DD730 wrote:
My conclusions are based on being there, speaking with those who were there,
and reading reams and reams of real time traffic from and to the principals.
Your's are based on other sources, so we'll probably never agree. But with
your Naval experience, you know how actions and how they are reported in
public differ.

Oh yeah. Big difference.


... More often than not, there is little resemblance. I have
read a number of "histories" of the war in the Gulf of Tonkin that make me
wonder where the hell I really was in 1965. Certainly my experiences don't
mesh with their "history."

Yes, but remember that it's not all due to malice or deliberate
falsification. Sometimes stories are "edited" all out of recognition
just because of column space constraints. Then of course there is the
natural human tendency to highlight favorable aspects and diminish (or
leave out) unfavorable ones.

But I'm uneasy with the claim that the whole action (or series of
actions) before the thunderstorm indcident were falsified. A CO or
battle group commander would be setting himself up for big trouble
falsifying reports on that scale, and it would be too easy to check
up... for example, if it was claimed to be in action & shooting at
hostiles, it would be easy to explain no damage the the ship ("they
missed, we didn't") but what about your weapons inventory? The Navy
keeps careful track of it's shells. Even with great political favoritism
it would be potential big trouble to falsify document like that.

Regards
Doug King