Whilw I know PT boats were put to many uses during WW II including patrol, commando/spy inertion, VIP transport, etc., and I’ve found quite a few informative web sites about PT boats, I haven’t yet tracked down what I’m seeking.
How did they stack up in the arena that I had thought provided the concept behind their creation, that being a need for cheap little boats that could sink big expensive boats?
Pretty well; if you’re talking about sinking merchant ships. Plenty of records of such sinkings. Remember - cargo/merchant ships include troop transports. Very important, that.
I believe, pound for pound, they were the mostly heavily armed ships ever made.
Here’s what I found out on the web:
What I always wanted to know is how John F. Kennedy became a hero on PT-109? I mean, does anyone else find something wrong with letting what amounts to a speed boat (albeit a big one) get run over by a destroyer? Ok, so he did a lot of swimming afterwards to save people but he probably should have been able to avoid getting rammed by the thing in the first place! Chances are I have no idea what I’m talking about so enlighten me…
There was an article on PT boats in a recent American Heritage. They were quite effective when used against cargo and troop transports (one technique was to lie in wait between the channel and the shore and blast them while they were looking out to sea for you).
As far as JFK was concerned, the mission was a botch from the start. The PT boats with radar fired their torpedoes at nothing, and then went back to base, leaving the rest in the dark (literally). No one knew what was happening, and on a dark, moonless night, you don’t always see something coming upon you until it’s too late. I believe JFK’s orders were to remain in the strait until he found a target; it wasn’t his fault that he got rammed before he saw anything.
The heroism was in saving his crew, not in losing the ship.
So, we’ve garnered a bit of input to the effect that they were effective against shipping. That info is hard to find, and there are few combat accounts that relay any successes against larger warships. I’ll have to dig up the American Heritage reference (thanks, Chuck).
As to the PT-109 angle:
First, an aside, I think that tale combined with a dearth of touted victories in major military engagements caused me to ponder the question posed. You don’t see a lot of PT tales of victory in print, but the elimination of shipping, while vital to the effort, I suppose did not commonly generate epic battles or reports thereof.
And to consider the JFK angle, one must consider that heroism resides not only amongst those victorious in any encounter. Although I occupy a point far removed from JFK on the political spectrum, I recognize the heroic effort he, by all accounts, put forth to deal with the situation at hand. His 2nd (I can’t recall details at the moment) was equal to the task, as well. I think well of John McCain’s wartime conduct, based also on the aftermath of the crucial encounter. Nobody’s praising his military time for getting shot down. Another note here is that both of these men could be considered as scions of political families; does that make a difference when thinking about their wartime conduct? I, frankly, don’t think so; they both proved whatever part of oneself is proved under fire, or, duress.
Back to the boats.
Is there a source of info comparable to those readily available for submarine efforts that tallies the PT results?
One thing to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of coastal attack craft is their value as deterrents. Who can say how many times a Japanese commander was forced to avoid shallow water for fear of running into a handful of PTs? Even with decent reconaissance, it’s easy to miss a vessel that small, especially in coastal waters with lots of lagoons. The same is true of German coastal submarines in World War I, which kept the much more powerful British navy from pushing their blockade in too close to German waters. It’s difficult to justify risking the loss of a battleship or carrier to a motor torpedo boat, even if the risk is theoretically slight.
Bumped.
I’m confused … I don’t own a boat.
There was certainly a perception fairly early on that PT boats went up against submarines as a routine part of their duties – witness the success of McHale’s Navy (1962-1966), which revolved around that idea. I have no idea if it was a correct perception or not. But I don’t remember the TV show really showing the boat going up against major surface ships.
Battle of Surigao Straight, which was a repeat turkey shoot for the lines of Destroyers , Cruisers, Battleships and more destroyers of the USN, didn’t go so well for PTs. While the PTs had seen the incoming IJN fleet and attacked, about a dozen PT’s went out , but they scored no hits…and they lost a PT trying.
but hang on, the IJN ships were going quite fast… the PTs had only a little speed advantage, IJN had the advantage of having crew selected and trained for night vision, and were in an organized line ahead fleet… the PTs would have to avoid colliding with other PTs
They were used as patrol… as in early warning, and to blockade from individually low value small boats… For the Solomon Islands and the axis forces on the shores of the Med, barges were towed in at night carrying supplies. For that reason, JFK was given a gunboat PT -59, which had more deck guns - the big gun for AP hits on ships, and auto-cannons to make lots of holes in barges… and no torpedoes. The Japanese avoided the PTs since they had seen the 4 torpedoes on each PT , and assumed the torpedoes were very dangerous to any ship ,boat or barge They weren’t but… SO by the time of Leyte Gulf, the IJN wasn’t scared of dozens of PTs.
There were of course many lesser skirmishes, while they could be attacked by japanese airplanes, their 20mm or 40mm autocannon firing explosive shells can bring down attacking Japanese plans, as it only took one round hitting to down them. Mainly they did patrols, rescues, emergency supply runs, insertions.
Even more true of Germany’s own motor torpedo boats during WW2, the S-Boot, which among other things interrupted a D-Day rehearsal. Note they were bigger than PT-Boats.
I’ve posted about this before. The PT boats were not cheap little boats. There are a lot of misconceptions due to the PTs being described as made of plywood. That doesn’t mean sheets of the stuff you buy at the Home Despot. This was a boat building technique of layering inch thick planks of wood in plies, with hull thickness totaling a foot or more where extra strength was needed. They were developed over time to make them larger and sturdier, and prepare them for the large amount of arms they carried. The wooden ply construction was needed for a boat that fast to take the pounding from high speeds in both open seas and approaching rough coastal waters.
Double diagonal planked mahogany, to be exact. Def not your Home Depot plywood sheets 
I wonder if the wooden hulls was due to a lack of steel during wwII.
Wood density chart shows between 31-53 lbs. per cubic foot for mahogany. About half the weight of a 2"x12"x12" sheet of carbon steel.
For a planning hull as the PT had, the lower weight would be better. But I’m no boat designer.
I believe the main factor driving a wood construction was they wanted to divert as much steel to building bigger warships as possible. Wood is also cheaper and faster to build. A bonus is that they would be less susceptible to magnetic mines.
Ah. I knew there was another reason. Or bonus.
Love those PT boats. May have to watch some Mchale’s Navy again.
There was a lovingly-restored PT boat afloat in Portland, Ore. last time I was there, 20-some years ago. Not sure if it’s still there; unfortunately, I didn’t have the chance to go aboard.
According to Wikipedia:
Fuel consumption of any version of these engines was exceptionally heavy. A PT boat carried 3,000 US gallons (11,400 L) of 100 octane aviation fuel, enough for a 4M-2500 equipped boat to conduct a maximum 12-hour patrol. Some 200 US gallons (760 L) per hour were consumed at a cruising speed of 23 knots (43 km/h), increasing to 500 US gallons (1,900 L) per hour at top speed.
At 23 knots and burning 200 gph, 3,000 gallons would give a range of 345 nm/396 sm. I was wondering how PT boats were moved from New Jersey (Elco boats) or Louisiana (Higgins boats) to the South Pacific. I’ve just found out that they were transported as cargo aboard larger ships, in this case Fleet Oiler USS Guadalupe (AO-32).
There was a description in one of the Travis McGee novels of a PT boat converted after WWII for pleasure boating. Apparently it wasn’t all that stable on open water.
“Roll you sick on a wet lawn.”
