A B-40 rocket with a round in the chamber? Chamber? The picture I have of the B-40 rocket is a shaped charge that sits on the end of the launching tube. There is no chamber. Rocket itself has the shape of a lava lamp (without the interesting blobs of wax floating in it).

Or is this a different B-40 rocket? Or is he just trying to say the rocket was still there (not launched)?

He was referring to himself as the CinC even back then - angling this way for a long time, obviously.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 14, 2004 09:08 AM

I read it quickly and only saw references to OINC.

I can’t stand Senator Windsock, but I don’t think questioning his conduct in what sounds like a pretty hairy situation is the way to go. If he’s falsifying his record and making crap up, that should be examined, but having a different description of a fire fight than is in a sterile report seems petty. Leave that kind of crap to Kerry and his friends.

Posted by: TL at September 14, 2004 11:10 AM

The fact that the SBVT are being accused of LYING about this incident doesn’t make this easier to swallow, TL. Although I would agree with you that there ARE more important issues that could be discussed that have nothing to do with a what happened 35 years ago. This was Senator Kerry’s choice to make, and he chose to make it the centerpiece of his campaign.

He is riding a dead horse, and there are many, many veterans like myself who will not let him forget his two-faced and hypocritical behavior.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 14, 2004 11:43 AM

T8 -

is a B40 rocket with launcher, AKA RPG-2 in NATO parlance.

If you are thinking that it looks a lot like the infamous RPG-7, you’d be right. The B40 was an earlier model of the same basic system.

BTW, the RPG-7 is AKA B41, I believe.

Some people I’ve spoken to in days gone by seemed to think that the B40 was an close analogue of the M-79, but that’s not the case.

Posted by: CERDIP at September 14, 2004 01:41 PM

Fixed link

Posted by: CERDIP at September 14, 2004 01:43 PM

I could have been clearer in what I was trying to say:
— going after Kerry lying about his service — good and necessary.
— going after Kerry lying about others’ service — good and necessary
— pointing out that Kerry is a hypocrite in attacking GWB’s service and that of the SBVT — absolutely.

But, busting Kerry’s nads for presenting the best facets of what sounds like actions that really happened in a very unpleasant way cheapens those other, valid arguments and diminishes the people doing it, including the SBVT. I read their book, and there’s LOTS of legitimate targets and lots for Kerry to answer for. Piling on this other stuff is counter-productive to the end of keeping Senator Windsock out of the CinC chair.

Posted by: TL at September 14, 2004 02:55 PM

TL I agree.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 14, 2004 03:29 PM

Can any ex radiomen shed some light on the FM section? What does that mean?

I can figure out some of the units this message was sent to like Commander Naval Forces Vietnam and Commander Coastal Squadron One… but I can’t figure out the FROM: What does the CTE mean?

Posted by: smithpa68 at September 14, 2004 05:04 PM

smithpa68,

Not a radioman…but CTE is Task Element Commander (or I guess it would be Commander, Task Element technically…but you get the gist!)!!!

The 194 would be the Command Task Force (CTF), the 194.5.4 Command Task Unit (CTU)…but that’s about all I can manage, lost my secret decoder ring long ago!!! :)

Posted by: DevilDoc at September 15, 2004 08:54 AM