They did not all work the same place at the same time, but I bet they worked
in teams a lot of the time. If the boat took a disabling hit, they would be
toast if a single boat. Same as a wing man in the air force or naval air.
I have a buddy who was shot down a couple of times (Marine pilot), and he
states the buddies check out damage and flew cover. I would bery much
presume the same for boats.
Bill


Yes, the swift boats were often deployed in
small groups.

The problem with your Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth is that they make some
specific charges about specific actions that Kerry supposedly took during
combat.
Most of the 249 guys were not there. The men who actually served on Kerry's
boat not only say "That's horse****!", they are campaigning for him.

For example:

On Friday I heard two different radio interviews.

The first was 2-3 guys from Swift Boat Veterans for (distorting the) Truth.
They all claimed to have been on the scene when Kerry turned his boat around to
pick the guy out of the water. They said that Kerry's boat was never under fire
at any time during the engagement, that another boat was hit instead, and that
Kerry sped off and (basically) "hid" until he was sure the
area was safe.

The second was with the guy that was pulled out of the water. It turns out, the
guy was *not* actually part of Kerry's crew. He was Army, a Green Beret. The
Special Forces used to get ferried into various areas by swift boats, and that
was Kerry's mission on the day in question.

According to the Green Beret, they were proceeding up the river when they came
under heavy small arms fire. The bow gunner's weapon was disabled by hostile
fire, and the soldier was going forward with
another weapon when a mortar rocked the boat, throwing Kerry against some
machinery and tossing the soldier overboard. By the time Kerry got back to the
helm, the boat was a little distance away from the MOB. According to the guy
who was in the water, Kerry turned the boat around (while the small arms fire
from both banks continued) and recovered him.
He was a sitting duck in that river, and he credits Kerry for saving his life.

So, ladies and gentleman of the jury, we have two stories to consider. One
version of events is being related by a much larger group, but nearly all of
them were *somewhere else* when the events occured. The other version of events
is being related, very consistently, by everybody who was actually on board the
boat in question and substantiated by the
guy who was pulled out of the river.

Since none of us were there, it becomes a judgment call. Do we believe 200,
2000, or
20000 people who *weren't there* either?
Or do we have to conclude (even if our politics cause us to wish it were
otherwise)
that the people who were actually on the scene can give a better and more
accurate account of events?

What's that Faux News slogan? "We distort, so you'll divide".