Was she the only PT Boat painted green—or was the entire unit 109 belonged to in this measure?
Quite pretty. My only quibble would be the torpedoes–but, that’s from reading Hellions of the Deep, which describes just how long it took to get mass-produced torpedoes into USN inventory. And, even then, most were still nearly built one-piece at a time. The parts were matched only at final assembly at the base torpedo shop, so the tail fins might be from different runs, the motor section another, the body from still another.
A modeler almost has an excuse to use the entire metallics line of their favorite paint line, really.
I BELIEVE that Navy Green is a darker shade of green. I was told by a PT vet that Navy Green was very similar to Olive Drab Green. In fact, he once told me that the green used on some USPS mailboxes was the same green that they used as Navy Green.
Steve Sobieralski really knows his stuff, take it from me.
Garth
1 Like
No Manstein …
Many PTs were green … If you want to do a specific boat in a specific time/location - what is the time frame are you thinking of? Do you want added weaponry? Radar? Torpedo tubes? Roll-off racks?
The 109 and her near sisters in her squadron and the early squadrons were a single color scheme …
Garth
Torpedo colors are problematic. I based the ones on the model on a couple color photos of Mk 13s I found on the internet with bronze colored afterbodies and grey painted warheads. I read later that the bronze color was more likely due to the preservative applied rather than the color of the metal itself.
Well, I am often criticized for believing this and saying this; but it is something that I have been told, both by vets, and fellow Historians, but … here goes nunthin’ (he says whilst putting on a helmet and donning body-armor and raising shields) …
The torpedoes were …
The bodies were left in their “natural state” but heavily greased and the warheads (for the Mark XIIIs) were painted to either match the base color of whatever scheme the boat was painted in or to match whatever area of the scheme that they were in front of.
I was also told that the torpedoes which were fired from tubes had their bodies left natural as well and greased but had their warheads painted to indicate whatever type of explosive that was in the warhead.
Garth
Based on contemporary photos, some boats did have MK13s with warheads painted boat colors, while others did not. For example:
Practice warheads on MK13s were painted yellow.
Tech specs for the MK8s fired from the tubes indicate the only explosive with which they were filled was TNT, so color differences based on explosive type seems unlikely. MK13s were filled with TPX.
Al Ross
You are quite correct. I also clean failed to take into considerations just how different 'net images can be from the actual appearance.
So, let me admit mea maxima culpa here, I foolishly reacted to that cartridge-brass color without thinking that through. I’ve seen that gleam in the photos of '13’s being leaded into a/c; racked on PT ought be no different.
That, and I may like fooling with multiple metallic finishes too much.
I wonder what the pont was to just painting the head??? The world wonders…
My guess is that since the warheads were interchangeable on the torpedoes, that it made identification of the type easier. And, I am only speculating, since the after section was bronze or brass or whatever and being non-ferrous and not subect to rust, they didn’t need to be painted. It is hard to keep paint on brass in my experience, so why bother?
And now, I shall sit back and see my theories torpedoed by more learned members of the forum.
Interesting…
Seems to me that torpedos were… consumables… & would be fresher than the boats?
So whatever colo(u)rs you paint the torpedos you are likely to be as right as wrong…
Reminds me of a phrase… " EVERYTHING is TRUE… just not all at the same time… or to the same people…"
I’ll bet most boats carried torps for months w/o firing them in anger…maybe years in some cases…
No, they would have been pulled for maintenance and inspection on a regular basis even if not used. Bad designs and admiral’s egos non-withstanding, the Navy took dim view on ordnance that didn’t work when the time came to use it. Months is possible, but not years.
Very true. When I typed that I knew i was stretching it but wanted to make a point that it was a very rare encounter, indeed, when a PT Boat actually got a chance to fire a torp in anger…not like the movies where battleship plinking was an everyday occurance…in fact, I challenge anyone to reference a torp strike from a US PT on an enemy destroyer or larger…in the pacific…
By the way, got the WE PE set (2 frets)…pretty nice, but was let down a bit by the instructions which don’t seem to reference all of the pieces on both frets—wonder if I was short-changed a sheet? man, that Revell boat still can be made nice, considering its age!
Battle of Surigao Strait
Are you just "fish"ing for interesting boats to do? [;)]
There were certainly more targets earlier in the war; one of the reasons the PT boats started carrying more guns later was that they were running into more barges than actual destroyers, but there were definitely hits on all sorts of larger vessels, including:
PT-34 hit a freighter in Binanga Bay, Philippine Islands, Jan 18 1942
PT-41 hit a small freighter near Subic Bay, Philippine Islands, Jan 24, 1942
PT-32 hits IJN Minelayer Yaeyama with a dud torpedo February 1 1942
PT-34 hits IJN cruiser Kuma on the bow with a dud torpedo, April 8, 1942
That’s just from text searching for “hit” on “At Close Quarters.”
WEM’s customer service is a great place to start if you suspect a problem…
Okay, I knew someone would throw that out, but tell me: what PT boat hit what ship?
LOL, of course—always more fun to model a boat w/ some history under her belt…
But, I still stick to my premise since in most navies a minelayer/minesweeper is lower in pecking order than a destroyer, and even if that weren’t true—how’d they know they scored a hit if it was a dud…??? I know subs can hear dud-strikes through underwater listening, but a PT boat? I dare say it was a case of over-claiming in the heat of battle…
Actually most of their claimed hits were either erroneous or for a ship of a type heavier … the minelayer was claimed as a sunk cruiser. I usually use the listed event as a starting point and try filtering through the CombinedFleet.com TROMs for confirmation or extra information. I’ve been pecking away at a "Daily history of the USN PT boat for about a year off and on. I treat each claim as a hint to start digging, but probably more false than truth.
RE: Surigao straight. My notes read:
October 25, 1944, 39 PT boats take part in the battle of Surigao Straight; The light cruiser Abukuma was crippled by a torpedo hit by PT-137. PT-493 was damaged by gunfire and beached, later sinking. All told, PT casualties were three killed and 20 wounded.
Cool info, thanks…I wonder if I can model the Revell PT into the configuration of one of those boats—I’m guessing they were of the latter variety w/ radar, roll-offs, etc…