Author Topic: PT-Boats...useless? (Read 1057 times)

Janov · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2004, 06:18:47 AM »

Sorry for the delay in answering, I was out of town for 2 days.

@ Slapshot:
If you quote me, please dont take parts of the sentence out of context. I started with "If..." . So there is no way of filming it, then counting to see if each truck was hit by 30 bullets. I also didnt say a P47 could do it, because of convergence factors, maybe a 110 or P38 could. Then there is the problem of the winding roads in AH, the convoy wont run straight long enough for a good strafing run. Even then, maybe I couldnt (its a long convoy traveling very fast), but thats not the point. The point is that one can still point the crosshair on a certain spot on the ground with too much accuracy.

@Ghost:
I agree with the majority of your points. I also wish a "real" night was introduced in AH, not the semi-night we had, were everything was just as visible, only darker. But that wouldnt please the furball-hordes, so whatever.
But the lethality of the 5inchers against the PTs is very high with that proximity fusing of the shells, to me it feels too high (I am no authority on the subject) and it renders the PT without chance against a manned CV. It would be okay if a direct hit kills the PT, but just shooting 100 feet over its head and waiting for that little black puff is too easy.

Litjan

Ghosth · « **Reply #16 on:** December 30, 2004, 08:57:23 AM »

"It would be okay if a direct hit kills the PT, but just shooting 100 feet over its head and waiting for that little black puff is too easy."

Granted! Couldn't agree more actually!

5" guns should be forced to switch to HE to actually damage PT boats.

Considering that any 5" AA shell is going to be fired with at least SOME arc. When the shell is armed as soon as it gets within100 feet of the ocean it should explode.

Granted thats a airburst 5" round that works pretty good at killing planes. But it should NOT kill PT boats.

I don't have an easy answer for how to prevent it.

However, at longer ranges, AA rounds fired flat should detonate before reaching the target. The radar should "see" the ocean & explode it.

At closer ranges, AA rounds should not yet be armed. So at best there would only be a very small area where A 5" round would be effective vs PT's.

Anyone have actuall data on how low 5" shells could be fired over water without it detonating prematurely?

Leayme · « **Reply #17 on:** December 30, 2004, 08:08:24 PM »

The PT boats, MGB, MTB are basically made of wood, when you compare it to a 5 inch AAA shell think tinfoil and since there was no overhead protection, open cockpit, exposed gunnery positions the shrapnel from the shell could take out the majority of the crew with a near miss.

The PT,MTB,MGB all used high octane aviation fuel and a piece of hot shrapnel into a fueltank could result in a loud bang or at the very good possibilityof a severe shipboard fire, under combat with someone shooting at you.

The hull and deck were basically made of wood with some armor plating added to try and protect the bridge and in other significant areas.

German Eboats were better armed and armoured and had diesel engines, so the flash fire effect associated with Aviation fuel was absent.

Using AAA/AA and heavier guns against coastal forces (PT,MGB,MTB) was a perfectly accepted doctrine in any Naval force, since the Boats were very vulnerable to any damage and the crews were the most vulnerable and a PT almost doesn't have the neccessary mass to actually activate the delayed fuse on the AP shell, unless you struck an engine or gun mounting.

"Granted thats a airburst 5" round that works pretty good at killing planes. But it should NOT kill PT boats. "

See above comment.

Even if the shells were not to arm at closer range (AAA) the shells still can be considered solid shot and would be garaunteed to make it an exceedingly bad day to be in a PT boat, should one strike your plywood boat.

Even land forces have used shrapnel shells (both designed and the improvised use of AA/AAA) to take out troops and since a PT,MTB,MGB cannot fight effectively or at all without a crew, the use of a 5 inch AAA shell would be a viable option to take care of a close in torpedo attack or gun attack in the case of an MGB (Motor Gun Boat, British).

PTs and the like were generally used against enemy shipping which was either escorted by an armed trawler or obsolete destroyer/corvette or PT's,MGB,MTB or were hugging the shoreline and moving at night, hardly if ever during the day.

To go up against a Battle Group was the height of foolishness or desperation and immediately draw a lot of unwelcome attention.

elc7367b · « **Reply #18 on:** December 30, 2004, 10:55:21 PM »

PT boats to me a just a diversion, something different to do in a pinch. I resign myselft to the fact that I am going to die in a PT boat just try and see how many I can take with me. I have been lucky and sank a cv before. This only because it was traversing our spawn point. Any other attempts I have made on approaching a task group has led to death. I cant recall any sortie in a PT that I successfully landed. Im sure it must have happened at least once but I cant remember when.

Muttman
Sick Puppies

Leayme · « **Reply #19 on:** December 31, 2004, 12:00:17 AM »

Hmmm, I just had an idea:D

What if we had supply transports and landing craft and make it a joint effort with a Battle Group or they could go it alone once the air wing has suppressed the field/town. Arm them in a manner consistent with the WWII time frame almost all of it light AA/AAA and make th eguns mannable.

Just think about it, M3's and Panzers, Tigers, T34, LVT's hitting the shore line to take a base or a port, imagine a surprise attack with GVs and troops seemingly coming out of nowhere, no base near the shore would be safe. Even a pure supply run to a base that is cut off from goons and M3's.

Give the PT boats something to do, more in keeping with thier intended purpose and even give the Naval/Army air wing something else to torpedo or bomb and PT boats to escort them.

Of course you might need a slightly longer period of near darkness (night would be preferred) but it is another avenue to possibly explore and even a Battle Group could go looking for them.

What do you guys think.....

Janov · « **Reply #20 on:** December 31, 2004, 06:59:05 AM »

I agree that the PT-Boats are very lightly armored, but as Ghost also said: They shouldnt set off the proximity fuse from the 5inch guns. If one takes a direct hit its over, no doubt about that. But as it is now, no amount of weaving will save you from the proximity shells, and they kill you at 3-4k...
I like the idea of the assault landing, Leayme. I just think it would be difficult to find enough players willing to do one at the same time, but if it could be launched like a misssion...
And, of course, we need a better way to land kills in a PT-Boat, right now its next to impossible (unless you want to chase your own CV-group for a few hours to catch up).

Litjan

Kweassa · « **Reply #21 on:** December 31, 2004, 07:08:08 AM »

Well, realistically speaking, a PT boat should not even be near enemy ships of that strength in the first place.

I do agree that the PT boats do need a better target though...

What could be added in the game that the PT would be considered an 'efficient vehicle' to attack with??

Ghosth · « **Reply #22 on:** December 31, 2004, 08:05:21 AM »

Merchant shipping.
Troop transports
Landing Barges

Although some of these did shoot back, the PT had at least close to even odds. And could avoid incoming fire with good driving.

As to the 5" shells, my point was they should be going off 100' up in the air!

AND, they should go off anytime they "see" something 100 feet in front of the shell.

So on a typical trajectory to an object as low in the water as a PT boat.

The shells should be going off both 100' feet up and well ahead of the boat..

Leayme · « **Reply #23 on:** December 31, 2004, 01:25:30 PM »

I was browsing thru some bookmarked pages and I found this gem detailing proximity fuses.

http://www.smecc.org/radio_fuzes.html

"The burst range for a 5 inch shell is 70 yards"

Which means a shell burst a hundred feet away is in the lethal envelope and if you are out side the 210 feet you stand a better chance of flying away.

Notice the use of this type of proximity fuze against aircraft in WWII (1943 onwards) and the "Claimed" unreasonable performance in AH2 and I would say that the as it is currently modelled is just about bang on.

Further down is reference to its use in the battle of the bulge, in the anti personnel role.....OUCH:eek:

Difficulties early in testing of this type of fuze against low flying torpedo planes were addressed. Signals returns from waves when the shell was fired at low trajectories could also trigger the fuze prematurely and even prevent the fuze from arming. To over come this a circuit was devised, known as the wave suppresion feature to reduce the sensitivity of the fuze to spurious wave noise also known as an automatic valve control. (MK58 fielded in November of 1944 USN)

Based on this fact, the 5 inch AAA shell are working just as they should when they get a bigger radar return off a PT boat or low flying aircraft, versus the spurious signal from a wave top and exploding in close proximity to the target.

bj229r · « **Reply #24 on:** January 01, 2005, 09:44:44 AM »

my beef with PT's is that they ALWAYS explode, NEVER sink---some dumbarse suicides into ur guns...he falls to earth whilst you are already in tower..dead

ALF · « **Reply #25 on:** January 01, 2005, 12:03:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Janov
Slapshot,

I have never flown a plane with armament, but I have several hundred hours in small single and twinengine propplanes (both piston and turboprop), with several thousand hours in 737s and 747-400s. I assure you that on 95% of the flying days you will find it very difficult to impossible to put your crosshair on a single spot on the ground (like during a AH2-strafingrun, with accuracy measured in a few feet) and keep it there for more than 1/2 second, with all the vibration from airflow and engine, trimchanges from acceleration, and most important lowlevel turbulence while barreling in at 300mph+.

Litjan

We definitely dont have the level of turbulance in real aircraft modeled here, much of it becuase it would make 99% of those sitting behind the monitor Ill. There is a good amount of bullet trajectory variance built in however, as thats all that really matters in the end. If it didnt bounce the bullets around Id be putting my rounds into the hatch on the tanks turrets!:D

One thing you need to take into account is the fact taht we have no fatiuge, no G forces to contend with so this makes it easier to be consistent, but the MOST important issue is experience. Ive got more experience in AH that Chuck Yeager could ever hope for, and even more than most Luftwaffa pilots that flew constantly. If you take a new player and put him in the MA, he cant hit jack crap for the 1st month....and thats at 1-2 hours a day with numerous engagements per hour. The average WWII pilot had fewer engagements in their career than we get in a few months.