PT-109 - mounting of 37mm anti-tank gun

Although T. Garth has been involved in PT boat research and writing for a long time, I have to respectfully -- but quite firmly and definitely -- disagree with him on the subject of PT 109's A-frame mast being present ("present" in the sense that it was in it's visibly raised and upright position on the boat) under JFK.  The existing photographic evidence is just too strong against the mast's presence on the boat during the JFK-command era (late April-early August 1943). 

The photos of the 109 -- particularly the one of the boat at speed, at sea -- under JFK are, as Garth mentioned, damaged, but not too damaged to discern that the mast is missing.  The photo of the pre-JFK 109 with all the men on her deck that Dave posted was found by Gene Kirkland, another PT boat researcher and writer, and clearly shows no mast present.  A photo taken by Dave Levy, the first skipper of PT 59, of several early 80' and 77' Elco PTs at Tulagi (and the 109 was among the first 80' boats at Tulagi) published in both "PT 109 - John F. Kennedy in World War II" by Robert J. Donovan and Levy's recent book "Fast Boats And Fast Times" shows none of the three 80' Elcos with masts up.

Although the little A-frame masts of the PT 103-class 80' Elco PTs both looked good and kind of "completed" the look of the boat, the masts were ultimately superfluous for any purpose other than the flying of the national colors, and possibly may have impeded the movement around the boat during combat, specifically over the dayroom canopy.  In short, "they were expendable," and it isn't surprising some -- like the 109's -- were removed.

Sorry, Garth.  Best evidence shows the 109 didn't have her A-frame mast up, even before JFK's command period, and certainly not during. I'm curious to know why you're so certain it was...      

If you look at photos of the original masts, PT-109 specifically, in the stowed position while being transported to theatre, they are still elevated at about 10 - 15 degrees.  Every photo that I've seen of an 80' Elco in theatre with an original mast (before radar) has it in the upright position.  I have never seen an 80' Elco with the original mast laying flat on the day cabin.  The photo's of the 109 sister ships..er... boats, the 107 and 103 in route to Rendova, have their original style masts in the upright position.  Although the photo from the Kennedy library isn't in great shape, there is no hint of something as big as a mast lying flat or otherwise on the day cabin.  There is enough detail visible from this photo to make that conclusion.  

As for the color of the warheads and the ends of the depth charges I defer to those more knowledgeable about torpedoes who have addressed the subject on the PT Boats Inc. message board.  I'm sure there has been color shifting in these photos, but knowledgeable people have said these older style torpedoes had bronze warheads.  As for modeling it I prefer to cover the tubes since they usually were with either rigid or canvas covers.

Until somebody shows me something otherwise all I can do is go by the available evidence which has been supplied.  Granted there's not much.  But of all the known photos of the 109 in theatre, none show the boat with a mast.  Garth and I go round and round on this subject from time to time and he certainly has the right to his opinion.  Having not been there I have no opinion.  As a modeler I only go by evidence.  Here's the available evidence on the 109 boat.  You decide.

Happy modeling

Dave

I'm finding thie topic quite interesting and will be following it closely.  Hopes some pictures are posted as the build goes on.

I have the Revell 1:72 PT 109 in my stash. 

PaPa-John

weebles wrote:

As I recall from the book the planks were secured to the deck as per Al's drawing and straps were fastened around the axles to hold the gun in place.  It is often modeled with ropes from the gun to the toe rail but I don't recall if this was described in the book.  This was a temporary solution until a more permanent mounting could be constructed.  The boat was lost before a permanent mounting could be constructed. Dave

FSM did a real nice article on the PT 109 a few years back, and they had the gun secured with rope. I don't recall there being anything else holding it down but a lot of rope.

gary

That photo on the cover of Ballard's book ... I know it well and, to be quite frank, I think it is far too damaged to be of any use as a 'go to' reference (and I know that I will catch fire for that statement but I'm sorry, that's my opinion and I have a right to have it). 

As for the torpedoes?  That's a color shot which is sixty-some-odd years old - how can we know if the colors didn't degrade somewhat and what appears to be bronze isn't actually red or another color entirely.  I will agree that it does look to be bronze. 

One point that I've been told by people who know metals and coloring ... if you were to smear grease onto a natural metal surface - that the surface will appear bronze in photos ... so.

 The debate continues ...

But, in my opinion (and it's ONLY an opinion) - the 109 did have a mast while under JFK.

Garth 

 

 

 

"Had" being the operative word.  We're going to disagree on this one Garth.  When JFK had the boat there was no mast to be found.  The photo previously posted of the 109 showed no mast and this was prior to JFK.  The photo on the jacket of "Collision With History The Search for John F. Kennedy's PT109" (3rd photo down) came from the Kennedy Library as I understand.  That photo clearly shows no mast raised or lowered.  The book jacket is much more clear.  You can even see the helmets strapped to the rails on the day cabin. 

Here's a photo of the 61 boat, a 78' Elco that is said to be tied up next to the 109.  The crew member of this boat said he was tied up to the 109 most of the time and claims the boat on the starboard side of the 61 boat is in fact the 109. 

The first photo of the 109 shows the dark green scheme and the bronze wareheads on the torpedo tubes.  The boat tied up on the port side of the 61 boat shows depth charges painted the same color as the 109 with a bronze center.  In the 2nd photo something else interesting is the canvas spray cover on the inside of the depression rail.  Very unusual.   

You're right, they were.

Whoa, whoa, whoa ... Whoa.

The 109 had a mast.

Warhead colors on PTs is subjective topic.  I don't really know what the colors of the warheads of the torpedoes in the Mark VII tubes were.  Maybe you can contact PT BOATS INC or the National Archives for a more definitive answer.

No, I would guessamate that the depth charges themselves were either gray or left natural metal.  Although, I do have a color shot of a 77 footer from Melville and the depth charges and the racks were painted to match its deck.

Garth

 

 

Yes.  The cover of the National Geographic book on the 109 clearly shows from the starboard side of the boat that there is no mast when JFK had the boat.  The photo above which I stole from another web site shows 109 prior to JFK and there is no mast.  Other than the transport photos you will not find a real 109 photo with a mast.

Listening to what vets had to say, It was not uncommon for boats to have lost these original masts during operations for a variety of reasons.

I think the boat looks better with the mast, but if you want to build an accurate 109 the mast must not be included.

Dave

I believe that the mast was hinged at the base to fold back flat on the day cabin roof.  Is there evidence that the 109's mast was removed as opposed to being folded flat?

 

The overwhelming evidence shows that PT-109 did not have a mast.  For whatever reason it's gone.  There is a photo of the 109 prior to Kennedy and it did not have a mast then either.  Fine Art Models makes some nice models but issues I see with this other than the mast...

Windscreen should be painted over. 

Warheads on torpedoes should be bronze.

The windows on the chart house and day cabin would not be framed out.

Depth charge was probably green,

37mm gun should be lashed down, probably to the toe rails.

The pin that secures the 20mm aft was broken and the gun was tied to the depression rail.

The gun tubs look kind of goofy painted black.  They should match the rest of the boat.

Here's a photo of PT-109 prior to JFK.  Note there are no depth charges installed at this time.

It had shoulder rests, yes.  As for the 'harness' (straps)?  I don't know, and that's something that a definitive answer can be given for; in action, would you want be 'tied' to a gun?  Especially in close-quarters action?

One word of advice; do not use the movie as a guide ...

Dr. Ross, me and books are your best resources - also, PT BOATS, INC too.

Garth 

 

 

 

Fine Art Models produces a very nice (for $7,500 it should be) 1/20 model of PT109 which shows the 37mm gun mounted very much as Al Ross' drawing shows:

http://www.fineartmodels.com/pages/product.asp?content_area=3&sub_area=11&product_area=74&product_id=198

There are ten photos which show the model in detail, nos. 8 and 9 show the 37mm mounted on the bow, and if you click on the photo in the box you will get a larger version.

The model appears to follow Al's plans pretty closely, but Fine Art has been known to make some errors in the past.

 

Hello all, thank you for all your replies.  I had planed to mount it a little farther aft because I served on a "small boy" in the 70's and figured that much weight that far forward would cause the bow to dip under deeply.  But found out that it only weighed 910 pounds so I guess that would be irrelevant.  The drawing helped tremendously.  I am planning on using WEM's axle and trails and Hasegawa's barrel, shield and breech mech and add the brass PE's.  What does everyone think about that?  One more question; did the aft 20mm mount have shoulder braces and a harness, I seem to remember from the movie that it does, any ideas.

Respects;

Flattop57(I served on 3 carriers during a ten year carrier)

From Donovan's PT 109, p.97:

"...When the Higgins boat came alongside, they hauled the anti-tank gun and a couple of two-by-eight planks aboard.  They laid the two planks along either side of the foredeck.  Then, they lifted the gun, the wheels of which had been removed, and placed it in position with its axles resting on the planks.  After that they waited for some carpenters to come out from Lumberi to nail down the planks and bracket the axles to them..."

p. 112:

"...The Japanese dive bombers had wiped out the plans for permanently fastening the 37-millimeter gun and the planks to the foredeck during the afternoon.  Kennedy still hoped to try the gun if a target presented itself during the night, but lest the rock of the boat topple it overboard, he ordered the men to lash it to the deck with a rope.  He also had them lash down the planks, a small chore for which they would give large thanks later on..."

Al Ross 

 

Yes, it was mounted on two 2X4s ...

As I recall from the book the planks were secured to the deck as per Al's drawing and straps were fastened around the axles to hold the gun in place.  It is often modeled with ropes from the gun to the toe rail but I don't recall if this was described in the book.  This was a temporary solution until a more permanent mounting could be constructed.  The boat was lost before a permanent mounting could be constructed.

Dave

Interesting - are those planks beneath the AT gun? Regardless, would it have been held in place by friction alone?

vonBerlichingen wrote:

If it was not fixed to the deck, might it have been a foot or so further astern, to brace the trail against a pair of those objects (I don't know what they are) on the deck?

Those "objects" are simply covers over the deadlights at those locations.  They would not have provided any support for anything.

Al Ross

It was not fixed to the deck sir.

If it was not fixed to the deck, might it have been a foot or so further astern, to brace the trail against a pair of those objects (I don't know what they are) on the deck? That should have allowed the AT gun's recoil system to do its job without any movement of the carriage (and piece) relative to the deck.

If it was fixed to the deck, then please ignore what I wrote.

 

Given the description in Donovan's book PT 109, the gun's dimensions, the fixed objects on the fore deck of the boat, etc., it was probably in approximately this location.

Al Ross