Talk:PT-109 (boat)

PT-109

I know what the rule says, but this should probably be one of the several special exceptions due to extreme fame as "PT-109". Stan 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the coordinates of the wreck site? Pustelnik (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a fact?

A couple of quibbles. First, saying Amagiri "rammed" PT-109 is a bit strong; the fact is, Amagiri didn't even know she was there, & ramming implies intent. Morison (among others, as I recall) calls it "running her down", which I would adopt. Neither do I believe Amagiri was doing a measured 40 knots at the time; she may have been at whatever the Japanese called flank speed, but that is far from the same thing. Second, "speed 41 knots" is misleading. To begin with, I've seen numbers as high as 43 knots. And 41 knots was brand new with a clean hull; in service, with her engines worn & hull covered in barnacles, 23 knots was more like it. Also, no link to the class ship, PT-103? And, am I right the hulls were mahogany plywood? Trekphiler 14:31 & 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, it was more than enough to sink the 109. Interesting, seems their odds were better than getting blown up in a LVTP by an IED --Sugarcaddy 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not ‘whatever’, if an information hasn’t reasonable basis it should not be here. I am removing it.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 17:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Eroni and Gasa

I have commented off some senseless dribble about sending others in their place (whence?) and denying entry into the US in the 60s (why they wanted to enter, and why it was denied?). If someone can make any sense of it, plase uncomment it back.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

SEND ERONI AND GASA'S SON TO THE UNITED STATES

I'm the guy offering to send these guys to the US to get their just recognition. Contact me for more info. I can afford the airfare and putting these guys up in my house. Sending them to see the President and Disneyland will take a big letter writing campaign and fundraising. Watch the National Georgraphic DVD to see who these guys were. --Sugarcaddy 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Scale models

"A size comparison of the 1/72 Revell and a 1/400 Japanese destroyer model"

What is the point of is size comparison between models of different scale? --Tysto 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that picture. TomTheHand 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Battleship Game

In the article there is a line that says, "Even the classic Milton Bradley game of Battleship would retire the two-pin PT-boat in favor of a stealth ship." I have never heard of this can anyone substantiate this? Noha307 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath?

Why no mention of the aftermath? Many in the military saw the fact that the small, agile, very fast PT boat was sunk by a much larger and slower destroyer because the engines were idle as an act of gross incompetance on Kennedy's part. First and formost among these was General Douglas MacArthur, who wanted Kennedy court-martialed. Although MacArthur was an army officer, his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Southwest Pacific Area would have given him authority to do so, however, the decision came down from higher up, likely influenced by his father, who had considerable pull in Washington. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Poor Writing

I'm sorry I don't have time to document all my quibbles, but in general does anyone else think this article is poorly written. In particular the first section describing the the PT-109 has missing words, poor grammar and bizarre comparisons. For example, why would I care that the PT-103 class was almost the same length as the boat the discovered Jamestown? Just plain wierd. Please make this section more consise and fix the grammar. There are also some other tangents throughout. Overall this article needs to stay on topic and needs better english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.151.117 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm in total agreement WHAT the fff[proverbial] is the connection between the Godspeed of 1607 and this story. Where the ff[proverbial] is Jamieston and do I care? NO! Someone fix this.... P------leeeease!

Navy cutter

I deleted this:

"== The destroyers finish the job ==

"Three nights later on August 6, in the Battle of Vella Gulf, American destroyers were given the same task of stopping the Tokyo Express as the unsuccessful PT boats. Unlike the previous disorganized attack, which did not coordinate the use of radar, the destroyers used lessons learned in previous battles. They did not reveal their presence with gunfire until their torpedoes were in the water. Three Japanese destroyers were sunk, killing 1,500 Japanese with no US losses. Kolobangara could no longer be resupplied and the allies bypassed the huge garrison of 12,400 there. Although the Battle of Vella Gulf was deemed important enough to have a formal name, the battle is far less famous than the story of PT-109.

"PT boats would ultimately prove largely ineffective against the ships they were designed to combat, scoring one U.S. transport in the Solomons by mistake. However, they would later prove to be deadly against the shallow draft barges and smaller craft used by the Japanese in island waters.

"All of the PT boats were retired after WWII, most being burned because they were deemed not worth shipping home. The Navy would again experiment with the PT-109 sized Tucumcari hydrofoil patrol boat in the 1960s, resulting in a small squadron of larger Pegasus class boats. These were retired for lack of a mission by the end of the 1980s. Even the classic Milton Bradley game of Battleship would retire the two-pin PT-boat in favor of a stealth ship."

as irrelevant to PT-109's story. Anybody who thinks the "future PTs" info should be used, put in Motor Torpedo Boat or PT boat; the Tokyo Express factoid belongs in Battle of Vella Gulf or Guadalcanal Campaign. Trekphiler 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

enemy B-25???

The following sentence makes no sense:

These guns were effective against various aircraft, including one B-25.

The only way that a US Navy boat would be shooting at a B-25 would be if the Japanese were operating a captured aircraft, or if the aircraft had been mis-identified. I have not heard of any incidents such as this. If this sentence is to stay in the article, it needs to have some context added. --rogerd 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)