SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Possible major breakthrough on documents?!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Resources & Research
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RMalloy
PO3


Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

During the March 13 incident with mines was PCF-35 also listed as
being there that day?

Kerry says Rassman fell off 35 and not the 94. Tour of Duty Page 314
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RMalloy
PO3


Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/combat_reports.html

This link has the title - John Kerry's After Action Reports -
March 13 is there
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carpro
Admin


Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RMalloy wrote:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/combat_reports.html

This link has the title - John Kerry's After Action Reports -
March 13 is there



Kind of a joke, isn't it? Notice how he got that shrapnel in his butt? Laughing
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NavyChief
Rear Admiral


Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 627
Location: Boise, Idaho

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PCF-35 was not on the mission that day. I don't know where that number keeps popping up. It very well could be that PCF-35 was scheduled for the mission but I don't know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NavyChief
Rear Admiral


Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 627
Location: Boise, Idaho

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This was a great thread and I thank everyone who contributed to the discussions and anlaysis.

Our efforts will result in a published article that is coming out real soon. The downside to the article will be evident.

- Chief
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sevry
Commander


Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NavyChief wrote:
PCF-35 was not on the mission that day. I don't know where that number keeps popping up.


Because it's in the book. I assume Corsi just copied it from Brinkley, but I don't know. It's one of a few errors in UFC when it comes to 13 MAR.

I wonder if there even was a PCF-35?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sevry
Commander


Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NavyChief wrote:
Quote:
Given that Thurlow does not admit to sending the after action report and that Kerry does admit, round about, to sending some, if not this one, how would you counter that TE was not a typo missing the C? Who ascertains that it was a TE and not the CTE who made out the report? What is the significance of the line following "Market Time":

1. (U) CTE 194.5.4.4

Have any of the individuals listed in the casualty list made any statements on these events?



This new numbering system was set up by CTF 115 Market Time Surveillance OPORDER 69. I just got off the phone with the man himself. This OPORDER established the new numbering system and who had command of the missions. CTE was the OTC and TE were the other boats on the mission.

- Chief


I still wonder if he or anyone can find a copy of these designators down to boat group (task elmt in this case)? I've looked for such on Vietnam Virtual Archive and found only a complete listing for TF Game Warden (and not even close to what it might have been in MAR 1969). Nothing else. I realize these schemes were constantly being changed by week, and by month. Some designators were invalidated and new ones assigned and so on. But there must be documentation on which boats, in order, were assigned to boat group under TF 194.5.4 in MAR 1969. As it is, it seems suggested that the 94 was listed as boat 1. in group 4, i.e. TE 194.5.4 - An Thoi - .4 - element 4?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Navy wife
Research Director


Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Arlington, VA & Ft. Worth, TX

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 1968 command history of Coastal Squadron One lists PCF 35 as being assigned to CAT LO as of 31 December. The 1969 command history (p 14) shows that PCF 35 had been re-assigned to AN THOI and was there as of 31 December 1969.

The 1969 history has been sent to The Bandit's website for viewing, but has not been posted yet. I will send the 1968 page today.

Citations for the above:
Naval Historical Center, Coastal Squadron One 1968, Command History 1968, np, Post 1946 Command File, Box 853.

Naval Historical Center, Coastal Squadron One 1969, Command History 1969, p. 14, Post 1946 Command File, Box 853.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Navy wife
Research Director


Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Arlington, VA & Ft. Worth, TX

PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sevry,
I found the 194 designators today! They are on www.swiftboatarchives.com

Quote:
I still wonder if he or anyone can find a copy of these designators down to boat group (task elmt in this case)? I've looked for such on Vietnam Virtual Archive and found only a complete listing for TF Game Warden (and not even close to what it might have been in MAR 1969). Nothing else. I realize these schemes were constantly being changed by week, and by month. Some designators were invalidated and new ones assigned and so on. But there must be documentation on which boats, in order, were assigned to boat group under TF 194.5.4 in MAR 1969. As it is, it seems suggested that the 94 was listed as boat 1. in group 4, i.e. TE 194.5.4 - An Thoi - .4 - element 4?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
taz
Seaman Apprentice


Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 86
Location: new jersey

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NavyChief wrote:
This was a great thread and I thank everyone who contributed to the discussions and anlaysis.

Our efforts will result in a published article that is coming out real soon. The downside to the article will be evident.

- Chief


Chief, downside to who? you have me worried now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Resources & Research All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 9 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group