tflash Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 He guys, this thread is going in the wrong direction! Crediting the Mig-21, one of the all-time classics of aviation, is OK, but telling bad things about the Phantom is morally wrong, not to say reprehensible! OK, the brutal Phantom smokes and drinks and looks a bit sturdy compared with all these slick fancy electric jets of today, but it still is THE only true Strike Fighter! I agree it wasn't such a bright idea to chase some mig with no gun and a loadfull of mk82's, but the Phantom did collect a kill record of *280* aerial victories, not to bad I would say. Some respect please for these veteran aircraft. Both the Phantom and Mig-21 have a big place in the history of aviation. I'm not so sure about all these modern hotshots :=) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Starlight Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 Hadn't there been such ( tactical ) ROEs, Phantoms would have shot down as many friendlys as MiGs... They were victims of their design ( a BVR fighter without sufficent BVR IDing capabilitys ). RoE were restrictive because it was felt that it wasn't a real full-scale war, but an intervention to push North Vietnam to the negotiation. I've already mentioned some of the most stupid ones (killing aircraft in the air but not on the ground, killing SAMs only after they had deployed). You couldn't really gain air superiority in such a situation. Often American aircrews described fighting in Vietnam as fighting with the hands tied behind their backs. It gives the idea of what they could really do to effectively win the war. This goes beyond every technical discussion of how the Phantom performed in the combat arena against the Mig-21. But this is also the most influential part of the RoE, because I don't think that even if F-4s had Phoenix coupled with TCS or TISEO the air war over Vietnam would have had different results.
Recommended Posts