Military Review

Phantom vs. MiG: a standoff in the Vietnamese sky

145
Phantom vs. MiG: a standoff in the Vietnamese sky



The war in the skies of Vietnam has become one of the most dramatic and large-scale airstrikes after 1945. It began as a partisan movement in the 1957 year, but from 1964 to 1975, it acquired the features of a full-scale armed conflict. From two opposing sides, various types of aircraft took part in it. But at the same time, the main air confrontation broke out between the two types of aircraft. Moreover, the outcome of the battles between these war machines was determined by the course of the war itself.

The main American force was the Phantom II F-4 fighter. This is a heavy twin-engined two-engine aircraft with a normal take-off mass of more than 20 t, which was built in the 1958 year. It was originally created to provide air defense for US aircraft carrier formations. By the beginning of the 1960-ies, this aerial machine managed to win several world speed records, and was the most popular American combat aircraft. Among the advantages of the "Phantom" it is necessary to note the flight characteristics that were outstanding for that time: the fighter could reach speeds of the order of 2260 km / h, climb to a height of 16,5-17,9 km, while the range without outboard tanks was 2380 km. In addition, the aircraft was installed fairly powerful surveillance and sighting on-board radar, all-weather all-round medium-range guided missiles AIM-7 Sparrow (4 missiles), and short-range missiles AIM-9 "Siduinder" class "air-to-air" ( 4 units).

The US Air Force entered the war with the F-4B deck-mounted fighter aircraft, and later the F-4J deck-mounted modernized aircraft were also involved in the conflict. Also, the US military was in service with the F-4C fighter jets, which during the war were supplemented with improved F-4D aircraft. And at the end of the war, the United States Air Force received the most advanced version of the fighter - the “Phantom” F-4E.

The main rival of the American "Phantom" during the Vietnam War was the front-line fighter MiG-21, which appeared in the middle of the 1950-s. It was developed by the Design Bureau of Gurevich and Mikoyan. The Soviet aircraft was designed to conduct operations over the front line at a slight distance from the base, and belonged to a completely different weight category. Its take-off normal mass was up to 8 t, and the maximum flight range did not exceed 1500 km. At the same time, according to other technical and flight characteristics, the MiG was not inferior to the American car. Its maximum speed reached 2175-2300 km / h with a maximum height of 18-19 km. The armament of the MiG-21 was also weaker than the American one: two, and later four medium-range P-3 air-to-air missiles with an infrared homing system (a kind of American Sidewinder AIM-9), and an 23 caliber gun or 30 mm.

Thus, it is quite obvious that these two combat aircraft are completely different, and they were created to solve completely different tasks.

The first phase of the American war aviation inflicted massive blows from the air. At that time, “Phantoms” were entrusted with a large number of different tasks: they not only guarded bombers as fighters, but also delivered direct attacks on enemy positions. F-4B marine aircraft were mainly used to provide escort for carrier-based attack aircraft - Skyhawks and Skyraders, as well as to protect the American air defense system from possible attacks by Chinese and Vietnamese aircraft.

Before the arrival of the Soviet military, it was American fighters who undoubtedly owned the airspace of Vietnam. The Vietnamese Air Force was much less prepared and armed. They were armed with Chinese copies of Soviet MiG-17 (25 subsonic fighters), several Soviet MiG-15 and IL-28 bombers, so there was no need to talk about any serious air confrontation. At the same time, thanks to the Soviet and Chinese specialists, the Vietnamese pilots managed to get a unique tactic of air combat.

Thus, the MiG-17 went at a very low altitude and were not available for detection by the American air defense system. When the enemy appeared, they, due to their maneuverability and lightness, simply emerged from under the American fighters and shot them. And even with the considerable numerical superiority of American combat vehicles, this tactic yielded quite good results, as American aircraft began to suffer significant losses.

The first meeting in the air of the American "Phantoms" and the Vietnamese MiG-17 took place on 2 on April 1965 of the year, but the collision was unsuccessful. The first real battle between opponents took place in a week. According to the Americans, their fighter was attacked by four Vietnamese MiGs. One MiG was shot down by a rocket, but another Vietnamese plane shot down an American car, causing the US Air Force crew to die. According to the Vietnam version, eight American F-4Bs invaded the airspace above the territorial waters of the PRC. It is quite possible to assume that the Americans deliberately provoked the Chinese side to take decisive actions in order to “put them in place” and force them to be more careful in their support for Vietnam. But, despite the fact that the Americans managed to damage one of the MiGs, another Phantom mistakenly fired a missile at F-4B, sending it to the bottom of the bay.

Such aerial battles occurred quite often. On May 12, one Mig-17 was shot down; on June 10, three “Phantoms” were attacked, 4 on June; 17 MiGs shot down two F-4Bs; 4C shot down two MiG-4.

Those American air vehicles that were used for tracking were loaded with bombs. At the same time, Vietnamese aircraft preferred to stay at low altitude, where they were invisible to American airborne radar. With the sudden attack of the "Phantoms", the Vietnamese pilots forced them to throw off the bomb load, and then shot at a short distance from the guns. Often, American fighters did not have time to enter into confrontation with MiGs, due to the fact that they were at a much higher altitude. All this forced the American pilots to change tactics: they reduced the cover groups to low altitudes, where they found enemy fighters without problems, and thanks to higher speed, they overtook him and hit them with missiles. Sometimes the advantage passed to the Vietnamese pilots, who at high speed approached the enemy at a distance of less than 1 km, where the American Phantoms with their missile weapons were helpless.

Soon the Americans improved their tactics again: several of their fighters took up close combat, while others quickly gained altitude and attacked MiGs with rockets. The Vietnamese lost 6 fighters in such battles, and were forced to move on to the previously proven tactics of one-time ambush attacks.

Such aerial confrontations in the future have become quite commonplace. But until the MiG-21 appeared and the massive use of the C-75 anti-aircraft missile systems began, the American fighters felt quite free in the sky of Vietnam, not taking MiG-17 as serious rivals.

The MiG-17 was largely inferior to the American "Phantoms" in maneuverability and speed, so an active battle could only lead a very short time. In this regard, the Soviet leadership decided to transfer supersonic MiG-21 to Vietnam in 21PF-B and 21F-13 versions. These fighters were able to fight in any weather conditions, were equipped with P-3C missiles and a radar sight. Thus, since February 1966, the main opponents of the American “Phantoms” have become the MiG-21.

The American command still had high hopes for the F-4 fighter jets, being sure that the perfect on-board radar, powerful armaments, as well as high acceleration and speed characteristics together with new tactical techniques will ensure superiority over the enemy. However, during clashes with lighter enemy fighters, the US air force suffered defeat after defeat. In May-December alone, 1966 of the year during the air battles, American aircraft lost 47 aircraft, destroying the entire 12 of the enemy's combat vehicles. A big load on the wing and much smaller angular speeds of reversal of the Phantoms, restrictions on permissible angles of attack, operational overload and worse controllability of the American fighter had an effect. In addition, among the shortcomings of the "Phantom" were unsatisfactory corkscrew characteristics. There was a significant risk of falling into a flat spin, from which the pilot of average qualification practically could not get out. Only until 1971, because of this feature, the US Air Force lost about 80 aircraft.

Also, the American airborne radar, on the one hand, had a greater detection and capture range, but on the other hand, it had low immunity from interference. There were too many instruments and switches in the cab. Among the advantages of the American fighter, it is necessary to note good acceleration characteristics (up to speed 600-1100 km / h it accelerated in 20 seconds, while MiG-21PF - in 27 seconds), better view from the cockpit, high climb rate, the presence of the second crew member, tracked the situation and time warned of the danger.

There were flaws in the MiG-21. He had a rather short range radar sight (10-12 km), he needed more time to complete the on-board radar, there was insufficient view from the cockpit, and the target mark on the indicator in the cockpit was poorly perceived. To switch the weapon mode, the pilot needed to remove one hand from the control levers of the aircraft. The engine under certain modes of operation is very much smoked, which allowed the enemy to detect it effortlessly at a distance of 30 km.

The first battle between the F-4 and the MiG-21 took place at the end of April 1966, but it was inconclusive. Three days later, an American fighter shot down a MiG.

As a rule, MiG-21 carried out attacks at supersonic speeds, launching missiles and quickly moving away. Such tactics demanded high qualification of ground-guidance officers and pilots, and the Americans could not resist it. In addition, practiced and joint actions of the MiG-17 and MiG-21.

It should be noted that after the appearance of new MiGs, the American command began to attract the Phantoms quite extensively to escort strike aircraft, and to abandon the equipment of escort aircraft with bomb armaments.

In 1967, the US military was able to somewhat improve the tactical and flight training of pilots. The structure of the combat squadrons of the Air Force began to arrive upgraded aircraft F-4D. Due to the qualitative strengthening of US fighter aircraft, Vietnamese pilots managed to shoot down all 15 American aircraft. But over time, Vietnamese aviation again increased its effectiveness, and in the first half of 1968, it already destroyed the 25 of enemy combat vehicles.

In total, from April 1965 to November 1968, the X-NUMX of the F-27 Phantom and the 4 MiG-20 aircraft were shot down.

In May 1968, negotiations began between the opposing sides, resulting in the cessation of the bombing. This pause gave both sides the opportunity to qualitatively strengthen their fighter groups. The F-4E, which had improved maneuvering characteristics, a new airborne radar station and built-in cannon armament, began to come into service with American aircraft. US aircraft carriers also received upgraded F-4J carrier-based fighter jets. At the same time, the Soviet Union handed over to the Vietnamese Air Force MiG-21PMF fighters equipped with a GP-9 cannon container, and a little later, MiG-21MFL and MiG-212ShF airplanes with an integrated GSH-23 gun. In addition, the Vietnamese aviation was replenished by the Chinese allies, who provided Vietnam with an 44 fighter-copy of the MiG-19.

The Americans, who were previously convinced that it was impossible to achieve superiority over their rival in a short time, concentrated their main efforts on improving the skills of their pilots. Special courses were organized during which air battles with squadrons of Northrop F-5 fighters, simulating MiG-21, were practiced. And in June 1971, the United States resumed raids on Vietnam.

In the spring of 1972, the Vietnamese troops launched a massive and fairly successful offensive in the south, which forced the Americans to intensify the bombing in the north to influence the Paris talks. The composition of US aviation was increased to thousands of combat aircraft, followed by a large-scale air operation "Freedom Train". The result was the infliction of more than 40 powerful, well-planned bomb strikes. At the same time, the clashes between the MiGs and the “Phantoms” practically ceased.

In the summer of the same year, the intensity of the battles began to decline, and the air battles became sporadic.

Thus, the result of the air offensive, which was undertaken by the US Air Force in the spring and summer of 1972, was a significant reduction in combat vehicles on both sides. The American side is left with only 360 tactical fighters of the Air Force and 96 fighters of the Navy, and the Vietnamese troops have only 187 MIG fighters of various modifications, and the entire 71 machine was in working condition.

In December, 1972, the Americans attempted to conduct the last large-scale air operation, "Linebacker-2", to incline the course of negotiations in Paris to their side. During the operation, it was planned to inflict massive strikes on Vietnamese military facilities and destroy the infrastructure. But the operation failed. In nearly two weeks of the operation, 7 of American fighters were destroyed, including the Phantom 4, and the entire 3 MiG-21.

In total, during the year between opponents, 1972 air combat took place between 200, as a result of which the Vietnamese fighter was shot down, including 54 - MiG-36, and 21 of American planes, of which 90 - "Phantoms".

At the end of January 1973, the United States of America announced the withdrawal of its troops from the territory of Vietnam, admitting in fact its defeat in the war.

It should be noted that the rivalry between the American Phantoms and the MiG-21 in the skies of Vietnam ended with the defeat of the American fighter. Over the entire period of the war, the American pilots managed to shoot down the entire 54 of the MiG-21 aircraft, and the “twenty first” in the same time managed to destroy more than the 100 “Phantoms”. Moreover, the loss of the American car, as a rule, was accompanied by the death of crew members, and the fighter itself cost the American people a significant amount, which was several times the cost of the MiG.

The Vietnam War had a great influence on the military aircraft industry not only in the Soviet Union, but also in the United States of America. The Americans reacted quite sharply to the defeat of their fighter, and set about creating the highly maneuverable fourth-generation fighter, the F-15 Eagle and F-16, Freed Fighter, which were supposed to surpass the MiGs in a maneuverable battle. At the same time, the F-4 aircraft influenced the minds of Soviet, and later Russian, aviation theoreticians, which was reflected in the improvement of third-generation fighter jets.

And in general, the experience of the Vietnam War went to the benefit of the USSR. All defense enterprises and design offices were loaded with work.

In recognition of the Vietnamese, Soviet and even American pilots, the MiG-21 was the best aircraft during the Vietnam War. Some experts are even convinced that if the MiG-21 had not appeared in service with Vietnamese aviation, the Americans would have won the war.

After the end of the Vietnam War, the Phantom and MiG-21 fighters again and again met in air combat. This happened over the Suez Canal, and over Sinai, over Syria and the Nile Delta, in Lebanon, as well as during the Iran-Iraq conflict.

MiG-21 itself became the basis for nearly two dozen modifications. Later it was used in numerous conflicts around the world and became one of the most widespread. Only in service with the Soviet army was 14 thousands of air combat vehicles.

MiG-21 was adopted in the 49 countries of the world and took a worthy place in stories modern aviation.

Materials used:
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201412290841-ghti.htm
http://aviastory.com.ua/ru/avyacyja-v-voennh-dejstvyjah/37/832-litak-mig-21-proty-f-4-qfantomq-u-vjetnamskij-vijni
http://alternathistory.org.ua/migi-protiv-fantomov
Author:
145 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 25 March 2015 06: 21
    +6
    The MiG-17 was significantly inferior to the American Phantoms in maneuverability and speed,
    Well, the speed is clear, but the maneuverability ??? I think that the training of pilots suffered more here and their physical condition, eating one weed, you will not become stronger ... especially since their opponents - American pilots, were "blood and milk"

    On June 4, the Phantoms again met with an air enemy over Vietnam: a MiG-17F flight over the city of Vu Ban (Hua Binh province) attacked a trio of F-4Bs. One "Phantom" dodged the battle and, smoking afterburner engines, went east. Two other American planes were drawn into close combat on bends, where the more maneuverable MiGs had advantages and the Vietnamese were not slow to use them. After turning 180 degrees. the leader of the Vietnamese flight opened fire on one of the American vehicles from a distance of 1000-1200 m. Soon he approached the enemy at 700 m and again fired a burst of cannons. F-4B, ​​trying to get out of the fire, vigorously maneuvered in height and heading. The second American fighter, following its leader, made a desperate attempt to rescue the commander, trying to attack the MiG from behind from a distance of 400-500 m (the task is completely impossible, since the minimum allowed launch range of the AIM-9B Sidewinder UR is much longer). The wingman MiG-17 opened defensive cannon fire and the second American fighter was forced to get out of the fire, performing an energetic turn with a decrease. It was immediately followed by the first F-4B, ​​which received several shell hits (according to the Vietnamese command, this "Phantom" did not manage to reach its airfield and it fell on the territory of Laos). A flight of American planes that came to the aid of the Phantoms, identified by the Vietnamese as F-101 Voodoo, was also attacked by MiGs, but did not accept the battle and, taking advantage of the speed advantage, fled to the west.

    The next air battle with the participation of "Phantoms", which took place on June 17 over the city of Ninh Binh, was more fleeting and stupid. During it, four MiG-17Fs managed to attack from the rear hemisphere and shoot down two F-100Bs from a distance of 600-4 m, while the Americans did not show much activity and rather randomly tried to get out of the battle. The Vietnamese suffered no losses, although their order of battle was also disrupted, and flight control was lost. When returning to their airfield, two Vietnamese pilots were forced to eject due to complete consumption of fuel, and one MiG-17 made an emergency landing at the Haiphong airfield.
    1. Shirioner
      Shirioner 25 March 2015 07: 24
      -30
      I don’t know how in Vietnam, but in the Middle East, Israeli Phantoms had a significant superiority over the Arab MIG-21s (including the famous aerial battle with Soviet pilots in the summer of 1970 over the Suez Canal, in that battle the score was 5-0)
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 25 March 2015 08: 38
        +18
        Not much I disagree with you. The phantom shot down only one plane of Mr. Yurchenko. The rest 4 were shot down by MIRAGES. The reason is, according to V.K. Babich, that “our fighter aircraft was not ready to fight for air supremacy in conditions that developed at that time in the Middle East. "
        1. Gamdlislyam
          Gamdlislyam 25 March 2015 10: 45
          +13
          Quote: Fitter65
          according to VK Babich that "our fighter aircraft was not ready to fight for air supremacy in the conditions that developed at that time in the Middle East."

          Rather, not fighter aircraft, but the so-called "human factor". Psychologically, the MiG pilots were not ready for life-and-death battles. Subsequent events showed that the actions of the Soviet pilots became much more competent and decisive. This forced the Israelis to be much more circumspect and cautious. They already preferred to avoid collisions with Soviet pilots unless absolutely necessary.
          By the way, the same thing happened in the Korean War. Until our pilot, shot down by the Americans, died, the pilots either imitated the attacks (instead of the cannon of the guns, pressed the button of the machine gun), or flew, as if flying into the zone.
          There is an army postulate - a soldier then turns into a fighter when he sees the blood or death of his comrade (colleague). And they have not yet come up with another way.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 25 March 2015 14: 30
          +2
          This is when 40 pcs against one link? Well, achiv.
        3. strong man
          strong man 25 March 2015 23: 53
          0
          The article is not bad, but the author needs to learn the mat part better, the Dgeneral Dynamics F16 fighter is called Fightin Falcon "fighting falcon" and should not be confused with the Northrop F5 Freedom Fighter!
      2. oblako
        oblako 25 March 2015 08: 57
        +16
        Dear Chirioner, do not dissemble, as you know in Vietnam. You also know that not only cars fight, but also people. You know that air combat is provided by information from the ground. In the episode you are talking about, Israeli aviation was indeed better organized, coordinated, and armed, by definition, better, and therefore won. Respect and respect. But that’s nothing more to say. The Mig 21 aircraft is an outstanding machine, created much earlier than the F-4, managed to withstand it with dignity. Or were American pilots worse than Israeli in Vietnam? I think no. With continued intense clashes, I think the statistics would be different. A pilot, Soviet or some other, must have combat experience. And this is acquired only in war during combat clashes.
        1. creak
          creak 25 March 2015 10: 47
          +14
          Quote: oblako
          A pilot, Soviet or some other, must have combat experience. And this is acquired only in war during combat clashes.


          That's right, it is no coincidence that the commander of the Soviet aviation group, General Dolnikov, said during the analysis to the pilots: "You have learned to fly, but you have not learned to fight." This also applied to ground services - it was one thing to fight on a training ground with a conventional enemy, and another - in real combat conditions with Israeli aviation, which by that time had accumulated very, very decent combat experience. At first, not all of our servicemen fully realized this factor ... Therefore, any combat experience has to pay its price - in war as war, it has its own laws, no matter how small or large ...
          For the sake of objectivity, I would like to note, without going into details, that by the standards of that time, the Phantom was a very modern machine and a serious enemy - I say this as a direct participant in those events in the combat zone on the Suez Canal (1969-72).
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 11: 23
          -2
          Quote: oblako
          But that’s nothing more to say. Aircraft Mig 21 outstanding machine, created much earlier than the F-4, managed to withstand it with dignity.

          Are you kidding? They have a two-year difference in the beginning of operation. MiG-21 - 1959, Phantom - 1961. Fuck like "much earlier".
          The statistics in the article are erroneous
          1. Drummer
            Drummer 25 March 2015 14: 39
            +4
            Yeah. Peers, the development began at both 1953, the first flight at F4A, E6 (Mig-21F) and E7 (Mig-21P) - 1958.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. aleks 62
        aleks 62 25 March 2015 11: 09
        +1
        Phantoms had a significant superiority over the Arab MIG-21

        ..... Well, the "iron" cannot have superiority over a more maneuverable aircraft !!!! ..... It's a matter of chance .... hi
      5. yehat
        yehat 25 March 2015 11: 17
        +6
        as far as I remember, the same picture was repeated there - the instant fought without support from the ground, almost blind and regularly fell into traps.
        It is worth noting a specific relief, which gave great tactical bonuses to the Israelis.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 11: 26
          -4
          Quote: yehat
          as far as I remember, the same picture was repeated there - the instant fought without support from the ground, almost blind and regularly fell into traps.
          It is worth noting a specific relief, which gave great tactical bonuses to the Israelis.

          Mostly battles were fought over Egyptian or Syrian territory. Bonuses from the enemy due to the terrain and the lack of support from the ground over their territory - this is very
          1. yehat
            yehat 25 March 2015 11: 47
            +7
            the question is not where the fighting was, but where the observers were and what they saw.
            how airfields were disguised and protected, how approaches to the battlefield were viewed. Most Israeli missions became known already during contact in the sky, while Arab fighters were not infrequent from take-off. This is based on the stories of Soviet pilots that I read.
      6. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 12: 47
        +23
        I describe in detail the battle over the Suez Canal 30.07.1970/XNUMX/XNUMX:
        The Israelis, knowing about the participation of Soviet pilots on the MiG-21 in hostilities on the side of Egypt, decided to teach them a lesson. The operation was codenamed "Branch" (I don’t know how in Hebrew). For this operation, an F-4E Phantom unit (4 aircraft) and two IIICJ Mirage units (8 aircraft) were assigned, piloted by 12 of the best aces of the Israeli Air Force, who had a total of 59 victories over the Arab Air Force. First, a pair of "Phantoms" under the cover of 4 "Mirages" attacked a radar station on the western (Egyptian) bank of the Suez Canal in the afternoon - this was a decoy for Soviet pilots. After the attack, the Phantoms went home, while the Mirages headed deep into Egyptian territory. Eight Soviet MiG-12MFs, commander Captain Kamenev, rose to intercept them 8 minutes later. At 21:14 pm, the first contact took place, 20 more Mirages entered the back of the Soviet pilots. Reinforcements from 4 Soviet MiGs were raised from the ground. At this time, the Israeli means of electronic warfare and countermeasures completely "drowned out" the Soviet and Egyptian radars, jammed the radio air. As a result, Soviet pilots, accustomed in training (I repeat, training battles) to high-speed interceptions in their radar field, were completely "blind and deaf." The Israelis were also approached by reinforcements in the form of 12 Phantoms under the command of Avihu-ben-Nun (the commander of the first Israeli squadron armed with Phantoms). As a result of the ensuing battle (in which the Mirages fought a maneuverable battle, and the Phantoms made missile attacks from medium distances), 4 Soviet planes were shot down without losses from the Israeli Air Force. The first MiG was shot down by a cannon burst from the Mirage, the second MiG was shot down by a Sparrow rocket fired by Avihu-bin-Nun. Israel claims that the Soviet Air Force lost 4 MiG-5s, allegedly the fifth crashed during the landing approach, being damaged in battle, of which 21 were shot down by Mirages, 3 by Phantoms. Distinguished pilots F-2E Avihu-ben-Nun and Avie Sella and Mirages - Asher Smir and Abraham Shalmon. According to Soviet data, 4 aircraft were shot down: captains Zhuravlev, Yurchenko and Yakovlev were killed, the fourth pilot managed to eject. The planes were shot down (one at a time) by Sparrow, Shafrir and Sidewinder missiles, as well as a 4mm cannon. I think it is necessary to note that in this battle Israeli aces, who have rich combat experience in modern air warfare, and Soviet pilots, although first-class trained, but previously "fought" only at training ranges, where they practiced high-altitude interception of air targets using missiles in full the sky controlled by its radar means.
        By the way, on August 3, 1970, our missilemen from the anti-aircraft missile division of Lieutenant Colonel K. Popov avenged our pilots by shooting down 5 Israeli planes (1 Mirage and 4 Phantoms) at once, also luring them into a trap, and the Egyptian anti-aircraft missile division and false starting positions of the air defense missile system behind the main position of the Soviet division.
        Correct me if I incorrectly transcribed the names and surnames of Israeli pilots.
        I have the honor.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 13: 04
          -11
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          By the way, on August 3, 1970, our missilemen from the anti-aircraft missile division of Lieutenant Colonel K. Popov avenged our pilots by shooting down 5 Israeli planes (1 Mirage and 4 Phantoms) at once, also luring them into a trap, and the Egyptian anti-aircraft missile division and false starting positions of the air defense missile system behind the main position of the Soviet division.

          Here the information is incorrect. On August 3 one plane was shot down (the pilot and navigator were captured, one of them died as a result of torture), the second plane - the Phantom - reached the airfield, and was later rebuilt.
          1. Aleksandr72
            Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 15: 23
            +12
            By the way, the information about the five downed planes was announced by the Arabs. Ours claimed only four shot down and the crew of one of the "Phantoms" was indeed captured by our missilemen and later transferred to the Egyptians. Israel acknowledged the loss of two aircraft in the battle. But for some reason I don't really believe them. During the Yom Kippur war, according to Israeli data, their Air Force flew 3961 combat missions to cover troops, military forces and reconnaissance. At the same time, their fighters conducted 117 air battles: 65 against Syria and 52 against the rest of the participants in the war. At the same time, the Jews claim that they shot down from 277 to 334 Arab aircraft (according to various sources) with the loss of only ... 3 (three) of their own. The rest (the data is traditionally not announced), as usual, either disappeared without a trace, or fell when returning to their airfields - well, not in battle. Do you believe them? Me not.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 25 March 2015 15: 56
              -5
              Quote: Aleksandr72
              At the same time, Jews say they shot down Arab planes from 277 to 334 (according to various sources) with the loss of everything ... 3 (three) of their own

              7-mi. A total of 109 aircraft were lost. Most of them - as a result of air defense. There are detailed statistics - what, how, who died - by name. If you didn’t read them, or didn’t try to look for them - this does not mean that these data are not available, right?
              1. Aleksandr72
                Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 16: 17
                +9
                Okay. Here is the statistics I have on the Israeli Air Force losses in the Yom Kippur War: F-4 Phantom - 33, A-4 Skyhawk - 53, Mirage / Nesher - 11, Super-Mister - 6. Total 105 smlets, plus 6 helicopters. Moreover, these are all losses, both in air battles, and from the air defense of the Arabs, and "missing", and those who crashed during landings at their airfields or during a forced landing on their territory. And these numbers were officially recognized by Israel. Moreover, in air battles, only 3 Israeli aircraft were allegedly shot down. The number of losses from the Arab air defense is given vaguely - several dozen, although it is indicated that the Arab anti-aircraft gunners shot down 31 aircraft of the Israeli Air Force. I do not quote the Arabic figures for Israeli losses. I do not believe them at all, the Arabs are still great storytellers. Unfortunately, I cannot give a list of the dead Israeli pilots by name, because I use a source based on Israeli data - there is only a list of victories of Israeli pilots and victories of the Israeli Air Force by dates, starting from 03.07.1948/47/23, when the Egyptian S-20.11.1985 was shot down and ending with two Syrian MiG-XNUMXs shot down on November XNUMX. XNUMX There is simply no more recent data.
                I have the honor.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 25 March 2015 21: 09
                  0
                  Quote: Aleksandr72
                  The amount of losses from Arab air defense is vague

                  What exactly is vague? Here I gave a link below to a list of exactly which aircraft, with which pilots and what were shot down. Such a long list. With dates, places. Is this probably not enough?

                  Quote: Aleksandr72
                  Unfortunately, I can’t give a list of the dead Israeli pilots by name, because I use a source based on Israeli data - there is only a list of the victories of Israeli pilots and the victories of the Israeli Air Force by dates starting from 03.07.1948 - when the Egyptian C-47 was shot down and ending with two Syrian MiG-23, shot down by 20.11.1985 More there is simply no fresh data there.


                  You look bad
                  http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/yom-kippur-war/iaf-airmen-losses/

                  There are several such sources, and if desired, the data can be found in three or four languages
              2. aleks 62
                aleks 62 25 March 2015 16: 32
                +2
                ... Altogether 109 aircraft were lost ....

                ..... Well, yes .... You cannot praise yourself - then who will praise? .... A little off topic, but better tell us about the "feat" and the losses of Israeli tankers in a tank battle in the Bek Valley .... .It would be interesting to listen ... lol
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 25 March 2015 21: 04
                  -3
                  Quote: aleks 62
                  .. A total of 109 aircraft were lost ....

                  ..... Well, yes .... You cannot praise yourself - then who will praise? .... A little off topic, but better tell us about the "feat" and the losses of Israeli tankers in a tank battle in the Bek Valley .... .It would be interesting to listen ...

                  And what interests you, my little scruffy friend? What doubts torment you?
                  1. Petrik66
                    Petrik66 25 March 2015 23: 27
                    +2
                    You are just a boor.
        2. veteran66
          veteran66 25 March 2015 17: 02
          0
          Two catapulted, but one died as a result of hitting his head on a rock (there was a strong wind and the ZH disrupted during ejection)
      7. veteran66
        veteran66 25 March 2015 15: 06
        +5
        it is impossible to judge so clearly about the superiority or shortcomings of the MiG-21 aircraft over the F-4 in this battle. A brilliant tactical operation was developed (it is necessary to pay tribute to the Jews) with luring the link of Soviet fighters into a trap with the subsequent build-up of forces. There is more superiority in tactical skill than in technology. According to the recollection of one of the Israeli pilots, he was shocked by the training of the Russians, because in such conditions the battle would end in a couple of minutes after it started, but it lasted much longer. And not only F-4s participated there, but also Mirages.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 15: 23
          +3
          Quote: veteran66
          it is impossible to judge so clearly about the superiority or shortcomings of the MiG-21 aircraft over the F-4 in this battle

          In general, it is difficult to judge the superiority of an aircraft in approximately equal machines, especially without taking into account other variables - provision, pilot training, terrain, tactical features, etc.
      8. KAB
        KAB 25 March 2015 16: 30
        +7
        This is one episode of almost an ambush, Phantoms and Mirages went at a very low altitude with an envelope of relief, and our MiGs at that time could not conduct targets against the background of the earth, and this is not Israeli tactics, but American, used back in Vietnam. Israel did not have more such victories. At the expense of the number of downed and lost cars, according to the states themselves, the ratio of losses and victories, 142 downed Phantoms, against 74 downed MiGs, but according to the recollections of American veterans, Phantoms were shot down much more, an order or two, no one can read out this information she is shocking, they were literally humiliated. Phantoms never won in duels, they did not have a single chance there, their tactics were air ambushes, with a big margin, or they caught MiGs when flying from the Union, outside the air defense zone, here sighted Phantoms had an advantage. In the nineties, these documentaries were played, and since we had friendship at that time, their veterans readily talked about this. MiG-17 and MiG-19 for two shot down within 350 units and the same amount. And since the MiG-21 was much faster than its predecessors, it is not difficult to guess how much the MiG-21 had more victories, not one hundred. The states there lost more planes than they let out and therefore could no longer wage war, since MiGs literally dominated the sky. MiG have long been associated with danger. About Mirages, ask the Hindus why they will extend the MiG-15 operation for 21 years, the answer will sadden you, not only the Mirage is ill against it, but also the F-15 often rakes (in close combat). The fighter created by the Hindus resembles the Mirage, but the MiG-21 is the reference according to flight data, guess why? The supremacy of the Mirage, it really is a mirage. Sift the seed from the chaff, when viewing your documentaries, compare the performance characteristics, the thrust-weight ratio, the Mirage radar at that time was probably better and if the Israelis were able to destroy the air defense, then they had a chance to bring down MiGs that were tied to air defense, but in close maneuverable combat unlikely. In Syria, F-16s shot down MiG-23s if they were guided by AWACS, and without it the 23rd saw it earlier, respectively, and earlier launched rockets. The war with Egypt was not such a rainbow for Israel, Israel won in one battle, but the Sinai went to the Egyptians and Israel did not dare to select it, so decide for yourself what kind of victory it is.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 21: 12
          0
          Quote: KAB
          According to the states themselves, the ratio of losses and victories, 142 downed Phantoms, against 74 downed MiGs, but according to the recollections of American veterans, Phantoms were shot down a lot more, an order or two, simply no one can read out this information she is shocking, they were literally humiliated
          Where are the downed
        2. yehat
          yehat 26 March 2015 11: 53
          +1
          According to various stories, the mirage had some advantage over the ground and in turn over the MIG, while a number of other MIG maneuvers did with an advantage over the Mirage. They said something about a breakdown at low speeds. In general, there was some kind of parity in close combat ...
        3. teptyar
          teptyar 3 September 2021 11: 41
          0
          where can you read about these statistics?
      9. Talgat
        Talgat 25 March 2015 23: 20
        0
        Quote: Chirioner
        Israeli Phantoms had significant superiority over Arab MIG-21

        Well, maybe I won’t argue, maybe in some local skirmishes, given the best training for pilots and modernization of aircraft

        But this is not important! The main thing is that in Vietnam (as before in Korea) the aggressor received a rebuff and an object lesson that a blitzkrieg against our homeland will fail, that if they try "Drang nach Osten" as Europe tried in 1941, then the walks will not work, even if our planes and had flaws, but they would give the change in full

        I think that the goal of our leadership was not only to save the allies from unpunished bombing, but also to demonstrate equipment to prevent aggression from the European direction (to cool their heads with hawks)
      10. 79057330785
        79057330785 26 March 2015 15: 10
        0
        In the summer of 1970, Mirages fought, all were shot down from cannons. The superiority of the Israelis was caused primarily by better tactics and more advanced Avionics Phantoms. He could also use UR Sparrow. In close combat, the Phantom was weaker. But best of all, the Phantom proved to be a strike aircraft. The main drawback of the MiG is its short range and small stock of weapons.
      11. 79057330785
        79057330785 26 March 2015 15: 10
        0
        In the summer of 1970, Mirages fought, all were shot down from cannons. The superiority of the Israelis was caused primarily by better tactics and more advanced Avionics Phantoms. He could also use UR Sparrow. In close combat, the Phantom was weaker. But best of all, the Phantom proved to be a strike aircraft. The main drawback of the MiG is its short range and small stock of weapons.
  2. D-Master
    D-Master 25 March 2015 06: 42
    +4
    Yes! this is the truth about which US residents (dances) prefer not to talk.
    Only one operation about the discovery of the capture of our MIG 21 in a group of squadrons and their partial destruction is turned on. But judging by the results of the war and given the veracity of the United States, this is all very doubtful. And the statistics of victories with the coefficient 2: 1 no one can think in a nightmare
    1. gjv
      gjv 25 March 2015 09: 05
      +6
      American intelligence C-130 Hercules in the sight of the Soviet MiG-17 Art. Lieutenant Kucheryaev. September 2, 1958
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 March 2015 02: 38
      0
      Quote: D-Master
      And the statistics of victories with the coefficient 2: 1 no one can think in a nightmare

      according to the most conservative estimates, the ratio was 1: 4 in favor of the MIGs ... but there are unofficial statistics, so there in Vietnam the ratio was generally shock-for every downed MIG there was 12! Phantoms ... but I think the first figures are closer to the truth, maybe not all Phantoms got off in Miami air fights, there were also anti-aircraft missile systems that also beat Amers very successfully.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 26 March 2015 09: 54
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        according to the most conservative estimates, the ratio was 1: 4 in favor of the MIGs ... but there are unofficial statistics, so there in Vietnam the ratio was generally shock-for every downed MIG there was 12! Phantoms ... but I think the first figures are closer to the truth, maybe not all Phantoms got off in Miami air fights, there were also anti-aircraft missile systems that also beat Amers very successfully.

        Can I have more details on your statistics? Well, with some source. About 1: 4
  3. qwert
    qwert 25 March 2015 07: 04
    +8
    Quote: svp67
    MiG-17 was significantly inferior to the American Phantoms in maneuverability

    It's funny.)))
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. gjv
      gjv 25 March 2015 09: 25
      +5
      That's what they showed aerobatics at the Yuma air show 2013. wassat MiG-17 over Arizona! good
  4. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 25 March 2015 07: 06
    +6
    that if the MiG-21 didn’t appear on the arsenal of the Vietnamese aviation, then the Americans would, quite obviously, have won. about one more Americans scored C 75 According to the USSR Ministry of Defense, 60 divisions of the S-75 complex shot down about 2 thousand over North Vietnam. about complexes off-topic it from the category if!
    1. yehat
      yehat 25 March 2015 11: 23
      -4
      information on s-75 is mixed. YES, the complex was very dangerous, but in the hands of experienced anti-aircraft calculations from the USSR. But the Vietnamese used it much worse. Clouds of missiles were useless, poorly used ambush tactics, camouflage and relocation, so as not to receive a retaliatory strike. Not very well used radar modes, etc.
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 13: 13
        +16
        And you do not confuse the Vietnamese with the Arabs for an hour. I read the recollections of a Soviet military adviser - a rocket launcher, who took part in the hostilities in Vietnam and in Egpit (where he trained Arab rockets). So he claimed that the Vietnamese learned very quickly, masked the starting positions of the S-75 so that they looked like groves before the start, even the missiles were masked by greenery before the start in violation of all technical requirements, the missiles were launched directly by the American attackers the planes, while the stalks of bamboo, covering the starting position of the missiles, the Vietnamese bent to the side immediately before the start of the SAM. At the same time, the Vietnamese used various tricks and tricks against the Americans, as well as those against the Vietnamese. And the most striking thing in his memoirs was that the Vietnamese troops, when attacking the American Air Force, themselves (!) Ran into the receiving and transmitting cabin of the SNR-75 missile guidance station to shield Soviet officers - guidance operators from possible American fragments. Whereas the Arabs, in similar attacks from Israel, did not hesitate to abandon their positions and drape whoever was far away.
        I have the honor.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 25 March 2015 16: 15
          -7
          the previous speaker was right in only one thing — there were times when several SA-75 divisions (not S-75, this is not the same thing) mocked at one unfortunate Fairby drone. The first firing division shot down, and the rest finished off the wreckage. No wonder - ASURK then in Vietnam was not, each commander fought on his own
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 26 March 2015 13: 15
            0
            Well, to be honest, I didn’t expect such activity. By the previous speaker I mean user yehat, and I mostly agree with Alexander. As for automation, I can only repeat ASURKs regardless of the minuses received, nor, moreover, There were no seneges in Vietnam. What explained the shooting of Who in the forest, who by firewood
        2. yehat
          yehat 25 March 2015 17: 08
          -3
          and our other anti-aircraft gunner was the material of the Vietnamese, who lost 3 rocket batteries in his eyes, which were lit up by launches and were not relocated at night. The attack aircraft arrived in the morning and just threw PERFECTLY MASKED positions.
          1. Gamdlislyam
            Gamdlislyam 25 March 2015 20: 53
            +1
            Quote: yehat
            and our other anti-aircraft gunner was the material of the Vietnamese, who lost 3 rocket batteries in his eyes, which were lit up by launches and were not relocated at night. The attack aircraft arrived in the morning and just threw PERFECTLY MASKED positions.

            Dear colleague Sergey, Have you seen enough of Hollywood films about the Vietnam War?
            It would be better to read the memoirs of our officers who served in those distant times in Vietnam.
            1. yehat
              yehat 26 March 2015 11: 23
              0
              in fact, I read them and talked even with the S-75 anti-aircraft gunner, who was in Egypt and in Vietnam.
          2. Soviet Union
            Soviet Union 25 March 2015 21: 25
            0
            Watch the movie (in the internet and on YouTube) "Dance with Death". The film is ours, but there are testimonies of Soviet officers, Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners and US Air Force pilots ...
        3. creak
          creak 25 March 2015 19: 13
          +9
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          . Whereas the Arabs, in similar attacks from Israel, did not hesitate to abandon their positions and drape whoever was far away. I have the honor.


          You know this for sure, have you ever encountered such cases?
          Personally, I don’t - I am a participant in the hostilities in the Suez Canal - so the flight of personnel from the fighting positions of a mass nature was not necessary, there is no need to repeat fables and legends wandering from one source to another ...
          For my several years of service, my colleagues and I did not have to observe anything like this ..
          Everything is not so simple in the war, but idle reasoning and generalization on the principle - and they are all like this, cowards and corrupt, are simply inappropriate ... I have the honor.
          1. Zymran
            Zymran 25 March 2015 20: 16
            +3
            Quote: ranger
            You know this for sure, have you ever encountered such cases?
            Personally, I don’t - I am a participant in the hostilities in the Suez Canal - so the flight of personnel from the fighting positions of a mass nature was not necessary, there is no need to repeat fables and legends wandering from one source to another ...
            For my several years of service, my colleagues and I did not have to observe anything like this ..
            Everything is not so simple in the war, but idle reasoning and generalization on the principle - and they are all like this, cowards and corrupt, are simply inappropriate ... I have the honor.


            Tell us more. If it’s not difficult, but if you write an article for the site, it will be just wonderful.
        4. yehat
          yehat 26 March 2015 12: 08
          0
          After analyzing the capabilities of the S-75, the Americans developed a number of rather effective ways to evade or deceive missiles, because they still had significant disadvantages. And then they were used, and the training of the Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners did not take this into account, and therefore they often launched missiles without a result, when the Americans had a chance to dodge. Our anti-aircraft gunners had already anticipated many such tricks in the USSR, more clearly understood the capabilities of the complex and therefore chose the launch time more successfully. I saw one amer film where they directly told me that special planes stood out in their strike order to tease rockets, provoking launches, and then, when the batteries ran out of ready-to-launch missiles, the main wave of planes went.
  5. santygo
    santygo 25 March 2015 07: 10
    +3
    that would not write about the MIG-21 and damn nice that the Americans were given in the face and showed where their place is! soldier
  6. fa2998
    fa2998 25 March 2015 07: 20
    +4
    Comparing the Phantom and the MiG-21 is like comparing a KAMAZ with a Ferrari. The MiG is a light fighter, of course its maneuverability is better. The Phantom is a multifunctional aircraft, its payload is slightly lower than the weight of the MiG-21 itself (7t.) Minus, but the frontal the air collector for the mid-60s is an anachronism. The phantom was a fairly successful aircraft. There were drawbacks, relying on missiles did not put guns, but subsequent modifications received "volcanoes". hi
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 25 March 2015 09: 23
      +5
      Quote: fa2998
      To compare Phantom and MiG-21 is how to compare KAMAZ with Ferrari. MiG is a light fighter, naturally its maneuverability is better

      The author did not compare aircraft, but military use against each other.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. gjv
        gjv 25 March 2015 10: 01
        +3
        The American magazine Popular Mechanics made the appropriate calculations by comparing the MiG-21 with the two-seat American F-4 Phantom, which also flew in Vietnam: “For every enemy pilot and a plane worth $ 1, we lose two pilots and a plane which costs four times as much. " fellow
    2. andrey-ivanov
      andrey-ivanov 26 March 2015 01: 42
      +1
      Volcanoes on the F-4E began to set precisely according to the results of battles in the sky of Vietnam. But these are air force machines, but on deck F-4N and F-4J guns did not appear.
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 March 2015 02: 53
      +2
      Quote: fa2998
      To compare Phantom and MiG-21 is how to compare KAMAZ with Ferrari. MiG is a light fighter, naturally its maneuverability is better.

      To begin with, each of these fighters performed the task for which it was imprisoned. MIG is a light front-line fighter, which is designed to stick everything into the ground on a military line that flies from the enemy side. Phantom is a heavy fighter a breakthrough made to escort the bombers to the front line ...
      Proceeding from this, Mig-21 did what it was imprisoned for, as well as Phantom did what it was intended for. Their meeting in battle was logical, respectively. This allows you to compare the performance characteristics of these fighters taking into account the air fights of these machines. Of course, there is not only the criterion of technical characteristics of the fighter, but also the pilot's professionalism, armament, conditions for supporting air defense, and much more ...
      And the main result of the dispute whose car turned out to be better is the result of the Americans leaving Vietnam, that is, the defeat of the United States.
  7. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 25 March 2015 07: 52
    +4
    Yes, maybe the 21st was inferior in some way to the phantom, and the AK was simpler than the M-16, but the result! The most powerful country with the most modern army received a snot, as all the power of Europe, together with the Wehrmacht, ogrebla in 1945. Advanced weapons are not yet a victory.
    1. gjv
      gjv 25 March 2015 10: 12
      +2
      To finally get detailed information about the MiG-21, the CIA tried to carry out a secret operation and take possession of one of the cars in the GDR. Günther Laudan, who fled to the Federal Republic of Germany, was to return to East Berlin and convince the NNA pilot to move to West Germany with his MiG-21 aircraft. But Stasi learned about this plan. Laudan was arrested and sentenced to life in prison, he was later sent to the west.
      Despite the fact that after a few years the Americans managed to get one of the much-desired MiG-21 aircraft and test it in the desert of Nevada - they could not stop the victorious march of these machines all over the planet. MiG-21 flew everywhere, and in the air over the Arctic Ocean, and over the savannas of southeast Africa. The secret of success of these machines in their reliability, coupled with a simple and at the same time, confident aerodynamics. “For many third world countries, simple and reliable MiG equipment was as easy to understand as possible,” Müller explains. China even began to produce it in its factories. By the end of the sixties, the MiG-21 had become a key player on the world stage.
      The situation did not change even after the Soviet Union stopped the production of these machines in the 1985 year, which by then had produced about 10 000 units. About twenty different modifications of this brisk fighter were in service: single and twin, fighters and interceptors, fighter-bomber and reconnaissance - many of them could even be armed with nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that MiG-21 was inferior in technical characteristics to the latest American aircraft F-15 and F-16, it was economically more profitable.

      MiG-21 Flying Kalashnikov (Posted by Eike Frenzel, 'Spiegel online', Germany, 2010)
    2. The comment was deleted.
  8. Tamanskiy
    Tamanskiy 25 March 2015 08: 04
    +4
    "I see a white line in the sky
    My Phantom is losing altitude
    Catapult is the salvation
    And the slings pull
    Heart in heels in a tailspin I'm going "=)
  9. vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 25 March 2015 08: 23
    +20
    Yes, it seems that the author is not in the subject:

    The MiG-21 had its drawbacks. He had a fairly short range of radar sight (10-12 km),


    The range of the radar type RP-21 (aka TsD-30) - 20 km. The capture range - maybe 10-12, depends on the EPR of the target.

    he needed more time for a full review cycle of the airborne radar,


    I don't remember the review cycle, the antenna moves along three horizontal "lines" - top, straight, bottom. It takes two seconds to review all lines, no more.

    the target mark on the indicator in the cockpit was poorly perceived.


    The target mark looks normal: a wide horizontal line with a vertical "fence" of bars at the top if the target is higher than you (on the top line of the view), below - if the target is lower, and on both sides - if the target is at the same height.
    If you ask for the "friend or foe" system, and the plane ahead is "friendly", then the horizontal line becomes double.

    To switch the weapon mode, the pilot needed to remove one hand from the aircraft control levers.


    Well, yes, if there are 4 pieces of rockets, then it was possible to choose a salvo - launch of the 1st, two, or all four. Such a switch will not fit into the RUS - everything is already stuck there like a hedgehog with needles. But then there were no computer buses - to each button it was necessary to stretch separate ultra-flexible wires through the control knob.

    The engine, under certain operating conditions, smoked very strongly, which allowed the enemy to easily detect it at a distance of up to 30 km.


    Hehe. Already 30 keme ?? Further than the radar? :) And here is what the Americans themselves write: "In addition, the MiG is difficult to detect visually in the air, and its engine" does not smoke at all, "especially in comparison with the smoking Phantom" http://kramtp.info/news/18/full/ id = 22807
  10. Fitter65
    Fitter65 25 March 2015 08: 29
    +2
    I was more interested in the picture in the title. It seems like a Vietnamese plane is the MiG-21PFM, but why are there 4 suspension points? Again, PHANTOM judging by the shape of the nose of modification E, and by the color of the marine corps, where there were never such long-nosed Phantoms. It turns out that we describe a collision of what has never happened in life? at least, looking at the picture, one gets the impression. hi
    I would like to learn more about everything else about such modifications of the MiG-21go as the MiG-21 PMF, MiG-21MFL and especially the MiG-212ShF. lol
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. gjv
      gjv 25 March 2015 10: 31
      +1
      Here is the "short-nosed" Phantom of 1972 at the Americans / Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum /.
      Where are those MiGs? request
  11. fomkin
    fomkin 25 March 2015 08: 30
    +4
    And in Korea and Vietnam, the Americans received pretty much from our aviation. Now they console their vanity on computer simulations on TV. And our youth is watching, and for some points it can be assumed that goals are sometimes achieved.
    1. Argon
      Argon 25 March 2015 11: 27
      +1
      If everything were so simple ... In Vietnam, by the way, our "advisers" made no more than 8 sorties. The success of the MiG-21 was determined by the tactics of use, more precisely, the suddenness of the strike + a swift withdrawal. If it was possible to ensure these factors, victory, in a protracted "carousel" on oblique hinges, amers, as a rule, managed to take revenge, all the same, the "sidewiners" of that period were an order of magnitude more perfect than our "URs." had to lean on the eyes.
      1. Soviet Union
        Soviet Union 25 March 2015 21: 28
        0
        Where did the information come from? Have you been there :)))?
  12. Montrey
    Montrey 25 March 2015 08: 30
    -1
    It's all about the approach.

    Jews fought differently, Arabs turned out to be bad pilots. The Americans have a different approach and the Vietnamese turned out to be excellent pilots.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 25 March 2015 11: 16
      +1
      Quote: montrey
      Jews fought differently, Arabs turned out to be bad pilots. The Americans have a different approach and the Vietnamese turned out to be excellent pilots.

      The Arabs were very good pilots, as evidenced by the score of their air victories. And this article sins with inaccuracies, and somewhat misinterprets reality
      1. yehat
        yehat 25 March 2015 11: 38
        0
        nevertheless, there were problems in the pilots, although not general ones.
        and Israelis often had an advantage, not because of pilots or planes, but because they carefully planned and ensured their operations. Often they had a large numerical superiority, the best intelligence and third-party data on targeting.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 11: 43
          0
          Quote: yehat
          nevertheless, there were problems in the pilots, although not general ones.

          There were. But because of this, the Arabs should not be considered slurred sucks.

          Quote: yehat
          and Israelis often had an advantage, not because of pilots or planes, but because they carefully planned and ensured their operations. Often they had a large numerical superiority, the best intelligence and third-party data on targeting.

          What about the numerical superiority in battles or in aviation in general? Then, as in the latest indicators, Israel lagged behind 8)
          1. yehat
            yehat 25 March 2015 11: 49
            +1
            by the number of vehicles in the sky in close proximity to the battlefield.
            this was especially tough during the last conflict.
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 25 March 2015 12: 24
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        The Arabs were very good pilots, as evidenced by the score of their air victories. And this article sins with inaccuracies, and somewhat misinterprets reality

        At the time, according to the results of the fighting in 1973, Israel declared.
        After the fighting ended, Israel announced that its aircraft had destroyed "at least 370 Arab aircraft and lost only four of its fighters."
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 13: 05
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          At the time, according to the results of the fighting in 1973, Israel declared.
          After the fighting ended, Israel announced that its aircraft had destroyed "at least 370 Arab aircraft and lost only four of its fighters."

          A source?
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 25 March 2015 14: 13
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            A source?
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 25 March 2015 14: 23
              0
              Photo by Dova Kontorera, and the quote is from Ilyin. And yet - I would like specifics
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 25 March 2015 15: 17
                +1
                Quote: Pimply
                and the quote is from Ilyin


                In the air battles, the Israeli Air Force lost only 5 aircraft, while the Egyptian and Syrian air defense missiles caused the main losses, which shot down 97 Israeli aircraft (the Arab Air Force lost 334 aircraft in air battles and 36 more Egypt and Syria aircraft were shot down by Israeli air defense systems).
                http://yaqir-mamlal.livejournal.com/243109.html
                Dov Kontorrera 334: 5 in favor of Israel, if Ilyin is an unreliable source.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 25 March 2015 15: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Dov Kontorrera 334: 5 in favor of Israel, if Ilyin is an unreliable source.

                  So slightly different is that of Ilyin and that of the Office. Ilyin here says that the Israelis claim that all 4 planes were shot down, the Kontorre clearly indicates that more than 100 were shot down.
                  According to other sources - During the fighting, 109 flying vehicles (LA) were damaged, of which 7 were in air battles, 53 pilots were killed, 44 were captured and 53 were saved after bailout or emergency landing.
                  http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/yom-kippur-war/iaf-airmen-losses/#
                  chapter-1
                  There is a fairly detailed layout - who, when and from what.

                  About neglect of the enemy pilots is nowhere to be found.
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 25 March 2015 18: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Pimply
                    So slightly different is that of Ilyin and that of the Office. Ilyin here says that the Israelis claim that all 4 planes were shot down, the Kontorre clearly indicates that more than 100 were shot down.

                    Quote: Pimply
                    The Arabs were very good pilots, as evidenced by the score of their air victories.

                    Eugene, we are speaking with you for the pilots, and 100 are those 97 Israeli aircraft that were shot down by air defense systems.
                    An outside observer would hardly have called very good pilots those who would have lost the air battles with the 334: 5 score. Unless the planes were bad.
                    1. Pimply
                      Pimply 25 March 2015 21: 15
                      +2
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      Eugene, we are speaking with you for the pilots, and 100 are those 97 Israeli aircraft that were shot down by air defense systems.
                      An outside observer would hardly have called very good pilots those who would have lost the air battles with the 334: 5 score. Unless the planes were bad.

                      Here, most likely the Israeli ones were very good, and not the Arab ones were bad. Israel then poured into the army 25 percent of GDP, and in aviation - 50 percent of what it gave to the army. Therefore, the pilots raided close to the 300-th hours in some cases
                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 26 March 2015 19: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Here rather Israeli were very good

                        Do not you think that even for the chosen people it is somewhat immodest?
                        The air battle over Ophira is an air battle that took place on October 6, 1973, during the Doomsday War.
                        2 F-4 Phantom II aircraft of the Israel Defense Forces defeated the superior number of Egyptian aircraft consisting of 28 MiG-17 and MiG-21 aircraft.
      3. Bathk
        Bathk 25 March 2015 14: 01
        0
        the Arabs have another "feature" - trade. This is what Israel's intelligence service "used". (look for memoirs on the use of the MIG-25 in the sky of Egypt)
  13. wanderer_
    wanderer_ 25 March 2015 08: 40
    0
    Nevertheless, the 21st is a classic, and it is not for nothing that the Indians modernized it ... just beautiful good
    1. gjv
      gjv 25 March 2015 13: 15
      +1
      And legendary reliability! good 50 years in service, of which, unfortunately, now 10 years in NATO! request
      1. Orakul2000
        Orakul2000 27 March 2015 00: 34
        +1
        In 1993, the Israeli company Ercraft Industry (IAI) announced its intention, together with the Romanian firm Aerostar SA, to modify the MiG-21 into a variant of the MiG-21-2000. Its subsidiary Elbit System was involved in the development of the equipment, which became the leader in the modernization of fighters into the Lancer version. According to Israeli experts, the MiG-21 has relatively high flight performance, and after modernization it will have combat capabilities that are not inferior to more expensive modern western fighters. "I flew the MiG-21 several times, it is a solid and easy-to-fly aircraft, - said M. Shmul, - chief pilot of IAI. Its onboard systems are simple and functional, there is no need to replace them." At the same time, according to the pilot, some reinforcement of the airframe is required. During the upgrade, a new multi-mode pulse Doppler radar EL / M2032 with a target detection range at a distance of up to 70 km was installed (10 training MiGs were equipped with an EL / M- 2001B) and a radar exposure alert station. The equipment also includes the LISA 4000 inertial navigation system, indicators on the windshield and a 1553 standard modem. At the same time, a number of electronic systems, such as identification equipment, have been preserved. The use of more compact equipment made it possible to free up additional volumes in the fuselage, which were supposed to be used to increase the fuel reserve, bringing it, taking into account the additional ventral tank, to 3000 liters. The main directions of modernization were: the use of modern means of obtaining the necessary information, increasing the efficiency of interaction "man-machine" and survivability in modern combat. The latter was to be achieved by improving the forward view and installing new warning systems: about radar exposure and electronic warfare, sound alarms about the threat of fire and about reaching supercritical angles of attack. According to the agreement, more than 100 Romanian MiG-21MFs underwent revision, which extended the resource airframe and power plant. The first batch of 50 cars was finalized by the fall of 1998. In June of the same year, Ethiopia, in connection with the border conflict with Eretria, asked Romania to supply it with ten Lancers in the form of a strike aircraft. A prototype of the modernized fighter made its first flight in Israel on May 24, 1995, and the updated MiG-21U - in May 1996. ... Now Romanian MiGs can carry modern Russian and Western weapons. At one of the exhibitions in Farnoboro, a car with the Russian R-73 missile and the French Piton missile with infrared seeker, as well as with unguided aircraft missiles in the UB-32 blocks and the Ofer guided bomb of the Elbit company was demonstrated.
      2. Orakul2000
        Orakul2000 27 March 2015 00: 35
        +1
        The Romanian MiG is also equipped with the Elbit DASH helmet-mounted designator and the Elisra radar detection warning system (SPS-20). Two cassettes for false targets in infrared and radio bands and other modern equipment are suspended under the aft fuselage. The aircraft is also equipped with a video recording system.Despite the replacement of equipment with lighter ones, the weight of the aircraft has decreased slightly, since ballast had to be added to ensure the required alignment. The proposed modernization of the power plant in order to increase the resource of the P13-300 engine was never carried out.
        In November 2006, one of the Lancers on a training flight crashed in western Romania. The pilot ejected, but received minor injuries on landing. In October 1998, the MiG-21 bis went on the first test flight from the Aviastar airfield, modernized again with the help of the Israelis. The car was piloted by test pilot of the "Elbit" company E. Shafir. Modification of the "bis" was similar to the MiG-21MF.
        In addition to India and Romania, she intended to modernize her MiGs Kampuchea. In 1995, the Israeli company IAI signed a contract with Kampuchea to finalize the 15 MiG-21bis, while the resources of the airframe and engine will be extended, as well as undergo minor changes in avionics.
        Depending on customer requirements, the cabin interior may be different, and the name of the aircraft being modernized in Israel, apparently, will remain unchanged - MiG-21-2000.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  14. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 25 March 2015 09: 00
    +8
    "began to create a highly maneuverable fourth generation fighter F-15 Eagle and F-16 Freedom Fighter"

    The F-16 is the Fighting Falcon and the Freedom Fighter is the F-5.
    1. 79057330785
      79057330785 26 March 2015 15: 44
      0
      I’ll add Sidewinder and R-3s short, but not medium-range missiles. Spurrow's average range
    2. 79057330785
      79057330785 26 March 2015 15: 44
      0
      I’ll add Sidewinder and R-3s short, but not medium-range missiles. Spurrow's average range
  15. bolat19640303
    bolat19640303 25 March 2015 09: 06
    0
    Simple, reliable as a Kalashnikov assault rifle. I don’t remember exactly who said that about the MIG-21.
  16. Miner
    Miner 25 March 2015 09: 42
    +3
    It should be noted that the rivalry between the American Phantoms and the MiG-21 in the sky of Vietnam ended in the defeat of the American fighter. For the entire period of the war, American pilots managed to shoot down only 54 MiG-21 aircraft, and the "twenty first" at the same time managed to destroy more than 100 Phantoms.


    In the film presented to the article, different statistics are given - like American pilots have chopped up MiGs much more than lost Phantoms :(

    Judging by the film, the Vietnamese wanted to fight, and the Americans wanted peace.
    And only by repeating operation No. # $% @ #% $ - 2, with their powerful bombing with B-52 they still managed to persuade Vietnam to the world ... :(

    Yo-mine !!!
    1. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 25 March 2015 11: 13
      +3
      Quote: Miner
      In the film presented to the article, different statistics are given - like American pilots have crumbled MiGs much more than they lost Phantoms: , they with their powerful bombing from the B-2 still managed to persuade Vietnam to the world ... :(

      Dear colleague Andrei, I completely agree with you. This video is not appropriate. Yes, and the article is one-sided. It seems that the author was guided when writing on materials “sworn partners”. Therefore, put the article minus.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 25 March 2015 11: 14
      -1
      Quote: Miner
      In the film presented to the article, different statistics are given - like American pilots have chopped up MiGs much more than lost Phantoms :(

      If we talk about air-to-air battles, it was.

      Quote: Miner
      Judging by the film, the Vietnamese wanted to fight, and the Americans wanted peace.
      And only by repeating operation No. # $% @ #% $ - 2, with their powerful bombing with B-52 they still managed to persuade Vietnam to the world ... :(

      If you exaggerate strongly, then yes. The North Vietnamese wanted to capture Vietnam South, and the States wanted to return the situation to their original borders, rather than trying to capture Vietnam North.

      Learn the story of the Vietnam War
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 25 March 2015 11: 28
        -4
        And in general, anyone would doubt that the local cheers-patriots would express their frustration from ignorance of history with minuses to the person who recalled this laughing
        1. Krasmash
          Krasmash 25 March 2015 14: 28
          +2
          Quote: Pimply
          And in general, anyone would doubt that the local cheers-patriots would express their frustration from ignorance of history with minuses to the person who recalled this laughing

          According to the members of the forum, the people who don’t know whose side they are on. Well, our people cannot trust a Jew who has hell knows how many passports. Moreover, he is in a laudatory form related to americosia. wink hi yes
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 25 March 2015 21: 16
            +2
            Quote: Krasmash
            According to the members of the forum, the people who don’t know whose side they are on. Well, our people cannot trust a Jew who has hell knows how many passports. Moreover, he is in a laudatory form related to americosia.

            Friend, the transition to personality and illiteracy is now in favor, I am in the know. 8) The main thing is to shout cheers louder and wave your hat.
            1. Krasmash
              Krasmash 26 March 2015 05: 10
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              Quote: Krasmash
              According to the members of the forum, the people who don’t know whose side they are on. Well, our people cannot trust a Jew who has hell knows how many passports. Moreover, he is in a laudatory form related to americosia.

              Friend, the transition to personality and illiteracy is now in favor, I am in the know. 8) The main thing is to shout cheers louder and wave your hat.

              I also don’t like patriots, but Russian citizens with a pro-Western position are not good either.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 26 March 2015 09: 55
                0
                Quote: Krasmash
                I also don’t like patriots, but Russian citizens with a pro-Western position are not good either.

                And in more detail? Well, for example, about my pro-Western position
                1. Krasmash
                  Krasmash 26 March 2015 12: 47
                  -1
                  Quote: Pimply
                  Quote: Krasmash
                  I also don’t like patriots, but Russian citizens with a pro-Western position are not good either.

                  And in more detail? Well, for example, about my pro-Western position

                  Details are not needed, it suffices that many forum users are wary of you, they say the Cossack sent. Did you write custom articles? And how did you do with the Russian counterintelligence? But the most interesting thing is, why did you save the terrorist at the risk of your life?
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 26 March 2015 13: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Krasmash
                    Details are not needed, it suffices that many forum users are wary of you, they say the Cossack sent. Did you write custom articles? And how did you do with the Russian counterintelligence? But the most interesting thing is, why did you save the terrorist at the risk of your life?

                    That is, I have to tear a vest on my chest and scream - I'm a spy! 8) Cool!
                    1. Krasmash
                      Krasmash 26 March 2015 15: 26
                      -1
                      If only he answered the last question. Of course you won’t tear and scream, the valiant state security officers will take you to clean water. :-)
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 25 March 2015 13: 38
        +5
        Quote: Pimply
        The North Vietnamese wanted to capture Vietnam South, and the States wanted to return the situation to their original borders, rather than trying to capture Vietnam North.


        A Vietnamese (both northern and southern) cannot, by definition, "capture" his own territory. And the States should "want" something at home, 10 thousand km from Vietnam.
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 25 March 2015 14: 50
          0
          A fresh look. But does the territory of South Korea also have its own territory for DPRK?
          1. Dali
            Dali 26 March 2015 01: 42
            0
            I watched a map for a long time ... where is the DPRK, and where is the USA ?! belay
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 15: 39
          -4
          Quote: Aleksander

          A Vietnamese (both northern and southern) cannot, by definition, "capture" his own territory. And the States should "want" something at home, 10 thousand km from Vietnam.

          That is, based on your logic, the ROA waged a war of liberation?
          And let's say the USSR and China "want" something at home too?
          And in 1979, the USSR definitely had to "stay at home" - is this about Afgan?
          Cool logic 8) Bravo!
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Soviet Union
        Soviet Union 25 March 2015 21: 38
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        If we talk about air-to-air battles, it was.

        Yes, well - justify!
        Quote: Pimply
        The North Vietnamese wanted to capture Vietnam South, and the States wanted to return the situation to their original borders, rather than trying to capture Vietnam North.

        Learn the story of the Vietnam War

        Teach yourself, understand! Or explain to you how you instigated your military intervention? And so it is not enough that the Americans wanted - no one called them there. They themselves would have figured it out. By the way, the Americans and the elections thwarted by the unification of Vietnam. So do not write nonsense. And what Americans are noble am
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 22: 01
          +1
          Quote: Soviet Union
          Teach yourself, understand! Or explain to you how you instigated your military intervention? And so it is not enough that the Americans wanted - no one called them there. They themselves would have figured it out. By the way, the Americans and the elections thwarted by the unification of Vietnam. So do not write nonsense. And what Americans are noble

          Actually, they were. The government of South Vietnam, And no one talks about the nobility of the Americans - he voted for his interests. Like the USSR.
          How I love these cute tantrums around history - Americans are bad, ours are good. North Vietnam, with the support of China and the USSR, decided to grab South Vietnam, which did not really want to. Was the South good? No, there was a tough dictatorship, only of a pro-Western nature, reminiscent of the South Korean one. Was the North "good". Why would you? They were very bloody scoundrels, cruel and ready to slaughter anyone who disagreed with them. Were the USSR and the USA good? Yes, why would. These are two superpowers with their own interests there.

          And you, dear man, in the head of kindergarten. Grow up, Anika the warrior. Life is not a zebra
          1. Dali
            Dali 26 March 2015 01: 56
            +1
            Yeah ... only napalm burned mattress covers again, and they sprayed methyl orange too ...

            Do you know what methyl orange is? Do you want to try on your territory? laughing

            And after that you dare to equate the USA with the USSR am ... although it’s also clear, you are friends to the grave in the group of the golden calf ...
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 26 March 2015 10: 05
              0
              Quote: Dali
              Yeah ... only napalm burned mattress covers again, and they sprayed methyl orange too ...

              Do you know what methyl orange is? Do you want to try on your territory?

              And after that you dare to equate the USA with the USSR ... although it’s also clear, you are friends to the grave in the group of the golden calf ...

              Do you know that in Afghanistan, for example, the USSR used a theme similar to napalm, incendiary tanks?
              http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/ab/zb500pt.html
              Methyl oranges were not used due to lack of jungle. But farmland was destroyed notably - because of this, in 1984-1985 there was a sickly such hunger.
              Also used were vacuum bombs and a lot of interesting things.
              Life - to put it mildly, not black and white
        2. FM-78
          FM-78 26 March 2015 00: 37
          0
          I’m thinking North Vietnam or South Vietnam - this is understandable, but where does the "Americans who wanted to return South Vietnam?" (As well as South Korea, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. My opinion is that Comrade "Bumpy" is not our Comrade at all.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 26 March 2015 01: 13
            +1
            Quote: FM-78
            I’m thinking North Vietnam or South Vietnam - this is understandable, but where does the "Americans who wanted to return South Vietnam?" (As well as South Korea, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. My opinion is that Comrade "Bumpy" is not our Comrade at all.

            To return the situation to its original borders and return South Vietnam - in my opinion there is a difference, no? If the initial borders are not satisfied, in the situation of the borders of the beginning of the conflict between North Vietnam and South.

            As for not a comrade - I am not a comrade to false patriots, illiterate ignoramuses and showers with hats. You can still spit saliva - it's funny
          2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Velya
    Velya 25 March 2015 09: 46
    +4
    Even though you throw stones at them, but I like Phantom (no, I won't even compare with DRYERS and MIGs, for me, a convinced scoop, quilted jacket, Colorado and Separa, they can't be compared with anything, and it's not about comparison, namely that the plane itself is pleasant). It is a pity, only that he did not at all a noble deed in Vietnam.
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 25 March 2015 20: 13
      -1
      ) It’s a pity, only that he did not do a noble job in Vietnam. ,,
      that is, you decided that democracy should triumph, American? it’s a pity that I can only stick one minus. not what kind of scoop are you, but a pronounced perestroika who hates the history of his country. pfu, on your comets .
      1. Velya
        Velya 27 March 2015 12: 23
        0
        Quote: kotvov
        It’s a pity, only that he did not do a noble job in Vietnam. ,,
        that is, you decided that democracy should triumph, American? it’s a pity that I can only stick one minus. not what kind of scoop are you, but a pronounced perestroika who hates the history of his country. pfu, on your comets .

        You yourself, then realized what he said? Or do not you understand what I wrote? So read it again, and take a closer look: I like the Phantom plane itself, but its creators, operators and their goals in Vietnam (and around the world) - absolutely not.
        Not a noble cause in Vietnam - this is that with his help, p.i.nd.so.sov bombed Vietnam, killed civilians.
        That is, roughly speaking - the Phantom fought in the wrong hands and on the wrong side.
        Is this clear? And you don't need to offend me, I'm not a perestroika, I can't stand amers, and I don't need their fucking "democracy" for nothing. I am glad that the Americans got out of there, preliminarily raking.
        So clear or not?
        I was born in the USSR and am proud of it. I respect and respect the history of my country and the memory of my grandfathers who died in the Second World War.
        LEARN TO READ AND THINK before sculpting cons.
  18. Pimply
    Pimply 25 March 2015 10: 20
    0
    For starters - the information should beat on several sources. But these very other sources give slightly different information.

    Mig-21 during the war shot down the confirmed 37 F-4, 15 - F-105, as well as 4 aircraft of other types.
    According to the US Air Force almanac, F-4 was shot down by 66 Mig-21, 8 by Mig-19, 33 by Mig-17.
    In order to avoid unfoundedness, we look at what the air forces of the Vietnamese People’s Army say about this and we see that they confirm 60 of the destroyed MiG-21 aircraft.
    The total number of confirmed MIG-21 destroyed in air-to-air combat is 86. There is a detailed layout of what and when, who shot down and who was shot down.

    In total, during the war years, the USA lost 1737 aircraft (of all types) from hostile actions, and 514 due to operational reasons.

    For Phantoms - US Air Force lost F-4 Phantom II - 445, of which 382 in combat
    US Navy F-4 Phantom -138, 75 in combat
    US Marine Corps F-4 Phantom -95 lost everything, 72 - in a combat situation.


    Well, now a small gap in patterns. From a purely military point of view, the United States won the war. At the time of their entry into the war, 40 percent of the territory of South Vietnam was captured by the North. At the time of signing the Paris Agreements, this territory was reduced to 10%. The North Vietnamese offensive, so colorfully described (sometimes called Easter), failed (to a large extent thanks to the support of South Vietnamese troops by US aircraft). In addition, the parties had different goals. If North Vietnam wanted to seize South, the United States sought to return the situation to the status quo, similar to the situation in South Korea. Which, incidentally, did not suit the South Vietnamese rulers who wanted to destroy North Vietnam.

    The problem was that this war was starting to cost the United States too expensive, the Allies clearly set the Americans on a number of issues, wanting too much, and the politicians did not allow the army to bring to the logical conclusion some extremely successful militarily successful operations. So the United States forced North Vietnam to sign the Paris Agreements, and with relief, breathing out and saving face, hit the road.

    Victory is far from always built solely on military achievements.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 25 March 2015 11: 09
      +5
      Quote: Pimply
      If North Vietnam wanted to seize South, the United States sought to return the situation to the status quo, similar to the situation in South Korea. Which, incidentally, did not suit the South Vietnamese rulers who wanted to destroy North Vietnam.

      Exclusively for this compote, (which is not happening in your head) that you are splashing out under the guise of philanthropy-democracy and spreading the arrogant Saxons for peace.
      For this I have set you A PLUS, for the enchanting!

      Quote: Pimply
      For starters - the information should beat on several sources. But these very other sources give slightly different information.

      Quote: Pimply
      Almanac of the U.S. Air Force

      And especially hi
      Quote: Pimply
      514 due to operational reasons.


      You have surpassed yourself!
      Continue in the same vein "happiness" awaits you. wink
      1. yehat
        yehat 25 March 2015 11: 59
        -4
        and I’m inclined to partially agree with the bubble one: the Americans had well-trained pilots, a fast plane, a small, but advantage due to the radar,
        as well as missiles with an active guidance head, while the 21s seemed to be semi-active, and this added complexity. It was much easier for the American phantom pilot to find a target, start fire on it and run away (especially from 15 and 17 instants).
        And therefore I am not inclined to believe that ours fell them 2: 1.
        But, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe in American statistics.
        In my opinion, the ratio was close to 1: 1.4 in favor of amers.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 25 March 2015 12: 31
          -2
          Quote: yehat
          But, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe in American statistics.

          American statistics are different from North Vietnamese on 6 aircraft. 66 is declared by Americans, 60 is designated by Vietnamese.

          Quote: yehat
          In my opinion, the ratio was close to 1: 1.4 in favor of amers.

          Judging by air-to-air battles and taking into account the ratio of victories - yes
        2. FM-78
          FM-78 26 March 2015 00: 29
          0
          The video after the article says the opposite. I think these are real pilots?
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 25 March 2015 12: 28
        +1
        quarters are non-combat losses usually?
    2. Zymran
      Zymran 25 March 2015 11: 17
      +2
      Quote: Pimply
      In total, during the war years, the USA lost 1737 aircraft (of all types) from hostile actions, and 514 due to operational reasons.


      This is only the US Army. For the Navy and Marine Corps, losses were considered separately. 530 in battle and 329 for technical in the Navy and 193 for marines. Plus just a huge number of helicopters. However, most of the aircraft were shot down not by North Vietnamese aviation and not air defense missile systems, but from barreled artillery and small arms.
      1. yehat
        yehat 25 March 2015 12: 03
        +1
        they began to shoot down with a small amount of weapons because the Americans were forced to cling to the ground because of anti-aircraft missiles. Prior to s-75 deliveries, their losses from barrel artillery fire were small.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 25 March 2015 13: 09
        0
        Quote: Zymran
        This is only the US Army. For the Navy and Marine Corps, losses were considered separately. 530 in battle and 329 for technical in the Navy and 193 for marines. Plus just a huge number of helicopters. However, most of the aircraft were shot down not by North Vietnamese aviation and not air defense missile systems, but from barreled artillery and small arms.

        Are right
    3. Montrey
      Montrey 25 March 2015 11: 18
      0
      Agree

      But many of us do not really know much about this war. Basically, everyone remembers the footage of 1975, as American helicopters draped their Saigon.

      And by the way, at first, the Americans generally ignored the Vietnamese Air Force. Because of their mosquito bites. The main factor was air defense. Although this did not stop the United States from dropping millions of bombs to the north and causing enormous economic damage, take even the lunar landscape of Hanoi after the B-52 raids after 1972. Which also became the main factor in the signing of the Paris peace agreements by the northerners.

      At my place there is a book of a Soviet journalist who was in the DRV in the 60s. I remember his descriptions of the fact that it was simply unsafe to drive on roads day and night. Rarely did any of the drivers turn on the headlights in the countryside. For star-striped pirates were hunting even for a single bicycle rider on the road.
    4. Soviet Union
      Soviet Union 25 March 2015 21: 49
      0
      Not tired of posting nonsense? Did the USA win? It’s like if you watch German and Finnish films about the Second World War - you won all the battles, but you lost the war laughing
      Quote: Pimply
      then the United States sought to return the situation to the status quo,

      Rave! The US pursued its goals.
      Quote: Pimply
      So the United States forced North Vietnam to sign the Paris Agreements, and with relief, breathing out and saving face, hit the road.

      Crap again. Americans in Vietnam raked the most. And they were forced to leave in disgrace. See the documentary evidence of the American soldiers themselves. And about how they threw their awards to the threshold of Congress or the White House.
      А negative Why are you suddenly protecting here !?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 25 March 2015 22: 08
        +2
        Quote: Soviet Union
        Not tired of posting nonsense? Did the USA win? It’s like if you watch German and Finnish films about the Second World War - you won all the battles, but you lost the war

        The Germans and Finns lost the war, both politically and militarily.
        The Americans won the war militarily. The question is that military victory does not mean victory in the war as a whole. They forced North Vietnam to sign the Paris Agreements - I recommend reading about their history. Then they dumped them - the war cost them too much and did not bring distinct prospects. North Vietnam felt the South after the Americans left, realized that the Americans would not get involved again - and after that South Vietnam was calmly captured.

        Quote: Soviet Union
        Crap again. Americans in Vietnam raked the most. And they were forced to leave in disgrace. See the documentary evidence of the American soldiers themselves. And about how they threw their awards to the threshold of Congress or the White House.
        Why are you suddenly protecting here !?

        Well yes. For ten years of the war - 47000 killed in hostilities and 11000 from various non-combat situations. Fucking a lot considering the scale of the action. Well, 1 million 100 thousand North Vietnamese. Fucking so raked.
        The question is that no one expected such losses.
        1. andj61
          andj61 25 March 2015 22: 25
          +2
          Quote: Pimply
          Well yes. For ten years of the war - 47000 killed in hostilities and 11000 from various non-combat situations. Fucking a lot considering the scale of the action. Well, 1 million 100 thousand North Vietnamese. Fucking so raked.
          The question is that no one expected such losses.

          If you think so, then we won in Afghanistan, and even the losses were fewer (though it’s who and what they think).
          It was not the United States that forced Vietnam to conclude the Paris Agreements, but Vietnam (DRV) forced the United States and South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) to recognize the rebels (the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam) as a negotiating party and to conclude a four-party agreement. The result is obvious: small Vietnam actually defeated the superpower. To do this, it turned out to be enough just to ignore losses. And what only the United States did not try: provocation in the Gulf of Tonkin with the aim of getting involved in the war, and massive bombing of civilians, including by strategic aviation, and aggression against neighboring Laos and Cambodia in order to eliminate the Ho Chi Minh trail, and conduct a large the number of punitive operations, the use of the most poisonous defoliants, etc.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 25 March 2015 23: 46
            +1
            Quote: andj61
            If you think so, then we won in Afghanistan, and even the losses were fewer (though it’s who and what they think).

            From a purely military point of view, they definitely won. The USSR dominated most of Afghanistan, and the death toll was relatively small. The problem was different - the USSR, like the USA, sucked the political part of the issue.

            Quote: andj61
            It was not the United States that forced Vietnam to conclude the Paris Agreements, but Vietnam (DRV) forced the United States and South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) to recognize the rebels (the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam) as a party to negotiations and to conclude a quadripartite agreement. The result is obvious: little Vietnam actually defeated the superpower.

            To some extent, and so. But not in a military sense. North Vietnam didn’t really want to sign these agreements; even less so did South. But the USA literally drove the North into a treaty with harsh bombing
    5. darkriver
      darkriver 25 March 2015 23: 10
      0
      Bumpy, we are talking about a war between the first industrial power in the world and a peasant country with a depressing level of education even today, what kind of templates do you want to break? “From a purely military point of view,” the US should have done about the same with Vietnam as it did with the Saddamchik or Gaddafi regime. What the Vietnam War shows is that even a rather weak country can give the states by showing extraordinary will, because the United States is very sensitive to such a term as "unacceptable losses."
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 25 March 2015 23: 56
        0
        Quote: DarkRiver

        Pimpy, we are talking about a war between the first industrial power in the world and a peasant country with a depressing level of education, even today, what patterns do you want to break?

        For a start - a peasant country with the support of such "kids" as the USSR and China. Secondly, let's remember the different tasks of the parties and how did the US military slow down their own politicians? If Vietnam had no support and the US leadership had a certain will, the situation would have been somewhat different. And so ... the USA in Vietnam tried to be only "a little" pregnant. It doesn't work that way
        1. darkriver
          darkriver 26 March 2015 00: 49
          0
          Small countries will always have great friends, but this does not always lead to victorious results, as the Arab-Israeli wars show. The Vietnamese have historically demonstrated tremendous resilience to invaders, this is their mentality, thanks to which they made the amers get out. It's ridiculous to talk about some South Vietnam and its interests in general - it was a puppet government based only on American bayonets and dollars ... "A little pregnant")) Americans dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in World War II on Germany, nor damn yourself "a little pregnant". The United States would roll out North. Vietnam, but could not even win air supremacy, which is why the war resulted in years of bloody fuss and not in a victorious march.
    6. skeptic31
      skeptic31 26 March 2015 01: 24
      +1
      Sheer nonsense. The main reason for the termination of air raids on Vietnam, and therefore the admission of defeat, was the incredible losses of American aircraft in their last air operation over Vietnam. We are talking about Operation Linebecker-2 in December 1972. In two weeks they lost 81 aircraft, including 34 B52 and 3 F-111. Further hostilities with such losses became physically impossible. The real reasons for such losses are called different. Ours assure that this is the result of the increased skill of the Vietnamese, that the two S-1971 anti-aircraft missile regiments delivered in 125 have not yet had time to be put on alert. The Americans assert, and perhaps not without reason, that some more serious forces took part in the December battles over Vietnam. We are talking about the newest Russian complexes S-200 at that time. They express such a version that it was their temporary input, and that the Russians fought on them. By the way, our magazine "Za rubezhom" wrote about this quite freely at that time. In any case, there can be no talk of any American Victoria. The Vietnamese, albeit with our help, just rolled them out. First in North Vietnam in the air, and then in South Vietnam.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 26 March 2015 10: 10
        0
        Quote: skeptic31
        Sheer nonsense. The main reason for the termination of air raids on Vietnam, and therefore the admission of defeat, was the incredible losses of American aircraft in their last air operation over Vietnam. We are talking about Operation Linebecker-2 in December 1972. In two weeks they lost 81 aircraft, including 34 B52 and 3 F-111.

        According to official figures, they lost 15 B-52 aircraft during these two weeks, all during the war, according to American data, 31 B-52 were lost, of which 14 non-combat losses. And another 11 aircraft of other types were shot down. Where did you count 80 from? And why is it so shocking, amid the loss of several thousand aircraft over the entire war?
  19. Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 25 March 2015 11: 48
    +1
    In 1967, a pilot who visited Vietnam and he also spoke about the victories of 2: 1 was invited to our unit (communications division and RTO.Mukachevo).
    In 1965. the aviation regiment and our unit were to be sent to Vietnam. Everyone was in a barracks position, transport workers were caught up on the airfield, and even some of the planes were loaded (engines were replaced for something). Part of the An 10 flew to Crimea, but then there was a hang-up. According to rumors, the Chinese got into a mess and the Vietnamese refused our help.
    1. yehat
      yehat 25 March 2015 12: 06
      0
      probably the pilot spoke about the statistics of Russian pilots.
      because both the Chinese and Vietnamese lost quite a few cars.
      1. Gamdlislyam
        Gamdlislyam 25 March 2015 13: 07
        +1
        Quote: yehat
        probably the pilot talked about the statistics of Russian pilots. because like the Chinese and Vietnamese lost a lot of cars.

        Dear colleague Sergey, what do you mean "Russian pilots"? In Vietnam "русские"the pilots did not fight. The USSR leadership sent military advisers to Vietnam, including pilots, but they were SOVIET the pilots. They were not tasked with fighting the Americans. Their task was to train Vietnamese pilots and develop tactics to counter American raids, generalize experience.
        Where our military took an active part in the hostilities was in the combat work of the air defense divisions, and only then at the beginning, until the Vietnamese gained experience. In the future, there also only advisers remained. But our anti-aircraft gunners defended the cargo port of Haiphong until the end of the war. There even our warships stood.
        1. yehat
          yehat 25 March 2015 17: 34
          +1
          gained experience?
          at the end of the war, when the Americans bombed the city on a large scale, all their "experience" came out. I don’t remember exactly the statistics, but for 1 shot down plane there were definitely more than 10 missile launches. They still had little understanding of how the S-75 could work, and the Americans developed some methods of evading and deceiving missiles.
          These statistics even led to a scandal in the USSR.
          Only those batteries in which our instructors led were able to work efficiently.
  20. Humpty
    Humpty 25 March 2015 12: 37
    0
    "During the interrogation, only I asked
    Who is the pilot who shot me down
    And the slanting answered me that he commanded the interrogation
    Our pilot Li-Si-Qing shot down you

    Are you Vietnamese lying for nothing
    I clearly heard in the helmet
    You’ll cover me with Petro, and Ivan Phantom will cover me
    Soviet ace Ivan knocked me down "

    In every joke is a fraction of the joke.
  21. legionary
    legionary 25 March 2015 14: 40
    -1
    Here is the video https://youtu.be/9NUClHwJV2U Not quite out of place but still.
  22. turanchox
    turanchox 25 March 2015 15: 06
    +1
    and F-16 Freedom Fighter

    it remains only to laugh at the knowledge and erudition of the author
  23. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 25 March 2015 15: 21
    +1
    37 MiG-21s were lost in Vietnam, 76 Phantoms were shot down. However, this is not the count of "personal meetings" MiG-21 - Phantom-2.
    Nonsense has been written about the MiG-17. Already in maneuverability, he was in no way inferior to a low-maneuverable deck interceptor, beating American vehicles in dogfight. The MiG-17 was effectively fought only by "Crusaders" on bends. Leaving the battle at speed, of course, against the subsonic 17x was effective, but this = disrupting the combat mission and intercepting the entire strike group. But in general - air battles were characterized by a rather low intensity, the losses of the US Air Force in the air are not comparable to the losses from the air defense system.
    The MiG-21s practiced covert approach and firing at the z-zu from a couple of kilometers, although they were superior to the Phantom in terms of maneuverability, they tried not to engage in close combat against a numerically superior enemy.
    The Sparrow, Sidewinder and R-3C missiles were far from perfect, to put it mildly.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 25 March 2015 15: 59
      -2
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      37 MiG-21 lost in vietnam

      Actually, according to the air force of the Vietnam People’s Army, 60 MiG-21 aircraft were lost (Phantoms were shot down from 54).
      But F-4 Mig-21 shot down 37 pieces
      1. FM-78
        FM-78 26 March 2015 00: 25
        0
        Personally sat in the archives of the Vietnamese Air Force or sent by mail?
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 26 March 2015 00: 35
          0
          Quote: FM-78
          Personally sat in the archives of the Vietnamese Air Force or sent by mail?


          Tài liệu của Việt Nam xác nhận là đã có 60 chiếc MiG-21 bị rơi trong không chiến (54 chiếc do F-4 bắn rơi và 6 chiếc do cáciỹ doộ do do doạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạạ , cụ thể kết quả không chiến qua các năm như sau.

          http://www.anninhthudo.vn/quan-su/bao-vat-quoc-gia-mig21-hung-than-tren-khong-do
          i-voi-may-bay-my / 591565.antd

          This is for example. Vietnamese sources are actively using precisely these numbers. Including this figure is given in the Vietnamese Wikipedia
          1. darkriver
            darkriver 26 March 2015 01: 40
            0
            And how many besides the Phantoms were all kinds of Supersabers or Thunderchiffs knocked down instantly? Perhaps from this point of view, the statistics of the MiG-21 will look different.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 26 March 2015 10: 14
              0
              Quote: DarkRiver
              And how many besides the Phantoms were all kinds of Supersabers or Thunderchiffs knocked down instantly? Perhaps from this point of view, the statistics of the MiG-21 will look different.

              Quite possible. Only now the number of other planes shot down by phantoms was also not taken into account in our conversation.
              But let's take a look at the statistics on the Mig-21 one as a whole. Vietnamese MiG-21 reported the destruction of 128 aircraft in the United States, while the United States confirmed only 96 victories of MiG-21 aircraft. Here are the statistics.
      2. darkriver
        darkriver 26 March 2015 01: 20
        0
        And on the basis of what are all the downed MIG-21 recorded on the account of the Phantoms? Part of it is probably shot down by F-105 or all sorts of Skyhawks mb, non-combat losses, again, without any tricks I ask.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 26 March 2015 10: 15
          0
          Quote: DarkRiver
          And on the basis of what are all the downed MIG-21 recorded on the account of the Phantoms? Part of it is probably shot down by F-105 or all sorts of Skyhawks mb, non-combat losses, again, without any tricks I ask.

          Based on the fact that the North Vietnamese reported the destruction of 54 MiG-21 Phantoms, and 6 - aircraft of other types.
  24. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 17: 16
    0
    [b] Below is the Air Force casualties in the Vietnam War (including drones). If the names of the winning pilots are indicated with a "/" sign, it means that the US plane was shot down in a group. This is part 1.
    date Victim Pr-crew Winner Country Pilot
    16-02-64 C-123 USA T-28 S. Vietnam Nguyen Van Ba
    04-04-65 F-105D USAF Bennet MiG-17 Le Min Huan
    04-04-65 F-105D USAF Magnusson MiG-17 Tran Hanh
    09-04-65 F-4B USN Fegan/Murphy MiG-17 PRC Air Force
    20-07-65 F-4?? Kari/Briggs MiG-17 921 IAP S.Vietnam Air Force
    20-09-65 F-104C USAF Smith MiG-19 Chinese Air Force Gao Xiang
    05-10-65 F-104C USAF MiG
    14-10-65 F-105D USAF Schuler MiG-17 Vietnamese Air Force
    06-11-65 CH-3C ??Lilly/Singleton/Naugle/Cormier МиГ-17 Hanh/Hung/Lan/Phuon
    04-03-66 F-4 USAF?? MiG-17 Ngo Duc Mai
    14-03-66 AQM-34 USAF -- MiG-21 Nguyen Hong Nhi
    12-04-66 KA-3B USN Gleason / Jordan / Harris / Pugh MiG? Chinese Air Force
    26-04-66 F-4C USAF Tucker / Anderson ?? MiG-17 S.Vietnam Ho Van Quy
    29-04-66 A-1E USN Boston MiG-17
    21-06-66 F-8E USN Black MiG-17 Trung / Duong / Tan / Bay / Tuc
    21-06-66 RF-8A USN Eastman? MiG-17 Trung/Duong/Tan/Bay/Tuc
    29-06-66 F-105D USAF Jones MiG-17 Huyen/Man/Bay/Tuc
    11-07-66 F-105D USAF McLelland МиГ-21
    14-07-66 F-8E USN Bellinger MiG-17 Ngo Duc Mai
    19-07-66 F-105D USAF Diamond МиГ-17
    29-07-66 RC-47 USAF Hoskinson+7 МиГ-17
    05-09-66 F-8 USN Abbott MiG-17 923 IAP
    16-09-66 F-4C USAF Robertson/Buchana МиГ-17
    21-09-66 F-4C USAF Kellems/Thomas МиГ-17
    05-10-66 F-4C USAF Andrews/Garland МиГ-21
    09-10-66 F-4B USN Tanner/Terry? MiG-21 Nguyen Van Minh
    05-12-66 F-105D USAF Begley МиГ-17
    12-12-66 F-105D USAF Coley МиГ-21
  25. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 17: 17
    0
    This is part 2.
    26-03-67 F-4C USAF Crow/Fowler?? MiG-17 921 IAP
    19-04-67 F-105F USAF Madison/Sterling МиГ-17
    19-04-67 A-1 USAF Hamilton MiG-17
    25-04-67 A-4C USN Stackhouse МиГ-17 Bay/Hon/Bon
    25-04-67 A-4E USN MiG-17 Bay/Hon/Bon
    25-04-67 F-8 USN МиГ-17 Вay/Hon/Bon/Dich
    25-04-67 F-105 USAF MiG-17 Toai/Hai/Chao/Ky
    29-04-67 F-105D USAF Caras МиГ-21
    30-04-67 F-105D USAF Abbott,J MiG-21 Le Trong Huyen
    30-04-67 F-105F USAF Thorsness/Johnson MiG-21 Nguyen Ngoc Do
    30-04-67 F-105D USAF Abbott,R MiG-21 Nguyen Van Coc
    30-04-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 Vu Ngoc Dinh
    12-05-67 F-4C USAF Gaddis/Jefferson MiG-17 Ngo Duc Mai
    12-05-67 F-105F USAF Pitman/Stewart?? МиГ-17 Tan/Tho
    12-05-67 F-105 USAF МиГ-21 Huyen/Song
    19-05-67 F-4B USN? Rich/Stark MiG-17 Phan Thanh Tai
    20-05-67 F-4C USAF MiG-17 Tai/Diet
    22-05-67 F-4C USAF MiG-21 Dang Ngoc Ngu
    26-06-67 F-4C USAF Blandord/Jarvis MiG PRC Air Force
    21-08-67 A-6A USN Scott/Trembley MiG-19 PRC Air Force
    21-08-67 A-6A USN Bookley/Flynn МиГ-19
    23-08-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 S.Vietnam Nguyen Nhat Chieu
    23-08-67 F-4C USAF Carrigan/Lane MiG-21 Nguyen Van Coc
    23-08-67 F-105 USAF МиГ-17 Tinh/Phong/Diep
    23-08-67 F-105 USAF МиГ-17 Tinh/Phong/Diep
    23-08-67 F-4 USAF MiG-17 Tinh/Phong/Diep
    23-08-67 F-4C USAF Tyler/Sittner МиГ-21
    16-09-67 RF-101C USAF Bagley MiG-21 Nguyen Ngoc Do
    03-10-67 F-4D USAF Moore/Gulbrandson МиГ-21
    07-10-67 F-105F USAF Howard/Shamblee МиГ-21
    09-10-67 F-105D USAF Clements MiG-21 Nguyen Van Coc?
    25-10-67 F-105 USAF MiG-17 Nguyen Huu Tao
    08-11-67 F-4D USAF Gordon/Brenneman MiG-21 Nguyen Hong Nhi
    18-11-67 F-105F USAF Dardeau/Lenhoff МиГ-21
    18-11-67 F-105D USAF Reed МиГ-21
    19-11-67 F-4B USN Clower/Estes MiG-17 Le Hai
    19-11-67 F-4B USN Teague / Stier MiG-17 Nguyen Din Phuc
    19-11-67 F-4B USN MiG-17 Nguyen Phi Hung
    20-11-67 F-105D USAF Butler MiG-21 Nguyen Van Coc?
    16-12-67 F-4D USAF Hill/Low МиГ-21
    17-12-67 F-105D USAF Ellis MiG-21 Nguyen Hong Nhi?
    17-12-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 Vu Ngoc Dinh
    17-12-67 F-4D USAF Fleenor/Boyer МиГ-17
  26. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 17: 18
    +1
    This is part 3.
    03-01-68 F-105 USAF MiG-21 Bui Duc Nhu
    03-01-68 F-4 MiG-17 Bui Van Suu
    03-01-68 F-105 USAF MiG-21 Ha Van Chuc
    03-01-68 F-105D USAF Bean MiG-21 Nguyen Dang Kinh
    05-01-68 F-105F USAF Hartney/Fantle МиГ-17
    14-01-68 EB-66C USAF Lebert/Sumter/Terrel/Walker(+3) MiG-21 Kinh/Song
    14-01-68 F-105F USAF Horne MiG-21
    18-01-68 F-4D USAF Simonet / Smith
    18-01-68 F-4D USAF Hinckley / Jones
    03-02-68 F-102A USAF MiG-21 921 IAP
    05-02-68 F-105D USAF Lasiter МиГ-21
    14-02-68 A-1H USN Dunn MiG-17 PRC Air Force
    3-02-68 F-4D USAF Gutterson/Donald MiG-21 S. Vietnam Vu Ngoc Dinh
    07-05-68 F-4B USN Christensen / Kramer MiG-21 Nguyen Van Coc
    16-06-68 F-4B USN Wilber/Rupinski MiG-21 Dinh Ton
    21-09-68 AQM-34 USAF uncrewed MiG-21 Nguyen Dang Kinh
    18-12-68 F-4D USAF Johnson/Vaughn МиГ-21
    18-12-68 F-4D USAF Stanley/O'Brien MiG-21
    ??-???-69 OV-1 USA MiG
    28-01-70 HH-53 USAF Bell/Leeser/Shinn/Pruett/Sutton MiG-21 Vu Ngoc Dinh
    ??-???-71 UH-1 USA MiG
    09-03-71 AQM-34 USAF uncrewed MiG-17 Luong Duc Truong
    18-12-71 F-4D USAF Hildebrand/Wells МиГ-21
  27. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 25 March 2015 17: 20
    +2
    And finally - part 4 - final.
    27-04-72 F-4B USN Molinare/Souder MiG-21 Hoang Quoc Dung
    10-05-72 F-4D USAF Harris/Wilkinson MiG-19 Nguyen Manh Tung
    10-05-72 F-4D USAF Lodge/Locher MiG-19 Pham Hung Son
    11-05-72 F-105G USAF Talley/Padgett MiG-21 Ngo Duy Thu
    11-05-72 F-4D USAF Kittinger/Reich MiG-21 Ngo Van Phu
    18-05-72 F-4D USAF Ratzel/Bednarek? MiG-19 925 IAP
    20-05-72 F-4D USAF Williams/Markle MiG-21 Do Van Linh
    23-05-72 A-7 USN Barnett MiG-21 Nguyen Duc Soat
    24-05-72 F-8J USN Beeler
    13-06-72 F-4D USAF Hanson/Fulton MiG-21 Pham Phu Thai
    21-06-72 F-4D USAF Rose/Callaghan MiG-21 Do Van Linh
    23-06-72 F-4D USAF МиГ-21
    24-06-72 F-4C USAF Grant/Beekman MiG-21 Nguyen Duc Soat
    24-06-72 F-4C USAF McCarty/Jackson MiG-21 Ngo Duy Thu
    24-06-72 F-4C USAF Cerak/Dingee MiG-21 Ngo Duy Thu
    27-06-72 F-4E USAF Miller/McDow MiG-21 Nguyen Duc Soat
    27-06-72 F-4E USAF Aikman/Hanton MiG-21 Pham Phu Thai
    05-07-72 F-4E USAF Elander/Logan MiG-21 Ha Vinh Thanh
    05-07-72 F-4E USAF Spenser/Seek MiG-21 Nguyen Tien Sam
    08-07-72 F-4E USAF Ross/Imaye МиГ-21
    11-07-72 F-4J USN Randall/Masterson MiG-17 Han Vinh Tuong
    29-07-72 F-4E USAF Kula/Matsui МиГ-21
    26-08-72 F-4J USMC Cordova/Borders MiG-21 Nguyen Duc Soat
    09-09-72 F-4 MiG-21 Do Van Lanh
    11-09-72 F-4D USAF Ratzlaff/Heeren МиГ-21
    12-09-72 F-4E USAF Zuberbuhler / McMurray MiG-21 927 IAP
    01-10-72 F-4D USAF МиГ-21
    06-10-72 F-4E? USAF Anderson/Latella???? МиГ-21
    12-10-72 F-4D USAF Young/Brunson MiG-21 Nguyen Duc Soat
    27-12-72 B-52 USAF Morris+6? MiG-21 Pham Tuan
    27-12-72 F-4E USAF Anderson/Ward МиГ-21
    27-12-72 F-4E USAF Jefcoat/Trimble МиГ-21
    28-12-72 B-52 USAF Lewis+6 MiG-21 Vu Xuan Thieu
    28-12-72 RA-5C USN Agnew/Haifley МиГ-21 ?
    Judge the effectiveness of the MiG-17 and MiG-21 yourself. Source - English, American or not, I do not know.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 25 March 2015 21: 18
      -1
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      Judge the effectiveness of the MiG-17 and MiG-21 yourself. Source - English, American or not, I do not know.

      Well, it’s worth referring to it
  28. moskowit
    moskowit 25 March 2015 19: 32
    +3
    It is pleasant to marvel at the knowledge of respected commentators. So many technical calculations, so much statistical information is all good.
    Let me talk a little about something else. In the 60s, at almost every bench in the park or at the entrances, teenagers sang "My" Phantom, like a fast bird,
    In the sky blue and clear
    quickly gaining altitude ... "and I remember one more line" ... Vietnamese pilot Li-si-tsin ... "Imagine, every young man knew about the just struggle and the courage of the Vietnamese people, if they sang about it in every yard. , now the youth are singing about the just war of the Donetsk-Luhansk militia? And do they even know about it?
    1. Soviet Union
      Soviet Union 25 March 2015 21: 58
      -2
      And now people like the "Bumpy" Americans are praised, protected and justified even here belay
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 25 March 2015 22: 10
        +1
        Quote: Soviet Union
        And now people like the "Bumpy" Americans are praised, protected and justified even here

        Tell me where? 8) Well, just wondering where exactly do I praise Americans? 8))
  29. Diter
    Diter 25 March 2015 20: 27
    0
    Quote: yehat
    Not very well used radar modes, etc.

    Once, one of the participants in those events told the following. Failure of the radar. Our specialists are leaving. Find and replace the faulty lamp. Then again a call from the same radar. Our specialists are leaving. Find and replace the faulty lamp (same). Then again the same thing. Our specialists are leaving. Find and replace the faulty lamp (same) and twist the findings from it. This is followed by a complaint from the Vietnamese side that our specialists broke a good lamp (it glowed after all!).
    1. glasha3032
      glasha3032 26 March 2015 03: 44
      0
      But what, a good lamp should not be lit? And yet - how can I replace the lamp and twist her conclusions? And most importantly - for what?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. gjv
        gjv 26 March 2015 10: 46
        0
        Ekaterina, this is about a radio tube, not about a light bulb that glows. Another bad thing is that for some reason our "specialists" only replaced the lamps in three trips, and could not determine the reason for the failure of the "same" lamp.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. glasha3032
          glasha3032 27 March 2015 00: 01
          0
          Yes, it’s clear that the radio lamp, but mostly working, glow (glow). Conclusions why twisted? When the terminals are twisted, the lamp will collapse (the glass bottle will crack or everything will bend inside - that is, it will not work, and it did not work then), i.e. our SPECIALS intentionally broke the radar! Well, and who are they then? The Vietnamese were right! And it’s good if it’s just an unreasonable tale, in other conditions, if it was real, it was necessary to shoot our specialists, as accomplices of American imperialism ...
      3. yehat
        yehat 26 March 2015 11: 29
        0
        lamps are a specific element base. there could be "good" lamps and "bad" ones with the same marking. One lamp will serve you for 15 years without problems, while in another device the same lamps will have to be changed 10 times.
  30. family tree
    family tree 25 March 2015 20: 42
    +1
    The theme of the guns is not disclosed, the Phantoms modification E received them, all hoped for rockets
  31. FM-78
    FM-78 26 March 2015 00: 19
    0
    The video is not in the subject, the constant double superiority in number (although they did not lie here) and what victories it is a pity that hundreds of American "aces" do not have the opportunity to watch this video.
  32. 79057330785
    79057330785 26 March 2015 16: 14
    +1
    The main advantage of the MiG-21 is low cost, simplicity, adaptability, maneuverability. Disadvantages: short range, weak weapons and avionics. The effectiveness of ground targets is also weak. F-5, Mirage, not to mention the newer aircraft carried much more weapons on the external sling. Modernization in the 90s and 2000s certainly increased their capabilities, but the firepower is not enough.
  33. Sultan Babai
    Sultan Babai 26 March 2015 21: 58
    0
    The best aircraft is a real celestial fighter soldier. Simple as a trilinear. In the place of the Israelis, I would not boast of my Air Force on my way; they did not meet an opponent who would think through every step. As for our specialists in Egypt and pilots, the Union imposed their restrictions on the secrecy of their presence on them. I think if Israeli pilots flew against pilots from the Lipetsk retraining center, the question of who would not be so obvious.
  34. The comment was deleted.