Talk:Patrol Craft Fast/Archive 1

Archive 1

Patrol boat, river

What is the difference between this and Patrol boat, rigid, if any? Mooo! 07:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Note: An apparent typo; PBR-Patrol Boat RIVER (not rigid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.49.119 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2009‎ (UTC)

These vessels are larger, more heavily armed, and have a cabin where meals can be prepared and where off-duty personnel could rest, protected from the elements. -- Geo Swan 00:28, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Fathometer

What is a fathometer? Mooo! 08:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a depth gauge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainster (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 March 2005‎ (UTC)

Kerry's service

I've reverted an anon's attempt to lard this article with a one-sided attack on John Kerry's service in Vietnam. If this article were to include a reference to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their charges that Kerry's "claims to heroism" were "inflated", then it would also have to include the opinions of Vietnam veterans who say these charges are "pure fabrication" (Jim Rassmann), "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky). The NPOV choices are to present both views, or neither, and the latter is obviously preferable. The subject is covered exhaustively elsewhere and need not clutter up this article. JamesMLane 18:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree and I removed the final paragraph of the article and the related link to slate. Johnwhunt 23:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your agreement is with an old version of the article. The existing Kerry information has been accepted as NPOV for the last six months, so it has been reverted. The Slate article is not related to the final paragraph and says nothing about Kerry. The internal link to the campaign issues needs to be here so people can locate it. --Blainster 09:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with having an internal link to the campaign issues, but they're covered more comprehensively (with both sides presented) in John Kerry military service controversy, so that's the internal link we should use. Also, I thought having the two pictures side by side looked bad because it crammed the first paragraph of the article into a narrow column along the left. I changed the pictures to a vertical orientation. JamesMLane 16:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the reference to John Kerry's service on Swiftboats as tangential and politically motivated. This is an article on Swiftboats and not who served on them. Of course, if you want to press the point, NPOV would also warrant inclusion of John O'Neill's tours and length of service as well. Nor was Kerry's in-country Vietnam service anywhere NEAR 16 months even if you were to include his 2 months? steaming on the South China Sea.JakeInJoisey 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jake, I've had a couple beers tonight, so maybe I'm missing something. But, just yesterday on the SBVT page you said "opinion as to the motivation of editors is irrelevant to the process itself." Now here, you say "Deleted the reference ... as politically motivated." You need to either get your story straight, or I need to quit drinking. Probably both. Derex 05:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're missing something...the middle of my sentence. I said it was "tangential and politically motivated". But you raise a fair point and, as I've yet to identify a contributor to any SBVT/Kerry article that can't be readily identified as having a dog in this hunt (to include yours truly), the characterization of "politically motivated" is, from my perspective, a given. Let's just say that political motivation (alone) is irrelevant to the process. Now if you would be so kind as to address my objections/observations above? RevertedJakeInJoisey 07:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jake, you can shoot dogs all you like, but that's not going to make this a better article. The bottom line is that the brief mention is likely to be useful to the reader. Kerry's ride in a PCF is by far the best known use of those craft. It's not because of what he did in them, even though he was highly decorated. It's because of the enormous focus in the campaign. It would be almost bizarre never even to mention the link. Two sentences mentioning the link at the end of the article is not a big glorification.

Now, in what way do you believe the reader will be better served by this removal of two sentences at the end of the article? Derex 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikify, first stage

split the giant article into sections, and removed many repeated links. Trimmed (very little) of the text. The bold move would be to remove some of the "story" material, and put it in another article, but I can't see that as being really a good thing. It would make 2 weak articles, instead of one long one.

Still need another pair of eyes to go over it, and give an OK. - Scraimer (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tonkin Gulf Incident

Edwin E. Moise's book titled, "Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War", published in 1996 by the University of North Carolina Press; states, beginning on page 10 and continuing through up to page 58, that US built Swift Boats were used in February and March 1964. These boats were used in OPLAN 34A, a coordinated covert operation(s) with the DeSoto missions.

One such mission, involving the destroyer USS Maddox resulted in the first Tonkin Gulf incident; which was actually a naval engagement between three NVN torpedo boats and the Maddox (plus 4 F8 Crusader jets).

If these (this Wikipedia article) PCF Swift Boats were deployed in 1965; does anyone know if any "possibly experimental Swift Boats" reached South Vietnam in 1964? If they weren't; then what could the author be describing? Mr. Moise already identified 8 Nasty Boats (imported from Norway) and two old wooden WWII PT Boats (which were not used due to their gasoline engines) which were used on OPLAN 34A missions. So he is very clear on mentioning the new SWIFT BOATS in 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.11.66 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The first Swift boat was shipped to Saigan in mid-1963 and used by SEAL Team One for offshore training of Vietnamese. It was commercially designed and constructed for use as ferries servicing offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, including having petrol engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.218.22 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Moise is wrong. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What about after VietNam?

Did every PCF ever made get left in VietNam when we left? Since there is a photo of two of them in Malta much later, and since the San Diego Maritime Museum owns and operates one, I assume they did have a service life after that. FatBear1 (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Current section gives details. If you can find any more reliable information you're welcome to add it. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Weird. Both the Current and the Notable Personnel sections were missing when I wrote my questions. I just saw the entire page load without them and then they filled in last. Maybe network slowing caused them to load really slowly or fail to load when I looked at the page earlier today. In any case, thank you for letting me know. FatBear1 (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)