At the outbreak of war in August 1914,
W. Albert Hickman devised the first procedures and tactics for employing fast maneuverable seaworthy torpedo motorboats against capital ships, and he presented his proposal to Rear Admiral
David W. Taylor, the chief of the US Navy's
Bureau of Construction and Repair. In September 1914, Hickman completed plans for a
"Sea Sled" torpedo boat and submitted these to the Navy in hopes of obtaining a contract. While favorably received, Secretary of the Navy
Josephus Daniels rejected the proposal since the US was not at war, but Hickman was advised to submit his plans and proposal to the British Admiralty, which was done the following month. The Admiralty found it interesting but thought that "no fast boat of 50' to 60' length would be sufficiently seaworthy", so Hickman built and launched his own privately financed sea sled capable of carrying a single 18-inch
Whitehead Mark 5 torpedo. The larger boat was used for experiments until 1930. In 1938, the US Navy renewed their investigation into the concept by requesting competitive bids for several different types of motor torpedo boats but excluded Hickman's sea sled. The winning design proposals would each receive a prize of $15,000 with $1,500 for designs that reached the final part of the competition each to be given out on 30 March 1939. The larger boat proposal required vessels not to exceed 80 feet in length and to carry at least two 21-inch torpedoes, four depth charges, and two .50-cal machine guns. The performance specification was to achieve 40 knots with an operating radius of 275 miles at top speed (550 miles at cruising speed). The smaller boat proposal required craft to weigh no more than 20 tons so that they could be easily transported by larger cargo ships. Top speed was also to be 40 knots, but specified operating radius was to be 120 miles at top speed and 240 miles at cruising speed. Armament for the smaller boats was to be either two torpedoes and two depth charges, or .50-cal machine guns and a smokescreen generator. These last two boats were constructed mainly out of aluminum and had 4 engines. Higgins built an additional
PT-6 "Prime" redesigned by Andrew Higgins personally using his own methods. Later that same year, Higgins built
PT-70 (at their own expense) that incorporated slight improvements over
PT-6 Prime. Later, testing revealed shortcomings that had to be fixed before the designs could meet performance specifications. As a result, the Navy ordered further investigation and refinement of the existing designs until a satisfactory working design could be obtained. At the same time, Henry R. Sutphen of
Electric Launch Company (Elco) and his designers (Irwin Chase, Bill Fleming, and Glenville Tremaine) visited the United Kingdom in February 1939 at the Navy's request to see British motor torpedo boat designs with a view to obtaining one that could be used as a check on the Navy's efforts. While visiting the
British Power Boat Company, they purchased a private venture
motor torpedo boat (MTB) design—PV70, later renamed
PT-9—designed by the power boat racer
Hubert Scott-Paine.
PT-9 was to serve as the prototype for all the early Elco PT boats. After the initial competition, in late 1939 the Navy contracted Elco to build 11 copies of
PT-9.
Plywood Derby Background In March 1941, during a heavy weather run from
Key West to New York by Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 2 (MTBRON 2), Elco 70-footers pounded heavily in waves even at moderate speeds, and seas continuously broke high over the bows. Operating personnel reported extreme discomfort and fatigue. All boats suffered from some sort of structural failure: forward chine guards ripped away, bottom framing under bows broken, side planking cracked [indicating lack of longitudinal strength], and other weaknesses were reported. In April MTBRON 1 reported enthusiasm over the 81-foot Higgins (
PT-6), and with the
PT-6 showing such good seakeeping, further purchase of Scott-Paine boats was unnecessary. In early 1941 the
U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships lent Packard engines to both Huckins and Higgins, which wanted to build competitive boats at their own expense. A Chief of Naval Operations PT Boat Conference convened in May 1941 to discuss future PT characteristics. All PTs prior to the Elcos had been found defective, and it was probable the extended Elco would not be an improvement. The conference recommended a series of comparative tests to evaluate what turned out to be five new designs of motor torpedo boats. The conference strongly recommended that no more Elco 77-footers be ordered until the tests had shown that they were indeed satisfactory.
Board of Inspection and Survey The
Board of Inspection and Survey, headed by Rear Admiral
John W. Wilcox Jr., conducted comparative service tests off
New London, Connecticut, from 21 to 24 July 1941, using the following boats: •
PT-6: Higgins; 3 Packard engines. •
PT-8: Philadelphia Navy Yard; aluminum hull; 2
Allison engines, 1
Hall-Scott engine. •
PT-20: Elco; 3 Packard engines; equipped with special propellers; special strengthening added to hull framing and deck. •
PT-26,
-30,
-31,
-33: Same as
PT-20, except with standard propellers and without special strengthening. •
PT-69: Huckins; 4 Packard engines. •
PT-70: Higgins; 3 Packard engines. • One MRB-8 (Motor Rescue Boat), built for the
Royal Navy by Higgins; 3 Hall-Scott engines. Each member of the board conducted an independent inspection of every boat class, evaluating them for structural sufficiency, habitability, access, arrangement for attack control, and communication facilities. Six boats completed the trial, while three withdrew:
PT-33 suffered structural damage off Block Island;
PT-70 was damaged by loose copper ingots; and
MRB developed engine trouble at the start of the run.
PT-6, the Higgins 81-footer, with an average speed of was fifth; and
PT-8, the Philadelphia Navy Yard boat, was last, at . The other two Elco boats,
PT-30 and
PT 23 (standby boat), followed
PT-31, placing before
PT-69. The accelerometers ranked the boats as follows: first was the Philadelphia Navy Yard
PT-8 with the least pounding, second was the Huckins
PT-69, third was the Higgins
PT-6, and last were the Elco 77-footers.
Second open-ocean trial Because of the problem with ingot loading, a trial with the PTs fully fitted out was conducted on 12 August 1941. Four boats—
PT-8,
PT-69,
PT-70, and MRB—returned and Elco sent two new boats,
PT-21 and
PT-29. During this trial, boats faced heavier seas, as high as . All except the Huckins (
PT-69) completed the run. The Huckins withdrew because of a bilge stringer failure. The Higgins 76-footer (
PT-70) completed the entire run but also suffered structural failures: attachments between planking and web frames pulled loose and deck fastenings near engine hatches showed extensive failures.
PT-21 suffered minor cracks in the deck in the same location, but not to the same extent, as previously observed in
PT-26,
PT-30, and
PT-33.
PT-29 was assigned as a pace boat with
PT-8 in order to generate a pounding comparison. The average speed results from the course were: Elco 77-footer (
PT-21), ; Higgins 76-footer (
PT-70), ; Higgins MRB and Philadelphia Navy Yard boat (
PT-8), . Accelerometers were again installed in the pilot house of each boat, but the readings were incomplete because the violent motion of the boats made observations difficult and in some cases necessitated abandonment of the observing stations. Further, many of those taken were beyond the normal range of the instruments and were considered inaccurate. Elco boats were found to pound heavily and confirmed previous reports of crew discomfort.
Findings The Elco 77-Footer Design Demonstrates: • Ability to make a maximum sustained speed of 39.7 knots; maximum speed 44.1 knots with heavy ordnance load. • Maneuverability satisfactory except for a large turning circle of . • Space available for four 21" torpedo tubes. • Structural weaknesses resulting in transverse fractures of deck planking. • Tendency to pound heavily in a seaway. • Fittings and finish unnecessarily refined. • Cost to the Government fully equipped $302,100. The Huckins 72-Foot Design Demonstrates: • Ability to make a maximum sustained speed of 33.8 knots; maximum speed 43.8 knots with light ordnance load. • Maneuverability satisfactory with a turning circle of . • Space available for two 21" torpedo tubes and ten depth charges. • Structural weaknesses resulting in fracture of bilge stringers. • Very little tendency to pound in a seaway. • Fittings and finish appropriate for a motor torpedo boat. • Cost to the Government fully equipped $263,500. The Navy Yard Philadelphia 81-Foot Design Demonstrates: • Ability to make a maximum sustained speed of 30.7 knots; maximum speed 33.9 knots with light ordnance load. • Maneuverability unsatisfactory due to inability to reverse outboard engines with a large turning circle of • Space available for two 21" torpedo tubes and ten depth charges. • Structural strength is adequate. • Tendency to pound severely in a seaway. • Fittings (Navy standard for combatant ships) entirely too heavy and cumbersome for this type of craft. Finish adequate. • Cost to the Government fully equipped $756,400. The Higgins 81-Foot Design Demonstrates: • Ability to make a maximum sustained speed of 31.4 knots; maximum speed 34.3 knots with heavy ordnance load. • Maneuverability satisfactory with a turning circle of 368 yards. • Space available for four 21" torpedo tubes. • Structural strength adequate. • Moderate tendency to pound in a seaway. • Fittings and finish satisfactory. • Cost to the Government fully equipped $206,600. The Higgins 76-Foot Design Demonstrates: • Maximum sustained speed of 27.2 knots in rough seas; maximum speed 40.9 knots. • Maneuverability satisfactory, turning circle not determined photographically, estimated 300 yards. • Space available for four 21" torpedo tubes. • Structural weaknesses caused failures in transverse bottom framing, separation of side planking from framing and extensive failures of deck fastenings. • Moderate tendency to pound in a seaway. • Fittings and finish satisfactory. • Cost to the Government fully equipped $265,500. The board arrived at the following recommendations: • That the Packard power plant having been found highly satisfactory be adopted as standard for future construction. • That the ordnance installation of future motor torpedo boats consist of two torpedo tubes, machine guns and depth charges. • That the Huckins 78-foot (
PT-69) design be considered acceptable for immediate construction. • That the Higgins 80-foot (
PT-6) design suitably reduced in size to carry such ordnance loads as are required by our Navy be considered acceptable for immediate construction. • That the Elco 77-foot design be considered acceptable for future construction provided changes in the lines are made to reduce the tendency to pound in a seaway, and the structure be strengthened in a manner acceptable to the Bureau of Ships. • That the Philadelphia 81-foot boat (
PT-8) be stripped of excess weight and be re-engined with three Packard engines. The board also had the following opinion on structural sufficiency: "During the first series of tests (21–24 July) the Huckins design (PT-69), the Philadelphia design (PT-8) and the Higgins design (PT-6) completed the open sea endurance run without structural damage. The Higgins 70' (British) boat did not complete this run because of engine trouble. The Higgins 76' (PT-70) and boats of the Elco 77' (PT-20 Class) developed structural failures even under moderate weather conditions prevailing. In the interval between the first and second test periods the PT-70 was repaired and an effort made to eliminate the causes of the structural failures. However, during the second endurance run, which was made in a very rough sea for this size boat, structural failures again occurred in PT-70. PT-69 and PT-21 experienced structural failures during the second run though these were much more localized as compared with those found on PT-70. The Board is of the opinion that certain changes in design are required to enable PT-69 and boats of the PT-20 Class to carry safely their military loads in rough weather." The board results provided very important benchmarks in the infancy of PT boat development. This type of craft presented design challenges that were still issues decades after, but there are some significant conclusions from the above recommendations and their order of merit. Those are: • The Packard were the engines of choice. • The Huckins 72-foot (
PT-69) and a reduced Higgins 81-foot (
PT-6) design were to be placed into production. Following an October 1941 BuShips conference and its new set of navy design requirements which included room to support four torpedoes and an upper length restriction of 82', the next two orders for pre-war PT boats (
PT-71 through
PT-102) were awarded to Higgins and Huckins. • Even though the Elco 77-footers posted the fastest speeds, all seven Elcos suffered from structural damage and severe pounding causing the Board to recommend a redesign to correct these deficiencies. Elco competed for the
PT-71 to
PT-102 contract but did not win due to their higher unit price. After the start of the war and significantly revising their unit cost, Elco received the next PT boat order after Higgins and Huckins. This was to be their new Elco 80-foot design.
Elco The newly designed
Elco Naval Division boats were the longest of the three types of PT boats built for the Navy used during World War II. By war's end, more of the Elco boats were built (326 in all) than any other type of motor torpedo boat. While comparable in size to many wooden sailing ships in history, these
beam wooden-
hulled craft were classified as boats in comparison with much larger steel-hulled
destroyers,
destroyer escorts, and
corvettes. Five Elco boats were manufactured in
knock-down kit form and sent to Long Beach Boatworks for assembly on the West Coast as part of an experiment and as a proof of concept.
Higgins Higgins Industries produced 199 boats of the
PT-71/
PT-235,
PT-265 and
PT-625 classes. The Higgins boats had the same beam, full load displacement, engines, generators, shaft horsepower, trial speed, armament, and crew accommodation as the Elco boats. Many Higgins boats were sent to the Soviet Union and Great Britain at the beginning of the war, so many of the lower-numbered squadrons in the U.S. Navy were made up exclusively of Elcos. U.S. Navy PT boats were organized into MTBRONs. The first Higgins boats for the U.S. Navy were used in the
battle for the Aleutian Islands (Attu and Kiska) as part of Squadrons 13 and 16, and others (MTBRON15 and MTBRON22) in the Mediterranean against the Germans. They were also used during the
D-Day landings on 6 June 1944. Even though only half as many Higgins boats were produced, far more survive (seven hulls, three of which have been restored to their World War II configuration) than the more numerous Elco boats. Of the Elco boats, only three hulls (one restored) were known to exist as of 2016.
Huckins Yacht Corporation c.1944 Huckins and his innovative Quadraconic planing hull design were latecomers to PT boat design. Not invited to participate in the original design competition, by late 1940, Huckins had a meeting with Captain James M. Irish, Chief of Design, and offered to build a "planing seagoing hull" PT boat, on the condition the Navy loan Huckins engines and agree to look at the Huckins boat. In early July 1941, the Navy accepted
PT-69. After obtaining excellent testing results at the Plywood Derby, the Navy awarded Huckins Yacht Corporation a contract in 1941 for 8 boats, and later added 10 more. The design was enlarged and modified to meet the new requirements. The first three of the new design (
PT-95 through
PT-97) were initially kept in the Jacksonville, Florida, area for testing, resulting in several important modifications to the overall design (these boats were later assigned to Squadron 4 in 1942). Huckins ended up building just two squadrons of PT boats during World War II. Five boats were assigned to Squadron 14 (
PT-98 through
PT-102) which was commissioned in early 1943; and ten boats assigned to Squadron 26 (PT-255 thru PT-264) which was commissioned in mid 1943. They were assigned to specific outposts in the
Panama Canal Zone,
Miami, Florida, the
Hawaiian Sea Frontier at
Pearl Harbor and Midway, and a
Melville Motor Torpedo Boat Squadrons Training Center. Although not used in any other PT boat design, Huckins licensed the use of his patented Quadraconic hull in his PT boat construction. He also granted permission for Elco, Higgins, and the Philadelphia Navy Yard to use his patented laminated keel, which increased hull strength, although neither Elco nor Higgins chose to use it on their boats. Most probably due to the lateness in joining the PT boat program and unlike Elco and Higgins, the Huckins yard was not provided government support to construct a larger facility prior to the war. The handcrafted Huckins PT was produced at their civilian facility at a speed of one per month. The success and ruggedness of the Huckins' 78-foot seagoing design is demonstrated by Squadron 26's constant ready-boat operations and fleet torpedo boat training in the oceans around
Midway and
Hawaii during the last two years of the war.
Vosper and other types of PT boats Vospers of Great Britain arranged for several boatyards in the United States to build British-designed motor torpedo boats under license to help the war effort. The boatyards were located in
Annapolis,
Bristol,
City Island,
Miami, and
Los Angeles. 146 boats, armed with torpedoes, were built for
Lend Lease, and exported to Allied powers such as Canada, Britain, Norway, and the Soviet Union. These boats were never used by the U.S. Navy, and only about 50 were used by the
Royal Navy; most were passed to other countries. The
Canadian Power Boat Company produced four Scott-Paine designed PTs for the U.S. These were to be provided to the Dutch forces under Lend Lease but were re-requisitioned to the USN as PT 368–371 after the fall of the Netherlands to German forces. ==Construction==