Originally posted by Cobra412
I know for a fact Germany was flying F-4s still around 96 or 97. Side by side with their MiG-29s. Must not be too chitty of an aircraft after all.
How long before that did they get rid of the 104s? You mistake reluctance to have to commit to buying new planes with the effectiveness of the current ones.
I also know for a fact atleast one US base was still using the F-4 as their frontline attack aircraft up until December of 1990.
No U.S. base used any aircraft as their front line attack aircraft. Unless I'm mistaken, there's never been an attack (with fighters) launched from a base in the United States. I assume you're talking about March AFB, btw. My wife worked there and we were supposed to get the jets at Mt Home until the Air Force got a dose of "what the **** were we thinking?"
Tell me if anyone has deployed F-4s in a combat roll since the late 80's. The only units I know of were guard reconnaisance units that ran the recce planes up until the mid 90's. It's easier to use old antequated planes for that as opposed to reducing the good fighters to that role.
Mini D so your stating that the ME 262 was an overall better airframe than the F-4s? Your also stating it doesn't matter about how they were used?
Now, where did you get that? Is this discussion about what airframes are better than F4s? If so, the list is MUCH higher than 10. The 262 wouldn't be on it, but virtually every modern fighter would.
The presence of a jet on the battlefields in WW2 definately merrits its consideration. Hell, that plane ushered in the whole jet era.
Employ any weapon incorrectly and it will fail miserably. It doesn't matter if it's an F-4 or an F/A-22.
You don't have to tell me that. You need to tell this to someone insisting that stats should be shown to support my argument. I bring up service record and someone uses the "use it effectively" argument until they bring up service record and say "see... this shows the plane was better." They're stats.. you can manipulate them to say whatever you want.
I'm looking at certain things that people don't seem to be too up to date on. "80% of the kills occured without the pilot knowing they'd even been fired upon". "Mig-21s were smaller and had the advantage of seeing the enemy first". Size and SA asside, the F-4 kicked out a clould of black smoke that gave it away well above that of the reflection/size impacts. That was the case even into the 90's (watched the recce planes fly low level quite a bit). The F4 is an example of sticking with inneficience out of fear of change. It exemplified all that was wrong with the 70s.
It's almost usless to argue with some of these people. They have an "AH MINDSET" when it comes to tactics. They still think that lone figeters take off from bases and engage enemy fighters in one on one ACM fights were pilot and airframe is the major determing factor in the fight.
Translation: It's almost useless to attack someone's OPPINION. You never seem to prove them wrong while insisting you are right.
I don't mind using "this was because of bad tactics", unless you turn around and argue a different stat where the tactics were better. Really, that belongs in an argument of 10 best and worst tactics.
