Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Share

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:05 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:

    I didn't post a Wikipedia link.

    18 combat losses, btw. Some other airframes also wrote off due to combat damage.

    using google and your first article is wikipedia.

    And it doesn't matter combat loss or "retired due combat damage" if something gets enough damage that it abondonds or can't finish its mission, it is counted as destroyed, but of course the USA needs an extra beer to keep its propaganda machinery of the "invincible freedom and democrazy bringer" alive. The good old story of "not a single Abrams was lost", no just several hundreds destroyed, of course USA doesn't count the number of tanks they had to destroy themselfs, that stuck in mud,sand or even roads due the high weight had to be destroyed, so don't count them either and suddenly the numbers shrinks. American way of conceal of the truth.

    BlackArrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 132
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  BlackArrow on Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 pm

    So, are you disputing the figures, or have you got figures of your own?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:13 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:So, are you disputing the figures, or have you got figures of your own?

    Those figures are beyond what USA ever would admit, it is their policy to conceal whatever can be concealed.

    The figures are near 70 destroyed aircrafts, majority are confirmed by Serbian PVO and Air Force pilots.

    TheGeorgian
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 199
    Points : 176
    Join date : 2014-06-22

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  TheGeorgian on Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:56 pm

    around 382 F-105 Thunderchiefs were lost over Vietnam. Some 46% of the available force.

    In the book "Striving for air superiority"

    it gives a figure of 60% total F-105 casualties in the entire South-East Asia theatre.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2128
    Points : 2243
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:12 am

    BlackArrow wrote:So, are you disputing the figures, or have you got figures of your own?

    You have to put your figures into the context and the balance of military power. How many aircrafts and missiles did the North Vietnamese get ? How many planes and weapons did the US possess ?

    The US had far superior weapons both in number and technology. The financial aid that US funded the Saigon goverment was far much more than both the USSR and China support for North Vietnam. And the US suffered heavy casualties but failed to force the Vietnamese to submit. That's historical fact.

    Vietnamese wanted their country to be united and the US Army got out. They succeed. The US wanted to support Saigon goverment and stop Hanoi at the 17 lattitude line. They failed. The US ignited the war which brought nothing for them but ill fame and tragedy. The Vietnameses won the war which they was forced to participate in order to protect their independence and unity, at least in Hanoi's point of view.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Vietnam War: The critical role of Russian weapons

    Post  nemrod on Fri May 01, 2015 3:01 pm

    Far from the usual Hollywood Epinal's image, where diabolic North Vietnamese, or Viet Congs used only cunning and camouflage in order to overcome the brave, naive,  idealists US GI's and other marines, and pilots. Hence the poor US -idealist- governement  gave way to US demonstrations in America's streets against Vietnam's war-because America is land of freedom-. If indeed, the demonstrations against Vietnam war had limited effects on US decision to send more draftees, it was far to be enough to influence the barbaric US politicians to end the war. The real reasons behind the humiliating withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam was simply the military defeat, and north vietnameses were becoming more and more effectives against the huge, blind, destructives, and innefective US war machine. The most emblematic images about this war were the confrontations between:
    - Colt M-16 against AK-47 Kalashnikow.
    - Mig-17 Fresco against F-4 Phantom II.
    US lost between 3.500-5.000 aircrafts. Plus, an unknown number of helicopters.



    http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/04/30/vietnam_war_the_critical_role_of_russian_weapons_42917.html

    Vietnam War: The critical role of Russian weapons

    April 30, 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha
    Exactly 40 years ago the Vietnamese burst into Saigon, catching the Americans in their underpants. As well as mounting a brave defence of their country, the Vietnamese used one superpower’s firepower to defeat another.


    North Vietnamese Air Force MiG-17 pilots walk by their aircraft. Source: wikipedia

    To get a sense of how viciously the Vietnam War was fought and – more importantly – the sweeping nature of Vietnamese victory, chew on this: during the conflict the Americans lost more than 2,000 aircraft; the Vietnamese lost just 131 planes.
    This astounding record notched up by the Vietnamese against a superpower with virtually unlimited military resources – and which could also count on combat support from allies such as Australia, South Korea and New Zealand – was possible because of the almost superhuman fight put by the Vietnamese military and civilians.
    The war began in 1954 and ended with a Vietnamese victory on April 30, 1975. For this resounding victory the people of Vietnam did not just make tremendous sacrifices; they made those sacrifices count. The Vietnamese leadership evacuated entire cities (600,000 of Hanoi’s 800,000 civilians moved out from the city to the countryside and mountains); children went to school with leaves attached to their shoulders as camouflage from aerial attacks; transport trucks hid by day in the jungles and moved at night guided by lights hung under their chassis.

    Vietnamese engineers invented submersible bridges which could not be seen from the air. They also developed a complex network of tunnels – some of them passing right under American-held areas – to move troops, food, fuel, civilians and the injured.
    They made each bullet count. On December 22, 1972 a Vietnamese anti-aircraft unit using a single-barrel 14.7 mm gun shot down an F-111 supersonic fighter-bomber. What was remarkable was the anti-aircraft gun had only 19 shells left when they spotted the American aircraft.
    While Vietnamese morale, patriotism, superior training and the belief that theirs was a just cause were clearly critical factors, the victory was also due to the virtually ceaseless flow of weapons from Russia.
    During the 1950s and early 1960s, Moscow had employed a hands-off policy towards the conflict in Southeast Asia. Premier Nikita Khrushchev, for instance, wanted to avoid yet another nuclear standoff as had happened in 1962 in Cuba. But his successors Alexey Kosygin and Leonid Brezhnev wanted to please the hardliners in the Soviet military and consequently ramped up military aid.

    Russians are coming

    By the spring of 1967, a river of aid was flowing from Russia into North Vietnam.
    By the late 1960s more than three-quarters of the military and technical equipment received by North Vietnam was coming from Moscow. Sergei Blagov writes in Asia Times that Moscow contributed weapons essential to North Vietnamese defence capabilities against the American air war, including radar systems, anti-aircraft artillery, surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). “Without this materiel, Vietnamese air defence would have been hardly feasible,” he says.
    Russia military supplies completely transformed the nature of the war. Unlike what they show you in Hollywood movies, the Vietnamese did not fight with just cunning and camouflage, they hit the Americans with firepower on a staggering scale. Their arsenal included 2,000 tanks, 7,000 artillery guns, over 5,000 anti-aircraft guns and 158 surface-to-air rocket launchers.
    The new weapons – although not the latest in Moscow’s arsenal – were more advanced than the American ones, leading to many battlefield routs of US military forces. American aircraft ran into skies streaking with SAMs and thick with ack-ack salvoes.
    Entire waves of American aircraft were blasted out of the skies because the Vietnamese fired ceaseless barrages of SAMs, knowing more Russian supplies were on their way. “In August 1965, the first SAMs were fired at four F-4 Phantoms over Vietnam, shooting down three. This marked the first time that US planes were attacked by SAMs,” writes Blagov.
    US strategic bombers tumbled out of the skies after being hit by Russian-supplied SAMs (the granddaddies of today’s S-300 and S-400 missiles). Russian crews fired SAMs at the B-52 bombers, which were the first raiders shot down over Hanoi. A Soviet rocketeer told Russian Radio: “After our arrival in Vietnam, American pilots refused to fly.” (However, after 1966, no Soviet troops directly participated in combat because the Vietnamese forces had been trained to handle the Soviet equipment, the Russian magazine Eko Planety – Echo of the Planet – says.)

    Jets that survived these brutal knockouts were picked out by Vietnamese Air Force aces flying MiG-17s and MiG-21s; these combat aircraft were vectored towards their targets by Russian-supplied radars.
    To give you an idea of just what the Vietnamese were up against, in 1965 just 30 MiGs were doing combat against 660 American aircraft. And yet the Americans lost 46 F-4 fighters, of which 13 were downed by MiGs.
    The odds were evened soon. In 1966 the Vietnamese Air Force started receiving the latest MiG-21 interceptor. On July 7, two MiG-21s shot down an F-105 with a Russian Atoll air-to-air missile, creating panic in the US Air Force.
    By now the Vietnamese pilots were growing more familiar with their Russian jets. Roger Boniface writes in MIGs Over North Vietnam: “The MiG-17 pilots started to indulge in dogfights with American aircraft; the former were growing in confidence all the time as they could constantly turn inside the faster F-4s and use their cannon to lethal effect from close range. The MiG-21 would use their superior speed and dive on the Americans from higher altitudes. The VPAF would use both the MiG-17 and MiG-21 against the Americans, using their techniques in unison by catching the Americans in what can only be described as a diving and turning “sandwich”.
    The American pilots became so scared of encountering the Vietnamese air aces that they in several cases they fled the scene of combat at full speed.
    Early warning by Russian military intelligence saved countless Vietnamese lives. Truong Nhu Tang, a senior North Vietnamese official, writes in A Viet Cong Memoir that Russian ships in the South China Sea gave vital early warnings to Vietnamese forces. Russian ships would pick up American B-52 bombers flying from Okinawa and Guam. Their airspeed and direction would be noted and then relayed to Vietnamese political and military headquarters. The Vietnamese would then calculate the bombing target and vector their fighters into attack trajectories. These advance warning gave them time to move out of the way of the bombers and while the bombing runs caused extensive damage, because of the early warnings from 1968-1970 they did not kill a single military or civilian leader in the headquarter complexes.
    Russia also supplied Vietnam with medical supplies, food, oil, machinery and spare parts. And unlike the material and weapons supplied by China – which demanded deferred payment – most Russian assistance was supplied as aid rather than loans. Over the course of the war the money donated to the Vietnamese cause was equal to $2 million a day.
    In late March 1965, Brezhnev announced that his government had been receiving "many applications" from Soviet citizens offering to serve as volunteers in Vietnam. However, Russian freelancers were not really needed. From July 1965 to the end of 1974, around 6,500 officers and generals, as well as more than 4,500 soldiers and sergeants of the Russian armed forces visited the country as ‘advisors’. In addition, Russian military schools and academies trained more than 10,000 Vietnamese military personnel. Just 13 Soviet citizens lost their lives in the entire conflict, says Eko Planety.

    Kalashnikov vs Colt

    On the ground the picture was grimmer – if that was possible – for the Americans. The Vietnam War was the first conflict in history in which assault rifles were used by both sides on an extensive scale.
    Vietnamese soldiers were fortunate to get that era’s most advanced rifle – the AK-47. The Kalashnikov’s lighter bullet meant each Vietnamese could carry around 350 bullets on their person, which allowed them to fight long after their opponents ran out of ammo. The rifle was also remarkably low-maintenance, translating into better performance in Vietnam’s wet and humid environment.
    In contrast the American infantryman was armed with the shockingly poor Colt M16, which jammed so often that newly arriving American soldiers would perform the macabre drama of walking amidst injured or dying American soldiers to grab M16s that hadn’t jammed during battle.
    There were numerous instances of American platoons losing firefights because of malfunctioning M16s. During a night ambush by Vietnamese guerrillas, the last words radioed by an American company of troops were: “Out of hand grenades, all weapons jammed.”
    The situation was so dire that some Americans started picking up AK-47s that belonged to dead Vietnamese soldiers, Esquire magazine reports. It was a dangerous practice because it risked drawing ‘friendly’ fire, owing to the Kalashnikov and the M16 having distinctly different sounds. On one occasion a US sergeant carrying an AK-47 was stopped by his commander, who demanded to know why he was carrying a Russian weapon. The sergeant replied, “Because it works!”
    The AK-47 vs M16 scenario was symbolic of the superior quality of Russian weaponry throughout the war. In fact, Russian weapons performed so well that the Chinese started pilfering the shiny new gear passing through their territory. Moscow was forced to use the dangerous sea route to ensure the Vietnamese got the supplies they needed to win the war.
    American losses would have been greater had Russia provided the Vietnamese armed forces with the latest weapons in its arsenal. For instance, the OSA class missile boats – that India had used to destroy Karachi harbour during the 1971 War – never reached Vietnamese navy. These boats armed with the highly accurate Styx missile had the potential to play havoc with the US Navy. Perhaps the brass at Moscow believed the Americans would have resorted to a nuclear strike on Vietnam had they lost one of their large capital ships such as the aircraft carrier Enterprise.

    Blagov says the Vietnamese reportedly complained they were getting missiles of obsolete designs. “Some of the missile complexes supplied to Vietnam from the Soviet Union during the war were actually second-hand weapons, produced in 1956-1958,” he writes. “The main reason for Moscow's failure to supply North Vietnam with the newest armaments was the Kremlin's fear that the Vietnamese could leak Soviet military secrets to the Chinese.”

    Endgame

    Carl von Clausewitz defined war as, “an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will”. The Vietnamese generals simply refused to give the much larger American military the war it wanted. Through their brilliant strategies and sustained firepower they compelled the US to withdraw its forces and finally dump its puppet government in Saigon.
    On April 30, 1975 the world was treated to the sight of Vietnamese T-54 tanks bursting through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon. In another part of the city, angry Vietnamese stormed the US embassy, catching the American ambassador Graham Martin virtually in his underpants. Vietnamese army units had the helicopter in which he was being evacuated in their sights but the long war was finally over and they figured it wasn’t worth adding his miserable scalp to the American toll of 58,200 dead, more than 150,000 injured and 1600 missing.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2128
    Points : 2243
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri May 01, 2015 4:29 pm

    @nemrod: Vietnam's MiG-21 is the Death Threat of American F-4 during the Vietnam War. Cool

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1510
    Points : 1673
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  TheArmenian on Fri May 01, 2015 5:03 pm

    I'll just post this here:


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  nemrod on Fri May 01, 2015 8:52 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:I'll just post this here:

    Thx very much  thumbsup , this picture went directly to my precious archives. It seems to be a fair figures, it matches with the reality.



    higurashihougi wrote:@nemrod: Vietnam's MiG-21 is the Death Threat of American F-4 during the Vietnam War. Cool

    At first, Iam not vietnamese, and you are, I could never pretend to know better than you this conflict, as you grew up with this tragedy, and you were taught by many competents teachers. I did not mention the Mig-21, as this fighter beside F-4 Phantom II were together generation III. During the Vietnam war, the Mig-21 outclassed all type of US fighters. As far as I know, North Vietnameses lost between 50-60 Mig-21. In other side, the Mig-21 downed between 120-150 F-4.  
    You can realize how manoeuvrable was this fighter :





    This figure was done during the october 1973 war, you will have to know, untill now, US and Israelis were unable to remake this figure - split-S - in the same conditions. If a Mig-21 outclassed one of the best Nato fighter in that time the Mirage III, what would do a heavy, non-manoeuvrable Phantom, Crusader, or any other western fighter like the Corsair II etc... -about F-105 no use to tell more... -  against a Mig-21?

    I mentionned especially Mig-17, because the Mig-17 was designed against F-86, and noone expected that a Mig-17 could outclass a supersonic fighter like the Phantom equiped with modern radar, useless air to air missiles. The Vietnameses claimed that the Mig-17 downed at least 70 US fighters including state of the art at that time the Corsair II. The symbolical is hard. An old fighter could outclass any modern US fighter.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 02, 2015 1:15 am

    http://www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf

    Helicopter Losses During the Vietnam War

    Bell Helicopter built 10,005 Hueys from 1957 to 1975. Prior to 1957, there were three XH-40 prototypes and six
    YH-40 test helicopters manufactured. Of the 10,005 production Hueys, the first 732 were designated HU-1A and
    HU-1B. 9,216 of these went to the U.S. Army, 79 to the U.S. Air Force, 42 to the U.S. Navy, and 127 to the U.S.
    Marine Corps. The rest went to other countries.
    Our records show that 7,013 Hueys served in the Vietnam War. Almost all were Army.
    ------------------------------------KIA -----KIA
    -----------served---- destroy --pilots ----crew
    UH-1-------- 80 --------80------ 36--- ----17
    UH-1A------- 8 ----------1
    UH-1B -------729------- 376--- 139-- ---144
    UH-1C --------696----- 415 ---167 ------158
    UH-1D -------1,926----1,028-- 224-- ---247
    UH-1E --------156 ------100---- 39 ------41
    UH-1F ----------31------ 18----- 4-------- 5
    UH-1H -------3,375--- 1,285--- 457---- 487
    UH-1L ---------2
    UH-1M --------5------------------ 5------- 3
    UH-1N ---------2 ---------2
    UH-1P ---------3-------------- ----3 --------1
    ----- ----- ----- -----
    ----------------7,013 ---3,305--- 1,074 ---1,103

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2128
    Points : 2243
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat May 02, 2015 11:53 am

    @nemrod:No no no, I didn't intend to say anything about your knowledge, relax respekt respekt love

    MiG-21 is specificially designed to be a short range interceptor, means quickly take off, destroy the enemy near the base, and then return to the base. It flies very well at high speed and high alitude, but doesn't at other conditions, it cannot fly far and long and cannot have very great load. A typical specialized interceptor.

    The reason why F-4 lost against MiG-21 is, F-4 mistakenly and hurriedly abandon the dogfights to follow 100% FBV. The problem is, at that time the electronics and radars were not 100% matured and FBV was not 100% reliable. It was very risky to abandon the dogfight characteristics, and F-4 painfully experienced that.

    Meanwhile, MiG-21 keep both the dogfight and FBV characteristics. Its excellent maneuverability at classic airfight conditions enable MiG-21 to gain advantages against F-4 at that time.

    However, in the 197x and 198x, we witnessed the appearance of matured FBV systems, broad hull, thick wings, increased AoA and payload, increased effeciecny of engine in a very wide spectrum, icreased range. We saw MiG-25 and its successors (F-15, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27...) created a new generation of fighters. MiG-21 was phased out in that time.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Vietnam War Aircrafts Losses: NVPAF and USAF

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:33 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:33 pm