unknown MGBs
Printed From: BMPT Forum
Category: Boats (In alphabetical order)
Forum Name: Motor Gun Boats
Forum Description: Discussion on Motor Gun Boats
URL: http://www.bmpt.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=443
Printed Date: 26 March 2026 at 5:16pm
Topic: unknown MGBs
Posted By: dldldl
Subject: unknown MGBs
Date Posted: 02 November 2007 at 10:56am
| A German source mention MGB-214, MGB-246, MGB-252, MGB-254, MGB-256 and MGB-257 in various episodes of World War II. I found no other mention of those ships. Are they just a misprint of my German source ? |
Replies:
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 02 November 2007 at 6:22pm
| For M.G.B. read Fairmile B. didldl |
Posted By: Christian
Date Posted: 02 November 2007 at 7:34pm
|
Hmm, or MTB..... Fairmile B ML 214 was in Singapore and 246 in Burma so I think they were unlikely to figure in German reports. |
Posted By: dldldl
Date Posted: 02 November 2007 at 9:13pm
|
Thanks for the answers.
The incidents took place in European waters, so ML seems excluded. The incident with the so-called "MGB-214" happened in 1944, three years after the MTB-214 was sunk. We aren't out of the wood yet ... 
|
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 02 November 2007 at 10:05pm
I stand corrected gents!! and as you say 214 was a reported war loss in 1941 I suppose it is possible they also may have sunk a replacement boat in 1944, they seems to be a lot of confusion with Thornycroft boats or German recorded data!!!
|
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 08 November 2007 at 7:17pm
| When I first saw the numbers as I indicated I thought they could be Fairmiles however as Christian pointed out they could not be, after further investigation I now believe the numbers given by the Germans could be their P.T. boat numbers rather than R.N. as the number 214 is an ex U.S. Navy Higgins built 1942 and made available in 1944. They were given a R.N. M.G.B. range of numbers which runs from 177-192. |
Posted By: dldldl
Date Posted: 08 November 2007 at 9:10pm
| Clever idea, but it would work only for PT-214 - MGB-78. The other numbers doesn't fit with PTs transferred to Britain |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 09 November 2007 at 10:07am
| It would appear there is a mis-match of research info as I have Pt-214 in the M.G.B. 177-192 group along with Higgins Pt's 206,215,216,201,204,207,208,209,211,213,217,203,205,210,212 lend/lease 1944. M.G.B's 181-188 were transferred to the R.Y.N. in 1945 and 189,190,192,180 became C.T. 40,41,42, 43 respectively. I have M.G.B. 78 as a British Power Boat type and one of the first M.G.B's designed as such. 2-18'' were added later when they were converted to M.T.B's in 1943 although this would not apply to M.G.B. 78 as she was lost in the same year she was built 1942. |
Posted By: dldldl
Date Posted: 09 November 2007 at 12:00pm
| Sorry Tramontana: of course PT-214 became MBG-178 and not MGB-78 as I mistyped it above. For the other number (PT-246, 252, ...), they were not transferred to the Royal Navy, so that your idea seems not to work for them |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 09 November 2007 at 2:01pm
|
just to recap in regards to your German source who have listed to you various M.G.B's The numbers you were given are all in the 200's, they do not match British M.G.B.'s. Neither do they match Fairmile B's, so they must be American manned P.T boats and the German source has classed them as an MGB rather than a P.T. BOAT and the the German source is wrong, My reason for giving you the other P.T. numbers is to show that the Americans made prolific use of the numbers 200 and onwards for it's boats whereas the R.N. used "batch" numbers for a group of boats and not in sequence, if you take British Power Boat built boats numbers they jump from say 50-67 and then the next "batch" is numbered 74-81. the Americans appear to have used sequential numbering when ordering/building their boats from the same yard.
|
Posted By: dldldl
Date 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) |
Posted By: tramontana
Date 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? |
Posted By: dldldl
Date 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) |
Posted By: tramontana
Date 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. |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 12 November 2007 at 7:29am
|
not forgetting LCS(L) (1) 's |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date 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? ------------- |
Posted By: dldldl
Date 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 |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 14 November 2007 at 7:04pm
|
LCS (L) (2) Losses 1944 ; 252, 256, 258 |
Posted By: Christian
Date 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. |