![]() |
unknown MGBs |
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |
dldldl
Newbie
Joined: 01 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 November 2007 at 3:21pm |
|
Another idea but not likely unfortunately: my German source is not so unreliable as to confuse British and US ships and, as far as I can ascertain, all the PTs with the right number fought in the Pacific area (except PT-214)
|
|
![]() |
|
tramontana
Senior Member
Joined: 06 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 418 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 November 2007 at 12:35pm |
|
It's all a bit puzzling isn't it, if your German source is taking his info from wartime compiled records which I know personally are not that efficient and you seem to have the answers to your own enquiry as it appears there was no such boats in the European Theatre, however it is quite possible that a boat, any boat with guns on would be identified as an M.G.B as American P.T's were a copy off a British design. The same as the British used the general term "E" boats for German gunboats. The other thing that is noticeable is that when you look at M.G.B. R.N. numbering there is nothing between 192 and 312 (Fairmile C) leaving all of the 200 number's vacant I wonder why that was?, could it have been for the American manned launch number's in European waters? surely it would have been easier to change say P.T. 206 to M.G.B. 206 rather than give it a complete new number on transfer to the R.N. The only other group of boats with a 200 onwards number are unarmed R.A.F. 371/2 ft S.T.'s, as to whether the Germans shot any of them up Donald would be the best person to ask. Knowing how good the American's are at looking after crew comfort were the not Pacific spec boats different to the one's used in Europe?
|
|
![]() |
|
dldldl
Newbie
Joined: 01 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 November 2007 at 4:11pm |
|
I think I should make clear some points to avoid confusion:
1. I'm pretty sure that my German source (Rohwer to name it) didn't work with German war records when he named the MGBs. He must have used British or US sources and made (or copy) a mistake somewhere in the process. 2. I know that the mentioned PTs were in the Pacific from US sources (the assignment to MTB Squadron to be precise). I doubt very much that PT boats had travelled back and forth between the Pacific and the European theatres of operations 3. I'm not a specialist in RN numbering practices, but I never noticed any nation leaving room in its numbering for foreign ships. The gap in the numbering of MGBs probably pertains to British own constraints (constructive or operational). Since the Fairmile C were meant as MTB/MGB, I think the gap was to align the MGB numbering on the MTB one so as to allow a boat to have the for the same number, whatever configuration she could get (MGB or MTB) |
|
![]() |
|
tramontana
Senior Member
Joined: 06 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 418 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 November 2007 at 7:25am |
|
As you appear to have rubbished all other suggestions I have put forward in trying to help you with this puzzle in regards to the identity of the mystery "M.G.B's" and as your info source comes from records perhaps the definition M.G.B. does not mean MOTOR GUN BOATS at all but MOTORISED GUN BOATS these Thornycroft designed 105ft 14knt wooden hulled vessels a.k.a. LCS(L) (2) have a similiar profile to an M.G.B. but with a flattened prow they were a well armed vessel and the numbers you quote fall within this group, unless of course you know better, otherwise this subject is about exhausted I think don't you.
|
|
![]() |
|
tramontana
Senior Member
Joined: 06 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 418 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 November 2007 at 7:29am |
|
not forgetting LCS(L) (1) 's |
|
![]() |
|
northeastuser
Senior Member
Joined: 10 June 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 446 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 November 2007 at 10:27am |
|
dldldl, perhaps this could be worked at from another angle. Instead of trying to figure out what the boat may have been from your sources. If you gave some information as to what the context of the reference was, e.g. what engagement where and what the outcome was it may be possible for some of the clever gents on this site to identify the vessel from this end. For example what vessels were operating in that location according to our records? |
|
![]() |
|
dldldl
Newbie
Joined: 01 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 November 2007 at 12:26pm |
|
The incidents at stake are:
1. The sinking of the German KuJ-9 by MGB-252, MGB-254, MGB-256 and MGB-257 West of Fécamp on August 28, 1944, apparently when she was evacuating Le Havre. The German source also put the incident in June of 1944. 2. The involvment of MGB-214 in a combat against German E-boats in the Channel on April 21, 1944 |
|
![]() |
|
tramontana
Senior Member
Joined: 06 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 418 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 November 2007 at 7:04pm |
|
LCS (L) (2) Losses 1944 ; 252, 256, 258 |
|
![]() |
|
Christian
Senior Member
Joined: 17 June 2005 Location: Gibraltar Status: Offline Points: 775 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 November 2007 at 9:09pm |
|
1. Substitute "MGB" for "MTB" there is really no doubt about that one. The confusion is most likely to him realising the Dogboats had the same number regardless of whether they were MTBs or MGBs, so he thought it safe to apply this to all MTBs including the short boats. 2. I'd guess he meant MTB 204, which was in the same flotilla as MTB 235 which was also involved in that operation. This is just my guess though. |
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |