Matrix Games Forums

Did PT boats ever sink or even seriously damage a major surface vessel during WWII? Destroyers, yes. But PT boats? I found this source, which suggests not, but it's not exactly the most authoritative source.

Given that the two most famous PT boats of the war were the one that evacuated MacArthur from Corregidor and the one that got cut in half with a guy on board who coincidently later grew up to be president, one would suspect that their impact on surface warfare was minimal. Certainly nothing resembling the uber-PTs as currently modeled in WiTP.

Are seaplanes as penalized for 100 foot missions as land based planes?

The Japanese developed what one might think of as 'upside down shrage musik', cannons and guns pointing out from under seaplanes just to deal with PTs.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Queeg

Did PT boats ever sink or even seriously damage a major surface vessel during WWII? Destroyers, yes. But PT boats? I found this source, which suggests not, but it's not exactly the most authoritative source.

Given that the two most famous PT boats of the war were the one that evacuated MacArthur from Corregidor and the one that got cut in half with a guy on board who coincidently later grew up to be president, one would suspect that their impact on surface warfare was minimal. Certainly nothing resembling the uber-PTs as currently modeled in WiTP.

I am not sure if they scored any good hits or not, but think about how they were used in the real war and how players use them in WitP .... Not sure what their actual role in the war was, but in WitP, players use them as warships... I bet how they were originally used and how they are used in the game are very different...

In my games I have not run into the uber-PT problem at all and have been smacking them out of my way every surface fight I have. Now they hit hard and deadly when they strike unescorted ships, but hell a couple PGs can do that to.

If you take lossed from PTs on an unescorted convoy too bad.. The only problem I see here is their ability to sneak up and ambush capital ships during the day... This should be a rare occurence, especially if the TF has DD escorts.

Xargun

I WISH I had these uber PT boats.

The best my boats can do is knock off 1 or 2 unescorted APs. The rest of the time they get pasted. In a night action off Java, I had 6 PTs fo in on a Jap BB TF. I got 1 hit on the Haruna, and lost 4 boats in the process.

So, why aren't my boats the uber ones....

In my game against the AI the Japanese have sunk at least one PT boat in PI with air power. On top of that in for example the PI, the supplies dont exsist to keep rearming the PT boats with Torpedos, unless you advocate keeping all your supply in Manila. Once they fire that torp off, no more torpedos. Just a 50 cal machine Gun.

And the AI has never had trouble in my games sinking PT boats. They sank another PT boat in Batavia where I didnt score a single hit on a convoy of mostly ap ships with covering DD and PC.

I have no problem with the attack per se. My beef is that they are completely ignored by the air strike routine unless a/c are set for Naval strike at 100'. And then you have to pray that the strike goes after the correct target so you do not get butchered.

2 of those 3 days, not a single strike was conducted from those CV's. Even though the TF of PT's was sighted 120 miles away on each day. They should be a valid target if spotted regardless of the altitude setting of the a/c. Just have the strike a/c so as the torp bombers and fly to the target at 10,000 feet, but if the target are PT boats then have them drop to 100' to engage.

Give the attacking a/c a to hit penalty when attacking PT boats due to their maneuvability.

Did PT boats ever sink or even seriously damage a major surface vessel during WWII?

AFIAK, the biggest ship they ever hit was Abukuma, on the morning after Surigao Strait. The intended target was a DD; they missed.....

not read the full topic but if a carrier TF is close enough to land that a PT can make an attack I think there is something wrong with the admiral abilities [:'(] [:D]

ORIGINAL: Moquia

He he he, very nice.

NO, not very nice, VERY WRONG. System is FUBAR and must be corrected before I play any PBEM with the conditions 2ndACR has posted. Uber-B-17's from UV all over again...[:@]

ORIGINAL: brisd
NO, not very nice, VERY WRONG. System is FUBAR and must be corrected before I play any PBEM with the conditions 2ndACR has posted. Uber-B-17's from UV all over again...[:@]

I disagree.

I agree with 2nd ACR that the air-attack routine should be modified so that fighter units stationed on a carrier will target enemy PT units and not just ignore them. But there is nothing wrong with the attack per se in my opinion. 5 PTs managed to sneak up on an enemy fleet and launch their torpedos. There is nothing earthshattering wrong with that picture. It is not any flawed logic in the game. I lucked out, I managed to surprise his TF. If I hadnt surprised him, there would be 5 PT wrecks on the bottom of the ocean right now, because then his DDs would have butchered my PTs.

The combat was very one sided. It was allied surprise, allies fire on surprised japanese ships, then teh combat was over. No japanese ships fired a single round. The weather was rain. It is hardly unthinkable that in a situation with pouring rain, poor visibility and heavy seas, a surface taskforce too close to shore is surprised by 5 small PTs that come storming at 40knots. The PTs come from land so they are hard to spot against the shoreline and they are really small and the japanese ships are huge as houses silouetted against the open sea.

I think you are overreacting. There is nothing odd with the results.

What could be changed is how the AI selects targets for the aircraft. I dont think DBs or TBs should target PTs, but fighters should. So a fighter unit on cap should be given naval attack orders against any visible PT unit within X hexes.

For what it may be worth ([8|]) I'll chime in. Accurate PT modelling seems hampered by the naval combat model. They were not exactly ocean-going fleet units, but they are modelled as such in the game.

If kept as they are, they (PT missions) should probably be restricted to combat operations in coastal hexes ONLY, if possible to programme. PTs should not be allowed in any other type of TF. Some sort of solution would be needed for transit between bases through open ocean hexes, perhaps ability to disband back onto AKs).

PT missions should have a size limit, perhaps maximum of six or so.

***(all TFs need a realistic size limit I believe...these monster TFs need to go. For one thing, it will force the players to form many TFs, spreading escorts thin, thereby reducing the number of excess ASW ships players like to form into massive ASW TFs. Dedicated ASW TFs were not very prevalent until there were enough ASW ships IN EXCESS of those needed for escort duties, so potentially, only the Allied player will have enough by 43 for ASW TFs, unless he wants to put all his eggs in one basket and leave the convoys unprotected).

PT torp attack accuracy should be greatly reduced, as they did not have torpedo directors as did DDs, or TDCs as did subs...they basically just pointed and let loose if I understand correctly.

Probability of duds should be high for USN surface vessel torpedoes as well, but they don't appear to have a dud rate at the moment (USN Mk 8 and 15 torps used on PTs and surface combatants sucked almost as bad as the Mk 14s used by subs and were as bad as the Mk 13s used by aircraft).

Somehow, PTs should suffer a "bonus" (defenders secondary and tertiary weapons) fire round in order to close during daylight combat.

Ideally however, I believe that the PT model be more drastically revamped. What if PTs were like torpedo plane squadrons rather than naval TFs? PTs are more like planes than ships in WITP, anyway. They would behave more like PTs I bet, and the defensive fire would be more realistic, as all PTs (now aircraft) would be subject to more realistic defensive fire, they would not be pounded incessantly by multiple hits from BB main guns on down (bizarre how the PTs take so much punishment, let alone can be tracked by main battery turrets which seem to swing like the B17 ball turrets), and the balls necessary to drive these suckers is modelled for pilots (morale/fatigue). Size of squadrons will be fixed...say six or so, and so would the number of squadrons (just research the number of historical squadrons in the various navies and voila, a max amount is set), eliminating the possibility of unlimited hordes of PTs.

Whadya think guys?[8D]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
What could be changed is how the AI selects targets for the aircraft. I dont think DBs or TBs should target PTs, but fighters should. So a fighter unit on cap should be given naval attack orders against any visible PT unit within X hexes.

This is a decent solution but not sure if it could be modeled. There are several other problems in the system. No way a PT boat TF gets close enough to engage capital ships, it's just not gonna happen. Not a surprise issue, just so unlikely that it would happen it the first place. Look back over the threads this is not the first time we've seen results like this. Way to frequent occurances of this 'million to 1 shot'

Oh and yeah, I've lost a CA to PT's in one of my PBEM's and the TF was 2 hexes offshore at the time on escort duty.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
They were not exactly ocean-going fleet units, but they are modelled as such in the game.
<snip>
PT missions should have a size limit, perhaps maximum of six or so.
<snip>
PT torp attack accuracy should be greatly reduced
<snip>
Probability of duds should be high for USN surface vessel
<snip>
should probably be restricted to combat operations in coastal hexes ONLY

Ron states (far better than I could) some of the issues and possible solutions. These need to be looked at soon. If I'm sailing KB 120-180 miles offshore in a 20 ship TF with 8 DD's and have one of my CV's torpedoed by motorboat, I'm giving up PBEM till its fixed.

PT's were used much like the "swiftboats" we're hearing about now in the controversy surrounding Senator Kerry's war record. They worked close to shore or between islands. They didn't form up surface combat missions and sail on the open ocean to engage the Japanese Main Body.

ORIGINAL: Caltone
There are several other problems in the system. No way a PT boat TF gets close enough to engage capital ships, it's just not gonna happen. Not a surprise issue, just so unlikely that it would happen it the first place. Look back over the threads this is not the first time we've seen results like this. Way to frequent occurances of this 'million to 1 shot'

There is a reason most fleet units never went close enough to shore to be within enemy PT range you know, and if they did they brought a gazillion DDs as escorts. I cannot say these results are ahistorical because most real life task force commanders would never wander into PT territory. A PT is just as easy to spot as a sub on the surface. But with three times the speed. They are hopeless to target with anything larger than a 40mm gun, and most of the 40mm and lower armament on capital ships could not be depressed enough to target PTs that were close.

Like I said, rain, heavy seas, close to shore. It is not unliklely to have a PT score a lucky hit. And remember that I had something like 10-15 PTs out there in different taskforces looking for those carriers. I think the lesson here is to not venture too close to shore with valuable capital ships.

I agree, that nothing is wrong with the combat result per se. They did get to me, my complaint is that they are ignored with the targeting routine unless I set a/c at 100' altitude. Which I am reluctant to do, since I can just see my a/c going after a different but much deadlier surface combat force if spotted at 100' and get butchered.

Hi, My view (and this applies to the impact of mines in UV and to a lesser extent WITP)

In actual practice torpedo boats and mines are meant to discourage enemy forces from entering a hex or a hex in range. In actual practice most navies in WW2 stayed clear of enemy torpedo boats and minefields. (once discovered)

In Wargame practice players tend to mass much more then actual. (they place more mines and torpedo boats.)
In Wargame practice players think "PT boats never hurt anything" and so boldly go right among them.

Then when the PT boat has a success they say "Bug, Incorrect, PT's never did that"

Well your right they never did. Also they were never employed in mass and the enemy did not try to tangle with them. No one (on either side) can prove squat in regards to what would or would not have occured under these conditions. We are left with what the programmer/designers want the effect to be once they see how the players are employing them. By nature I never use PT in TF of more then 6 but I might have 3 or 4 such TF in a single hex. (The hex is a 60 mile hex) As Japan when I want to deal with PT I send a TF of 6 or fewer DD and let them clear the PT out. I've let PT hit at least one of my transport TF in each PBEM game so far and I can see no "Uber" abilty on their part.

Panzer, rain and heavy seas would make life miserable for the PT's. Again, they were not used as surface combat TF's that went out to open seas to engage the Main Body. Your opponent states he was 120 miles from shore when attacked.

Hi, He didn't post weather conditions or sea state. 120 miles is less then 6 hours away for PT's not running at full speed.
Now in a night attack against enemy TF without radar.............

I am getting so tired of hearing "it's the way players use them that's the problem"

Maybe, but please don't ignore the fact that this happens. Your answer dodges the problem Players currently can:

1. Station PT's anywhere on the map (100's of miles from shore and still move them 1 hex at a time)
2. Amass HUGE squadrons of them.
3. Form surface combat TF's and hunt other surface combat TF's several hexes away from shore.

None of the above should happen, additionally the torpedo accuracy and lack of duds may be an issue.

Instead of saying players can do this forcing yet another house rule, shouldn't this at least be looked at? If it can't be fixed, fine, we'll deal with house rules, but lets hear from the team.

Weather was clear for the most part in that area. I would have to re-run the turn to be sure. Maybe some scattered showers in the area.

We are getting off target a little. I have no complaint per se with the RESULT. Only that they are IGNORED by the normal air targeting routine unless set at 100' altitude. Which would be fine if I could PICK my targets. Since I can not pick my targets, and agree that I should not be able to, I am reluctant to do so. I can just see my a/c taking off after that lovely 4 CA TF that suddenly appears and getting butchered.

Maybe letting CAP engage PT boats as a target of opportunity if they are within the CAP range setting would work. Cap fighters would swoop down and engage them. We had opportunity attacks in BTR, so I know GG knows how to program that in.

I agree, PT's were defensive arms. They were point defense. All of the major and some of the minor combatants of WW2 had some form of PT boat. They did it for a reason. I woudl liek to see some of the ideas here workied in, like the MTB Squadrons, Fatigue Morale, etc. on PT's. OTOH people need to remember that a PT boat is a light fast target. WOudl you venture a TF into an area where 6 Submarines were lurking? (one hex) The fact that in WW2 PT's were used as Barge busters, and coastal patrol craft does not mean that if they had the chance to attack larger ships they woudl be useless. In Daylight, they woudl be in deep trouble, and more likely to get killed, but, if they are used where they are intended, within 120 miles of the coast, I see no problem. One thing that is not in teh game is what happens if a PT squadron attacks an enemy TF in Restricted waters? Say a HArbor, or around one of the many Atolls, or SMall island CLusters? Let's see, they come in drawing a massive 4 feet of water, Launch there torpedoes,at heavy ships, and what happens? The Heavy ships have a choice, play with the throtle, and make Minor Rudder corrections and hope that they can make the Torpedoes miss, or they can take radical evasive manuvers and hope they do nto go out of the channel, hit an uncharted rock or rip themselves open on that reef.

Planes should attack PT's without being set to 100' attack, but they shoudl nto be overly successful. Instead of sinking or damageing the PT's they should thwart the attacks. A common practice for PT's t avoid dive bombers was to wait 'till the bomb was RELEASED and then revese course , causing teh bomb to miss. If you are using planes that have no bombs, and are strafeing, be prepared to lose planes. They have 6 50 calier machine guns, and well you are coming in low. The one you are shooting at may be supressed but the other 4 or 5 are not.

I think instead of having the unlimited PT boat available, I think that they must be tied to a MTB command, like other units. You sttion MTBS 4 at Tarawa. they have a Max of 18 MTB's. You can use it as a 18 boat squad or you can split it and have 3 squadrons of 6. Up to you, but it is not pull up an AK, and start pumping out as many as you want without support. Now on the positive for teh PT's woudl be to allow PT's that are stationed with there Unit MTBS 4 for example, will load torpedoes on the PT's without an AGP in a Size 1 port with 20K+ supply. They woudl nto have sent the MTBS out there without a means to reload. If you want to set one of the Partial units to another base MTBS 4/1 (6 boats) they get teh load they have, can re-fuel and load up AA ammo but must have an AGP or size 5 port, like we have now for Torpedoes.

UB