I was doing service work at a man's home yesterday, and saw numerous US Navy references from Viet Nam on his walls. I asked him for his opinion on the Kerry/Swift boat vets controversy. I hit pay dirt!
This man was a swift boat captain for 3 years in Viet Nam, further up the river (and closer to Cambodia) than Kerry's squadron. (He actually had been in Cambodia and scoffed at Kerry's claim) He is working with the VFW vets against Kerry. Some of his points should be mentioned.
1. Swift boats are only armored in the rear. When a swift boat comes under fire the boat is to turn it's back (I don't remember stem from stern) toward the incoming fire and the major guns are mounded at the rear.
2.If Kerry really ran the bow of his boat onto the beach so he could run off and chase down a wounded sniper, he would should disciplined, not decorated. He was the captain, responsible for his crew members. Members from his crew were better trained at jungle combat, not a captain running off like some ban-chi
3. If the sniper was wounded, unarmed and running, he should have been captured and treated (per Geneva Convention), not gunned down.
4. It is customary for a superior to request Purple Hearts for wounded under their command...but Kerry submitted requests for himself..
The man went on and on and is convinced that if Kerry had been out earlier, he would have been with Hanoi Jane in North Viet Nam. Need I add...he is voting for BUSH!
I'm not a Swift vet, myself. I've just been reading about the boats and armaments on the web. They may have had mortars back there. But I don't see why they couldn't mount 50 caliber or M60 in the rear, too. I think the 50 caliber was typically mounted forward, over the pilot house, or front cabin. And maybe an M60 was placed on the bow? But if they had a solid mount for the twin-50s, I don't see why they couldn't have placed one at the rear, as well.