This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PT-109 (boat) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know what the rule says, but this should probably be one of the several special exceptions due to extreme fame as "PT-109". Stan 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What are the coordinates of the wreck site? Pustelnik ( talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of quibbles. First, saying Amagiri "rammed" PT-109 is a bit strong; the fact is, Amagiri didn't even know she was there, & ramming implies intent. Morison (among others, as I recall) calls it "running her down", which I would adopt. Neither do I believe Amagiri was doing a measured 40 knots at the time; she may have been at whatever the Japanese called flank speed, but that is far from the same thing. Second, "speed 41 knots" is misleading. To begin with, I've seen numbers as high as 43 knots. And 41 knots was brand new with a clean hull; in service, with her engines worn & hull covered in barnacles, 23 knots was more like it. Also, no link to the class ship, PT-103? And, am I right the hulls were mahogany plywood? Trekphiler 14:31 & 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have commented off some senseless dribble about sending others in their place (whence?) and denying entry into the US in the 60s (why they wanted to enter, and why it was denied?). If someone can make any sense of it, plase uncomment it back.
--
Leandro GFC Dutra 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm the guy offering to send these guys to the US to get their just recognition. Contact me for more info. I can afford the airfare and putting these guys up in my house. Sending them to see the President and Disneyland will take a big letter writing campaign and fundraising. Watch the National Georgraphic DVD to see who these guys were. -- Sugarcaddy 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"A size comparison of the 1/72 Revell and a 1/400 Japanese destroyer model"
In the article there is a line that says, "Even the classic Milton Bradley game of Battleship would retire the two-pin PT-boat in favor of a stealth ship." I have never heard of this can anyone substantiate this? Noha307 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Why no mention of the aftermath? Many in the military saw the fact that the small, agile, very fast PT boat was sunk by a much larger and slower destroyer because the engines were idle as an act of gross incompetance on Kennedy's part. First and formost among these was General Douglas MacArthur, who wanted Kennedy court-martialed. Although MacArthur was an army officer, his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Southwest Pacific Area would have given him authority to do so, however, the decision came down from higher up, likely influenced by his father, who had considerable pull in Washington. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 ( talk) 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry I don't have time to document all my quibbles, but in general does anyone else think this article is poorly written. In particular the first section describing the the PT-109 has missing words, poor grammar and bizarre comparisons. For example, why would I care that the PT-103 class was almost the same length as the boat the discovered Jamestown? Just plain wierd. Please make this section more consise and fix the grammar. There are also some other tangents throughout. Overall this article needs to stay on topic and needs better english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.151.117 ( talk) 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm in total agreement WHAT the fff[proverbial] is the connection between the Godspeed of 1607 and this story. Where the ff[proverbial] is Jamieston and do I care? NO! Someone fix this.... P------leeeease!
I deleted this:
as irrelevant to PT-109's story. Anybody who thinks the "future PTs" info should be used, put in Motor Torpedo Boat or PT boat; the Tokyo Express factoid belongs in Battle of Vella Gulf or Guadalcanal Campaign. Trekphiler 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence makes no sense:
The only way that a US Navy boat would be shooting at a B-25 would be if the Japanese were operating a captured aircraft, or if the aircraft had been mis-identified. I have not heard of any incidents such as this. If this sentence is to stay in the article, it needs to have some context added. -- rogerd 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PT-109 (boat) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know what the rule says, but this should probably be one of the several special exceptions due to extreme fame as "PT-109". Stan 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What are the coordinates of the wreck site? Pustelnik ( talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of quibbles. First, saying Amagiri "rammed" PT-109 is a bit strong; the fact is, Amagiri didn't even know she was there, & ramming implies intent. Morison (among others, as I recall) calls it "running her down", which I would adopt. Neither do I believe Amagiri was doing a measured 40 knots at the time; she may have been at whatever the Japanese called flank speed, but that is far from the same thing. Second, "speed 41 knots" is misleading. To begin with, I've seen numbers as high as 43 knots. And 41 knots was brand new with a clean hull; in service, with her engines worn & hull covered in barnacles, 23 knots was more like it. Also, no link to the class ship, PT-103? And, am I right the hulls were mahogany plywood? Trekphiler 14:31 & 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have commented off some senseless dribble about sending others in their place (whence?) and denying entry into the US in the 60s (why they wanted to enter, and why it was denied?). If someone can make any sense of it, plase uncomment it back.
--
Leandro GFC Dutra 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm the guy offering to send these guys to the US to get their just recognition. Contact me for more info. I can afford the airfare and putting these guys up in my house. Sending them to see the President and Disneyland will take a big letter writing campaign and fundraising. Watch the National Georgraphic DVD to see who these guys were. -- Sugarcaddy 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"A size comparison of the 1/72 Revell and a 1/400 Japanese destroyer model"
In the article there is a line that says, "Even the classic Milton Bradley game of Battleship would retire the two-pin PT-boat in favor of a stealth ship." I have never heard of this can anyone substantiate this? Noha307 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Why no mention of the aftermath? Many in the military saw the fact that the small, agile, very fast PT boat was sunk by a much larger and slower destroyer because the engines were idle as an act of gross incompetance on Kennedy's part. First and formost among these was General Douglas MacArthur, who wanted Kennedy court-martialed. Although MacArthur was an army officer, his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Southwest Pacific Area would have given him authority to do so, however, the decision came down from higher up, likely influenced by his father, who had considerable pull in Washington. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 ( talk) 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry I don't have time to document all my quibbles, but in general does anyone else think this article is poorly written. In particular the first section describing the the PT-109 has missing words, poor grammar and bizarre comparisons. For example, why would I care that the PT-103 class was almost the same length as the boat the discovered Jamestown? Just plain wierd. Please make this section more consise and fix the grammar. There are also some other tangents throughout. Overall this article needs to stay on topic and needs better english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.151.117 ( talk) 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm in total agreement WHAT the fff[proverbial] is the connection between the Godspeed of 1607 and this story. Where the ff[proverbial] is Jamieston and do I care? NO! Someone fix this.... P------leeeease!
I deleted this:
as irrelevant to PT-109's story. Anybody who thinks the "future PTs" info should be used, put in Motor Torpedo Boat or PT boat; the Tokyo Express factoid belongs in Battle of Vella Gulf or Guadalcanal Campaign. Trekphiler 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence makes no sense:
The only way that a US Navy boat would be shooting at a B-25 would be if the Japanese were operating a captured aircraft, or if the aircraft had been mis-identified. I have not heard of any incidents such as this. If this sentence is to stay in the article, it needs to have some context added. -- rogerd 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)