What was wrong with the F-4?
Why wasn't it able to dominate the skys of Vietnam?
In part because the USAF underestimated the abilities of older Soviet aircraft, and in part because the Civilian administration under Johnson was never really willing to take the gloves off and fight the Vietnamese full-force since there was a perceived threat of Chinese or Soviet intervention.
>>28377402
Most NVA SAM sites were off limits from bombing due to the Russian 'advisors' that were 'assisting' in their operation.
>>28377455
Who was responsible for this cuck shit? Also how did they go from Linebacker 2 to losing in the '75 evacuation?
>>28377455
Are you joking? America would have killed to have Russia admit on the world stage that they bad advisors in Vietnam.
>>28377469
Johnson was the supreme cuck of the war- involve us just enough to kill fuck loads of people on both sides and piss everyone off people at home, but not enough to fuck Vietnam into submission.
We lost the war when Congress refused to allow Nixon to escalate the war and commit ground troops to the North.
The aerial campaign forced the North into the Paris peace talks, but they'd never really abided by any of their prior agreements, and when Nixon was forced out of office by Watergate, the threat of a renewed aerial campaign vanished and Vietnams fate was sealed since the NVA knew the next president would never have the balls to give the finger to the anti-war movement like Nixon did.
>>28377474
Even RT says there were Russians fighting in Vietnam
https://www.rt.com/news/ussr-secret-vietnam-soldiers-speak-out/
>It was only after the regime collapsed in 1991 that officials admitted more than 3,000 Soviet troops fought against the Americans in Vietnam.
LBJ had no intention of escalating Vietnam into a global conflict. Better to keep it as a proxy war.
That's why LBJ himself was approving of the daily bombing targets.
The real cucks of the Vietnam War were the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who didn't have the balls to stand up to LBJ, Macmanara, and the other civilians who ran that war into the ground
>>28377474
Democrats were always closet communists
Other than JFK which was why he was assassinated.
>>28377511
>Johnson was the supreme cuck of the war-
Don't talk bad of Johnson. That man deserves better than he got. His southern pride required him to put into effect everything Kennedy would had, and by god, that's what Johnson did.
Say what you will of the war, but don't say a word about Johnson's honor.
>>28377474
It was a significant concern of the Johnson administration that China or Russia would get involved.
Of course, Russia couldn't feed it's own people and Vietnam hated the Chinese even more than the French but that was w/e at the time.
>>28377547
>>It was only after the regime collapsed in 1991
Well would you look at that, after the Vietnam war ended.
>>28377569
He was a big white guilt liberal, thats for sure, so many modern problems come from these white guilt liberals pushing retarded feel-good policies.
Along with mass immigration.
the f4's role as a fighter bomber exposed it to fast intercept sam and ground aa in (exclusively) hostile territory. it's important to consider that the war was a gradual escalation of both air and ground power, with a very heavy emphasis on special mission, and unique/novel experimental programs. it was years late by the time that it was clear that the nva was not going to be brought to terms by this combined approach of subversion. this leads exactly to gulf war 1, with the buildup and overwhelming immediate violence of action. don't be fooled by theorists that promise large returns and effects with minimal input, this was a lesson with massive costs for both russia and america in the twentieth century. the f4 did the job it was meant to do. it was the ho-hum grand strategy and flaky near-term objectives that led directly to it's combat losses.
>>28377402
>World's leading distributor of MiG parts
>wut's rong wit da plane guis?
>>28377455
>NVA SAM sites were off limits
What? No? SEAD and anti-SEAD was never that intense before Nam
>>28377402
>What was wrong with the F-4?
Nothing. It was the best fighter of the Cold War.
>Why wasn't it able to dominate the skys of Vietnam?
Training, training, training. The Air Force had a terrible training program for fighter pilots at that time. All the knowledge that had been gleaned from countless air battles during the World Wars and Korea was not being passed on to the newer generation of pilots. The old guard was retiring and the new guard was not getting the skills that they needed.
New fighter pilots were taught to fly the plane, and shoot missiles. That's about it. Nothing regarding tactics or strategy.
>>28377402
everything
>>28377402
Was shit plane designed for a war that never happened. The consensus was that missiles were the sole use for air power and thus the early Phantoms were literally missile boats with no gun. That meant that even WW2 jets could fuck with them if they managed to get close since without a gun, close range is a nightmare and you can't launch missles in a short range engagement using 70s tech.
This meant that gooks in MiGs that were 20 years old by design could and did match F-4s by flying close to tree lines and intercepting jets that should have been boom and zooming them with no effort but were instead engaged within their dead zone where they were literally sitting ducks.
It wasn't that the MiGs were good, it's just they were dogfighters that were fighting something that had no short range answer to other fighters.
That and the Cold War was on with both sides sending advisors to nations so that the super power couldn't just go whole hog and storm the enemy with superior power.
>>28380191
You realize that even with the issues, the F-4 still had a positive K/D ratio in fights with MiGs? It wasn't as clear cut as the Air Force would have liked, but the F-4 still came out on top. The Navy F-4s did even better, mostly because of superior training.
>>28380191
>>28380191
Oh boy this bullshit again.
Missiles in Vietnam were far more reliable than pop-history retards give them credit. What made the NVAF so "effective" was a combination of incredibly conservative flying, heavy reliance on ground-controlled interception, and ambush tactics.
The NVAF only ever attacked formations where they knew they had the advantage, and were so strictly controlled by GCI that they were less fighters and more manned drones. Tactics involved ambushing by either coming in very low or out of the clouds, making a single pass on the bombers while avoiding the fighters. Ideally, this would force the bombers to jettison their payloads to escape (because they could only outrun the MiGs while clean). Against anyone who could really fight back, the NVAF performed poorly. The USAF ambushed and slaughtered a flight of MiG-21s during Rolling Thunder, and by Linebacker things were so bad that the B-52s managed to down more MiGs than the MiGs downed B-52s.
Even at the absolute worst point of the war, USAF/USN fighters never had a negative kill/loss ratio. The panic that led to the establishment of the Top Gun program was because the kill/loss ratios were "only" about 2:1.
>>28380251
>The Air Force fighter most successful against the MiGs in aerial combat was the F-4.
In comparison to the B-52 and the Thunderchief?
>>28377511
Bruh the US was literally fighting against democracy in Vietnam. They voted for communism before the war, and we didn't abide by that. Anything that got us out of that pointless bullshit was a good thing.
>>28380432
>They voted for communism before the war
Nigga u wot
>implying either country ever held a free and fair election
>implying the Viet Minh, NVA, and VC didn't engage in politically motivated homicide on a massive scale in and in between both Indochina Wars
>>28377469
> Implying Linebacker 1 or 2 was a success on any fucked up scale one can come up with
>>28380544
They brought North Vietnam to the Paris Peace Accords, so that's a success. Unfortunately the North Vietnamese decided not to abide by the terms of the treaty.
As for the F-4, it was the best fighter of the war, as seen here. >>28380314
>>28380589
So in comparison to the F-105 and B-52, the F-4 was the best fighter?
There was nothing wrong with it. In Linebacker and Linebacker II, USA had complete air superiority. Before that, USA had far greater restrictions on airspace, which the NVA took advantage of to defeat the F-4. Nixon took off the cuffs on our military by 1972 and North Vietnam was literally bombed into a ceasefire.
>>28380314
>What made the NVAF so "effective" was a combination of incredibly conservative flying, heavy reliance on ground-controlled interception, and ambush tactics.
Not to mention the fact that EVERY jet they had was tasked with air defense, while the majority of US aircraft were tasked with air-to-ground.
>>28380899
I dunno the B-52 actually had a better kill/loss ratio
>>28380251
>B-52
>.50 cal gun
BUFF STRONG
>>28377402
Pants-on-head retarded ROE.
>>28377569
>but don't say a word about Johnson's honor.
What honor?
>>28377402
but it did
>>28377402
>>28377469
>>28377511
>muh politicians
Makes me laugh every time.
>>28377402
Read this :
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100929-043.pdf
>>28377569
worst president of the 20th century in terms of doing damage to the country. The Great Society is one of the worst things ever to happen. The creation of the entitlement class, that can only vote democrat lest their entitlement be cut.
>>28377402
>Why wasn't it able to dominate the skys of Vietnam?
But It was, anon.
>>28377723
good post, you deserve replies.
Another thing is that one assumes that US tech was completely dominant over Soviet like it was over old AA systems in Iraq.
That's just both the AA and the planes doing their job. The plane could have performed better with proper strategy, but expecting no/very low losses isn't realistic.
