SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
09-28-15, 12:22 AM | #1 |
Helmsman
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 106
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
|
Motor Torpedo Boats and Anti-Submarine Warfare
I am trying to find information for motor torpedo boats and anti-submarine warfare.
How often were they used in such a manner? Were they effective in such a manner? How often were they equipped with radar/sonar, or depth charges? How many u-boats were sunk by torpedo boats? |
09-28-15, 03:24 AM | #2 |
Helmsman
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 106
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
|
so far searching uboat.net, I find I-3 Japanese submarine sunk by torpedo, and U-561 sunk in Mediterranean by torpedo
what I am really wondering is, did they have any capability of sonar or ASDIC? or even radar? I am having trouble finding actual sources. I see that US failed using sonar in PT boats because the engine was too loud. But I want to know fore sure |
09-28-15, 08:58 AM | #3 |
Silent Hunter
|
Try checking out this website
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=us&authuser=0 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Torpedo_Boat Generally the MTB-motor torpedo boats and MGB's-motor gun boats were built by Vospers in England.The U.S navy had Pt boats built by Elco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_boat The MTB's had the benefit of having the torpedo tubes mounted in the bow instead of the tubes being mounted on the deck as with PT boats. PT boats had a high mortality rate when they launched torpedo attacks in highly defended estuaries when the splash made by the torpedo's were heard and shore batteries opened up on them. MTB's torpedo attacks were a bit less difficult since there were no splashes from torpedo's hitting the water. Hope this and the web sites helps. |
09-28-15, 09:16 AM | #4 | ||
Eternal Patrol
|
And Higgins. Don't want to get on McBee's wrong side.
And Huckins. Don't forget Huckins. Quote:
Vosper MTBs had the tubes on the deck, in the same locations as the US PTs. Quote:
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
||
09-28-15, 09:41 AM | #5 |
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,072
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
PT's weren't designed for anti-sub warfare so as far as I know they didn't have sonar. They were equipped with radar, and couple that with their high speed & shallow draft they were very effective against supply barges.
|
09-28-15, 11:20 AM | #6 | |
Silent Hunter
|
Quote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IB...0boats&f=false This site and others agree with the placement of the tubes on deck but I will look for the book I have that details some placements in the bow. One American PT boat Commander lamented the fact that torpedo attacks would have been easier if all tubes were in the bow. If I remember right, this placement was on bigger boats. Like you, I had always thought the tubes were mounted topside. The web sites I have seen show the tubes topside. Maybe the book I have is wrong. The book also detailed the ramming of a obsolete destroyer, the Campbeltown, transferred to England from the U.S under lend lease into locks at St. Nazaire in France to deny Germany the ability to service Tirpitz and other Battleships. A MTB and MGB participated as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid http://www.mtb102.com/ This site details bow mounted torpedo tubes If anyone else has information, please post. Last edited by Commander Wallace; 09-28-15 at 11:41 AM. |
|
09-28-15, 01:45 PM | #7 | |||
Eternal Patrol
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=83139 Quote:
The original Torpedo Boat Destroyers had a bow-mounted internal tube in 1893. Their experience was that even with the tube cap closed water tended to spray all over the ship. Later classes dropped the bow tube. During World War 1 the British had Coastal Motor Boats, which would drop one or two torpedoes from the stern and then turn to get out of their way. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php...560&Itemid=417
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
|||
10-24-15, 05:44 AM | #8 |
Helmsman
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 106
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
|
Hello again!
I am mostly interested in its anti-submarine capabilities. The reason I ask is in a game called Hearts of Iron III, there is a mod called Black Ice. It is a grand strategy game. But I have a disagreement with the mod maker. In the mod there are two different types of this sort: Motor Torpedo Boat and Torpedo Boat --- The Motor Torpedo Boat seems to represent the smaller types, while the Torpedo Boat seems to represent the larger types. Now look at these technologies for these boats: http://blackicemod.com/doc/technolog...allship_folder Every few years you can research such technologies. Anyway, Motor Torpedo Boats (such as representing a PT boat) is effective at hunting and destroying submarines in this mod. I believe that motor torpedo boats should be ineffective at destroying submarines. In fact, in these technologies that can be researched I do not think motor torpedo boats even had some of these technologies able to be implemented because of their small size. When I questioned that motor torpedo boats should be effective at destroying subs, the mod maker stated that there is no discussion to be had. If you are in a submarine and you come across a few motor torpedo boats with depth charges you are "in for a bad time". This mod strives to achieve historically accurate results. But then certainly aircraft and destroyers should be the most effective at hunting submarines, not torpedo boats? I disagree with what he stated, because how will these boats know where to drop their charges? and they only are equipped with 4 depth charges sometimes. So how can they be anywhere near as effective as Destroyers? I cannot find evidence yet that they were equipped with Hydrophones (as the mod gives them) So I want to know your opinions Last edited by Gunnarr; 10-24-15 at 05:49 AM. |
10-24-15, 07:19 AM | #9 |
Eternal Patrol
|
I remember reading a long time ago that the reason MTBs and PTs carried a few depth charges was to discourage destroyers from getting to close. One of those things at shallow depth can peel a tin can like...well, a tin can.
The bad news is that I don't remember where I read it.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
10-24-15, 07:08 PM | #10 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
They may have been equipped with DC's because of the peculiar conditions of the Solomans campaign. When the Japanese were trying to supply, reinforce, or evacuate their troops, they used an odd assortment of craft, including destroyers, small boats, barges, and submarines on an ad hoc basis, to accomplish the task. PT boats patrolled to interfere with this, and also to defend local anchorages, so they might encounter subs in shallow water, or at night on the surface. |
11-01-15, 12:11 AM | #11 | |
Fleet Admiral
|
Quote:
http://pt-king.gdinc.com/PTC's.html They didn't have sonar, so depth charging a sub is blind luck. They weren't effective as an ASW platform. The few Huckins boats that were built were used as training boats (see movie "They were Expendable." Most of those boats were Huckins as they have a funky looking bow. Like Sailor Steve said, most PTs had a pair of DCs to scare off destroyers following them. PT-boats would terrorize the Jap sub supply operations, but this isn't true asw warfare.
__________________
|
|
11-01-15, 12:18 AM | #12 |
Fleet Admiral
|
PT-107
__________________
|
11-01-15, 12:27 AM | #13 |
Fleet Admiral
|
__________________
|
11-04-15, 07:47 PM | #14 |
Helmsman
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 106
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
|
In that last link is the website broken ? I cannot view the tactics part
|
|
|