparency goes a long way to ensuring intellectual rigour has been applied to the issue. Providing the public source documents creates transparency. It is why scientist are required to provide their methodology and raw data for other scientists to independently check their conclusions. Why any academic publishing a paper needs to footnote their sources so that others can check them.

Alfred

[PaxMondo]

JWE did have a certain style didn't he. [;)]

Miss him very much. Anyone still in contact, please give him my wishes for a Merry Christmas!

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Maybe that is also why he will usually either quote the manual or certain threads.

A few of reasons.

1. Can't get into trouble if the info is already out in the public domain. The finesse is in providing clearer context without disclosing that which the devs did not want, for various reasons, to be out in the public domain.

2. Respect. The key devs have always had their posts accepted as if they were the Ten Commandments. I provide the same data and am constantly told that I'm wrong. By people who are absolutely ignorant of what they write. One of my favourite threads is one where I made several posts correcting quite erroneous interpretations but several posters kept on telling me I was wrong and they were correct. This went on for a few pages until JWE/Symon stepped in and quite bluntly stated that I was correct and how, to paraphrase him, the cockroaches always scurried away when a dev entered a thread. That thread died just about immediately following JWE/Symon's post. It wasn't the only time heated threads died when devs confirmed the accuracy of my comments.

3. It is good research practice to provide the primary source documents from which conclusions have been drawn. Too many around here have either obtained degrees from Mickey Mouse universities or have never been exposed to intellectual rigour when undertaking any analysis of an issue. One doesn't need a degree from a top university in order to properly analyse something. Transparency goes a long way to ensuring intellectual rigour has been applied to the issue. Providing the public source documents creates transparency. It is why scientist are required to provide their methodology and raw data for other scientists to independently check their conclusions. Why any academic publishing a paper needs to footnote their sources so that others can check them.

Alfred

I admit that I am sloppy in regards to my research but I haven't had to do any such papers for awhile. [:(]

On thread in the General section, I posted a link where some published works had to be retracted.

Then I remember this:

Pilots can lose an EXP point if their plane is damage or lost due to an operational loss.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2263271

It is post #14.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Too many around here have either obtained degrees from Mickey Mouse universities or have never been exposed to intellectual rigour when undertaking any analysis of an issue. One doesn't need a degree from a top university in order to properly analyse something.

Don’t limit to here (or to the web). In my day-to-day activities, I see plenty of professionals with a university degree in the appropriate field who fail to properly analyse cases, or to conduct proper research (sometimes as basic as simply opening the files and sub-files).[8|]

[Platoonist]

I often wondered why the Japanese never invested much in building motor torpedo boats. They're relatively cheap to build and they would have been armed with the best torpedo on the planet at the time. I suppose they didn't fit in with the whole Mahanian Decisive Battle Doctrine though, being too defensive in nature.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

I often wondered why the Japanese never invested much in building motor torpedo boats. They're relatively cheap to build and they would have been armed with the best torpedo on the planet at the time. I suppose they didn't fit in with the whole Mahanian Decisive Battle Doctrine though, being too defensive in nature.

I think you would find it a challenge to get the Type 93 onto a MTB given the weight/speed constraints.