The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi

ť Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf

ť Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102

ť Topic: Question About the Gunboats from PTs
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=3080

No. The PTs were not officially redesignated PGM, therefore, they are not PGMs. PTGB is a spurious designation, as it did/does not exist as an official acronym.

PGM is an official USN designation for a specific group of vessels, in this case (USN WWII) eight converted 110' SCs and 24 converted 173' PCs.

Al Ross

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 3:48pm
Total Posts: 994 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

Thank you, Mr. Ross, ....

And, people, I apologize ...

It was PTs 282, 283, 284 and 285, ... the 282 replaced the 284. My error. I admit it.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 4:08pm
Total Posts: 287 | Joined: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm

For the record ...

Yes, I realize that PTGB is not a official USN designation ... but the boats were PTs and then, converted to gunboats ... so, in my OPINION, the term PTGB "seems" to fit.

Mr. Ross ... Do you think they might be considered as MGBs?

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 4:13pm
Total Posts: 287 | Joined: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm

PTGB would be more of a colloquial term - while it may fit, it might also lead people astray if they don't realize it wasn't an official designation. Kinda like battleship gray.

Sort of a double-edged sword there.

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 8:05pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

How about BadAssPatrolBoat?

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 9:51pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

OK Will I would like to see someone put that on their PT Boat model.

Of course it would have to be a model of one of the afore mentioned Gun Boats.

Could create a fair amount of comment in the old club House What!

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 11:57pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Nice Will, very to the point. Maybe we can have a "fantasy designation" contest to see who can come up with the best one.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 2:35am
Total Posts: 2203 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Hey Guys?

Do you think that, even though the Navy did not designate these six boats as PGMs ...

Would YOU consider them to be PGMs or MGBs?

PGM stood for PATROL, GUN, MOTOR and MGB stood for MOTOR GUN BOAT ...

Both really do fit these boats ... what do you think?

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 5:47am
Total Posts: 287 | Joined: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm

MGB is not a USN designator. They are what they are - PTs that had their torpedo tubes removed and guns added. They remained designated as PTs until placed out of service or redesignated as small boats.

What you or anyone else 'considers' them to be is irrelevant. They are what the Navy designates them.

Al Ross

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 9:07am
Total Posts: 994 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

I just asked my questions to start an discussion to exchange opinions and such, does the relevancy of the topic really matter? I am interested in what others here might think.

I realize that MGB is a RN designator - but the RN used hull designs of MTB, MASB and ASRLs as MGBs, ... just as the USN did with the 77-footers and the Higgins PTs ...

So, I just was wondering if people here might have opinions on this subject ...

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 10:40am
Total Posts: 287 | Joined: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm

If a PT BOAT comes out of ELCO, HIGGINS, or HUCKINS as a PT BOAT, it is what it is, regardless of what is changed on the boat or added. You can't just make up a name that didn't exist for them.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 11:47am
Total Posts: 3547 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

THAT is NOT the impetus of my question Guys, .............

I'm just asking it to find out what you guys might think of the boats and their role as other than PTs ......... This is not a person presenting a doctoral dissertation ...

I'm just asking to start an interesting "side-bar" discussion here without any deep thinking ...

I just thought it would have been a fun and interesting thread for the board ..........

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 11:57am
Total Posts: 287 | Joined: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm

Hey Will! Yeah thats the ticket! BAD ASS PATROL BOAT-658. We have more weapons than any PT boat ever had! We BAD! I kind of like that Will! BAPB-658 sort of has a nice ring to it dont you think? OK we still need some 30 cal Brownings for the forward torpedo racks. Jerry

Jerry Gilmartin

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 12:58pm
Total Posts: 1498 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm

Garth is right about one thing. . .He won't find much deep thinking on this tread!

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 1:43pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

On another message board a no-so-nice post about our members was made about our discussion of the non-existent U.S. Navy boat category PTGB, PGM or MGB or something of that nature.

Because of this I would like to expand the discussion to these thoughts - Of course "Just for Fun", please consider the following:

- Patrol Rocket & Guns Torpedo boat (PRGT)
- Patrol More Guns Torpedo boat (PMGT)
- Patrol More Guns No Torpedos boat (PMGNT)
- Patrol Guns All Around boat (PGAA)
- Patrol Torpedo with Lots of Guns and Barrage Rockets (PTLGBR)

OR we could simply consider the countless PT modification throughout the war as simply PT boats no matter what they were carrying or how modified.

Please feel free to add your acronyms for the boat configurations you've seen.

Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 1:48pm
Total Posts: 1489 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm

I'd like to make a bid for a PWT designation for PT 41, Private Water Taxi.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 1:59pm
Total Posts: 2203 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

with the designations going on, is it possible that some pt's went to the air corp? or did all pt's stay with the navy. other then the lend lease. the reason i ask my dads boat was an avr , navy. while the same kind of boat with the same armament went to the army air corp labeled as a pc? still a 63 footer with 2 twin 50's for rescue. its been awhile so bear with me.

kendall p. strehle
avr c-26654

Posted By: kendall strehle | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 3:16pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Kendall,

I don't know of any PTs transferred to the US Army Air Corps, but a number of 63' AVRs were. Your Dad's boat, C-26654 was built by Harbor Boat and was a Design 314 boat. Holtham's book on the 63' boats lists her but does not give any dates or information beyond the hull number.

If she was transferred to the USAAC, it would probably have had a P or Q number. I;ve never seen a PC designation for an Army boat. Post war, if she was still in service, she probably would have been given an R number.

Al Ross

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 5:34pm
Total Posts: 994 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

How about we don't re-write history. This posting is on every modeling board out there and it only confuses everyone. I see no point in it.

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:30am
Total Posts: 1680 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

How about we don't re-write history. This posting is on every modeling board out there and it only confuses everyone. I see no point in it.

David Waples

What a novel idea, Waples...
[:-devil-:][:-cheers-:]

Al

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 5:01am
Total Posts: 994 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

My question was designed to maybe start a honest, open, unbiased discussion trying to engage people as to what they felt and thought. That's it. Nothing more. It was not asked in an attempt to rewrite history or confuse people.

I was just asking what I thought was an interesting question that hopefully would garner thoughtful answers and opinions.

Sorry Guys.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 6:29am
Total Posts: 287 | Joined: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm

I now have a headache from all of this, can we please move on, and talk about something like Will sending me his old PT BOAT for restoration.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 6:55am
Total Posts: 3547 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

May I ask a dumb question ...?

The six boats (59,60, 61 and 281, 282, 283 [replaced by 285]) that I collectively refer to as PTGBs ...

Would those boats be considered to be PGMs? Like the PGMs converted from the 110' SC hulls, ...

Here's the reason I ask:

On NAVSOURCE, in the PGM section - they list the SC hull version of the PGMs.

What do you think?c

You asked what do you [we] think. The consensus seems to be we don't think that your naming (un)convention makes sense. A PT boat is a PT boat no matter what armament she carried, until officially renamed by the Navy Department.

You calling them PTGBs introduces an incorrect term and no matter how much you want the term to be official or correct it is still a made up term that is wrong.

JG

Posted By: JBG327 | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:12pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Never mind. I thought it would be a "fun" discussion ...

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:15pm
Total Posts: 287 | Joined: Dec 19, 2010 - 11:45pm

@ Frank: I had the boat already to ship to you, but now I have to wait and decide what to call it. . .

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 7:54pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Take your time getting it right Will. Frank is like his cats, he'll patiently wait to pounce on a PT.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 8:02pm
Total Posts: 2203 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

LOL Jeff. That's for sure!

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 9:24pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Will I have a name BOUND for MASSACHUSETTS.............

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 10:19pm
Total Posts: 3547 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Frank, that would work. Now all I have to do is insete the photo of you in your Tom Brady shirt on the bow.......

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 7:38am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered