Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Torpedo boat[edit]

The articles "torpedo boat" and "motor torpedo boat" need sorting out. Please see Talk:Torpedo boat for discussion on merging information on that page with this one. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is about MTBs today??--84.129.78.8 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Weapons[edit]

afaik the 40mm was an Bofors not an Oerlikon--WerWil 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed that, but found "optionally two 0.5 Vickers MG". AFAIK, Vickers never made a 12.7mm; these would be Brownings, no? Trekphiler 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vickers .50 machine gun - a standard RN weapon of WWII, particularly in the Mk III, often as a quad mounting. Shem (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, deja vu. :D Thx. Dr Leonard McCoy I'm a doctor, not a phonebooth 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean, but I assume it's a good thing ... Shem (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Why the Thumbs so small? there is a lot of Space!--WerWil 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:Thumbnail - "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference." Shem (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Insect Class[edit]

Do this ships really belong to this article? They were several times als big as later MTBs and one can hardly say they were fast. So I guess they are not really well listed here.--WerWil 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I've deleted the paragraph. It contained at least two errors. The HMS Cricket launched in 1905 or 1906 was a Cricket class coastal destroyer, whereas the Cricket launched in 1915 was a different type of warship, an Insect class river gunboat or "China gunboat" intended specifically for rivers, with shallow draught, heavy guns, no torpedoes and powerful engines. Secondly, an "MTB" is different to a "torpedoboat", perhaps not in purpose, but certainly in concept (smaller, faster, differently powered), IMO. I would say that MTB = MAS = E-boat and "torpedoboats" tended to be more small destroyers - see German torpedoboats of World War II. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

US MTB?[edit]

I thought the US called this type of vessel a Patrol Torpedo boat (PT boat...as in PT109)? It seems odd listing the Royal Navy last when I'm sure it originated the term. I doubt it was used by non-English speaking contries, and Canada used it as it followed the pattern of the 'mother' country. Aodhdubh (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Polish Flotilla - Coastal Forces in WW2[edit]

My dear Dad, Thomas William Lofthouse, served on MTB's with the Polish Flotilla during WW2, and I wish you would include either a Section on these, or at least a link to Wikipedia entry "Polish contribution to World War II" which contains a link to their Veterans organisation. <drlofthouse@tiscali.co.uk> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.43.67 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Error in first sentence[edit]

The norwegians call this boats Motortorpedobåt. That has the same meaning, but not the same words, only the akronym is the same.--WerWil (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

further doubts[edit]

  • Rolls-Royce Engines afaik there was only one single Boat that was tested whith RR Merlin motors. (A. Konstam)
  • 140 nm range for the RCN Boats is not enough.--WerWil (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

first or only[edit]

I don't want to start an edit war, but the Petropavlovsk was sunk in 1919 by a CMB. While it was in Kronstadt harbour the water was shallow and the superstruktures of the ship remained above the surface. Look here [1] and you will find this:

August 17th/18th
... Accounts vary, but both Dobson's 'CMB-31' and Steele's 'CMB-88' appear to have made one hit
each on the two biggest ships. Dreadnought 'PETROPAVLOSK' (1914, 24,000t, 12-12in) sinks in
shallow water and is salvaged later, and pre-dreadnought 'Andrei Pervozvanny' (1908, 17,400t,
4-12in) seriously damaged.

If you say it was not sunk while not totaly submerged, than you have to claim that German battleship Tirpitz was never sunk or SMS Hindenburg was not sunk a.s.o.--WerWil (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


The Bofors gun[edit]

"From the bridge of an MTB showing the aft Bofors gun and MTB 378 at speed astern in the Mediterranean."
This quote is taken from the 'Description' of the second ('MTB in the Meditraneann') picture. Yet I can find no mention of a Bofors gun in the 'armament' sections of the different types or, for that matter, anywhere else in the article. Plenty of Oerlikons but no Bofors. Judging by the picture some MTBs were equipped with Bofors but there is no mention apart from Canadian boats.
RASAM (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this photograph in a book, where it was said, that the Boat from which this Photo was taken, were a 78 foot Higgins MTB of us-production, fittet whith a Bofors-gun build in licence in canada. BTW the boat following thereafter is a vosper-design but build in the US.--WerWil (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

RCN MTB[edit]

I doubt the given an referenced range of this boats. Why should they have less than 1/3 of all other MTBs?--WerWil (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope and rename?[edit]

Per recent catgeorization changes, Is this article about RN MTBs, or about motor torpedo boats in general?

We can justify both articles, although we don't have much on an RN article as yet. If it's on the general type, should this be Motor Torpedo Boat or motor torpedo boat? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


Requested move 20 October 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Discussion moved to Talk:Motor Gun Boat#Requested move 20 October 2013. All six discussions are in regards to WP:CAPSACRS; best to centralize the discussions so that six separate discussions are not happening. Steel1943 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Motor Torpedo BoatMotor torpedo boat – We don't capitalise acronyms when written in full (see WP:CAPSACRS) and we don't capitalise the article names of types of ship (eg destroyer escort, aircraft carrier, river gunboat, torpedo boat, torpedo boat destroyer, and so on). The general guidance at Wikipedia is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". I have also proposed this change at Motor Gun Boat, Motor Launch, Steam Gun Boat and Coastal Motor Boat. Shem (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • oppose all (although I'm unfamiliar with Steam Gun Boat). These are not the simple combinations of words as for aircraft carrier etc., but they are proper noun phrases, supported as such by the many relevant sources, and so should be treated and capitalised as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose all These aren't just descriptive, they're official designators, & so correctly capitalized. What next, "pt boat"? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No, "pt boat" is not next. Wikipedia doesn't capitalise "official designators". This discussion is being conducted largely at talk:Motor Gun Boat. Shem (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion should have been held in a more frequented place such as the WP:MilHist or WP:Ships talk pages? I've just thought of a few similar cases: Sea Control Ship, Aircraft Carrier (Medium), VSTOL Support Ship, Landing Craft Air Cushion etc. And other terms such as Fleet Landing Exercises. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Graham, feel free to place a note at WP:MilHist & WP:Ships. I had thought of it mainly from a grammar front and placed notices at Talk:MOSCAPS and Talk:MOS. There are indeed a large number of over-capitalised names out there, and not just ship-related ones. Most of them are backwards capitalisations from the acronym, in my ever-so-humble opinion - and at Wikipedia we don't do that. Shem (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as insitiuting our own, Wikipedia-only spelling/grammar standard is, despite the repeated denials of such, very much WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with OR. WP:OR says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." This is about style and MOS. This discussion is being conducted at Talk:Motor Gun Boat. Shem (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Motor Gun Boat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)