Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "PT Squadron 3 - Guide 161" video.

@bkjeong4302 Yes. Devastators did fine prior to Midway. At Coral Sea, the strikes were properly coordinated, with dive bombers and fighters attacking at the same time as the Devastators. From everything I read, at Coral Sea, losses were taken by the dive bombers and fighters, that came in at the altitude where the CAP was, but the Devastators attacked without loss. There were 6 Avengers at Midway. Only 1 returned from their attack on the fleet. The Brits had the same issues: catastrophic losses of Beauforts and Swordfish when attacking ships with a DD screen. During Operation Cerberus, the first Brit force to intercept the Germans was 6 Swordfish. The Swordfish had a squadron of Spits as escort. The Swordfish could outmaneuver the Fw190s that intercepted them, but, while all six made it over the DD screen to line up to attack the battleships, only two survived to make it back out past the DD screen. Those two survivors were flaming wrecks who ditched a couple minutes after clearing the DD screen, with the surviving crewmen picked up by Brit MTBs. Pat Gibbs commanded a Beaufort squadron on Malta and demonstrated that the way to attack ships was first: in overwhelming numbers to saturate the enemy defenses, and, second, bring along aircraft to strafe the escorting ships to suppress AA fire.
3
@nicholas ringer Sounds like maybe you read the navweaps article on the 13. By the end of 44, they had the 13 sorted out. Drop limits improved from 110kts/50 feet to something like 410kts and 2400 feet and reliability was near 100%. By late in the war, they were using Mk 13s on PT boats, instead of the Mk 8.
3
The engines used were Packard V-12s, 2500cuin, supercharged. The engine was initially designed as an aircraft engine in the 1920s, but was a commercial failure. In the 1930s, Gar Wood started using them in his racing boats. The Navy chose the Packard engine over the Hall-Scott Defender, to power all PT boats. A Packard 4M-2500 as well as Wood's "Miss America X" which uses 4-2500 engines, are on exhibit at the Packard Proving Grounds north of Detroit.
2
@fran87blacon did you see "PT Boats Giant Killers" on youtube. It is a color documentary produced by ELCO about how the boats were built.
2
@nicholas ringer it was all USN torps. PTs carried the Mk 8. It didn't work either. The Devastator carried the Mk 13. It didn't work either. In a live fire exercise in the summer of 41, Devastators dropped 10 Mk 13s. Only 1 of them ran "hot, straight and normal".
2
soaringtractor negative. First, the Liberty was liquid cooled, co-designed by Jessie Vincent of Packard and A J Hall of Hall-Scott. The 4M-2500 used in PT boats was a derivative of the Packard 1A-2500 developed in the 1920s. Mosey down to your public library and check out a copy of "Master Motor Builders" by Robert J. Neal. It is a history of all of Packard's work with non-automotive engines.
1
@bkjeong4302 In 42, both the USN and IJN lost capital ships to aircraft. In 42, all the USN had that could fire faster than a 5/38 was the 1.1". In 42, all the IJN had that could fire faster than their 4" and 5" DP guns was the 25mm. Both USN and IJN carriers had CAPs, but still took losses in 42. Both the IJN and USN added more AA to their ships as the war progressed. The IJN continued to lose capital ships after 42, but US losses were sharply reduced. The only USN carrier, outside of CVEs, lost after 42 was Princeton. The difference? Introduction of the Bofors to the USN? The Bofors was more able to reach out and touch someone than the 1.1" or 25mm, and it threw a large enough shell to do damage when it got there. The Italians had developed an automatic 37mm gun in the late 30s that they installed on cruisers and BBs. It wasn't a match for the Bofors, but could outperform the 25mm. Things might have been different for the IJN if they had licensed the Italian gun, rather than the Hotchkiss.
1