Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Boroda on February 17, 2005, 08:51:29 AM
-
I need information on American air losses and victories in Vietnam, can anyone give me any links?
Not for propaganda purposes, there is no reliable statistics from Red side as far as I know to compare the data as I tried to do on Korean war.
What I need is probably statistics by year, by plane model, how it was lost (SAM or air combat), and, certainly - non-combat losses statistics too.
Thanks in advance!
-
You should try from here too:
http://www.acig.org/forum/
-
Total Losses (all causes)
1961 1
1962 9
1963 16
1964 59
1965 375
1966 580
1967 655
1968 569
1969 378
1970 234
1971 111
1972 308
1973 27
SAM Losses
1965 13
1966 35
1967 62
1968 12
1969 0
1970 1
1971 7
1972 72
1973 3
MiG Losses
1965 5
1966 14
1967 27
1968 12
1971 2
1972 30
"Vietnam Air Losses", Chris Hobson, ISBN 1857801156
-
Misha, I understand what "total losses" are, but "SAM Losses" and "MiG Losses" don't correspond. Are this numbers of SAM launchers destroyed and MiGs shot down?
Many thanks!
-
They are US aircraft destroyed by MiG or SAM.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
They are US aircraft destroyed by MiG or SAM.
SAM losses probably underestimated. Sorry.
Do "total losses" include non-combat losses too? Like crash landings and flight accidents?
What about US aerial victories? (Victory = kill)
-
I am sure the SAM losses are correct. At the begining of the war the North had few missles. As the war heated up they started to get large quantities. Once the US started bombing up north they becaume vunerable to the missles but quickly developed counter measures to them.
The numbers reflect those trends.
Also every B-52 that was brought down had a large crew the most likely survived so that is why the number of prisoners captured up north was somewhat larger than the number of planes lost to SAMs there.
-
total losses would also include anti-aircraft fire. the north had lots of AA guns.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I am sure the SAM losses are correct. At the begining of the war the North had few missles. As the war heated up they started to get large quantities. Once the US started bombing up north they becaume vunerable to the missles but quickly developed counter measures to them.
The numbers reflect those trends.
1972 doesn't.
-
i think 1972 reflects "operation linebacker" where Nixon ordered unrestricted bombing of the north and forced the north to sign the paris peace accords and withdraw from the south,
of course they broke the treaty 3 years later when Nixon was out of office and there were no US combat troops in vietnam and the north invaded the south.
-
Thanks john.
-
Theres a book at my local flea market called "The Air War in Vietnam". I've browsed through it, think its 6 bucks. Seems very informative.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
SAM losses probably underestimated. Sorry.
Do "total losses" include non-combat losses too? Like crash landings and flight accidents?
What about US aerial victories? (Victory = kill)
Total losses are aircraft "written off" to all causes. Accidents, battle damage, sabotage, etc.
The SAM losses are only ones where they had confirmation that it was a SAM. Obviously there could be more. Same for MiG losses.
-
always nice when you have to add the disclaimer - * not for propaganda purposes.
lol.
-
How many of those losses aren't helicopters ?
-
Originally posted by JB88
always nice when you have to add the disclaimer - * not for propaganda purposes.
lol.
Heehee. And allready rewriting to suit the need.
:D
-
Originally posted by Suave
How many of those losses aren't helicopters ?
Those are all fixed wing, sorry for not saying that before.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Total losses are aircraft "written off" to all causes. Accidents, battle damage, sabotage, etc.
The SAM losses are only ones where they had confirmation that it was a SAM. Obviously there could be more. Same for MiG losses.
Thanks for making it clear.
Here are some numbers from unknown sources for SAM aces:
Chan Say ("unit" commander; 196?)
VietCong Fam Chyong Uiy (division commander; 43?)
VietCong Nguyen Suan Day (division commander; 40?)
Not speaking about Soviet advisors and their scores... It's the only hope - if Russia will open the archives as we did for Korean war material, there will be reliable (classified) material about Soviet combat victories there.
It's funny, but when I came home last night and turned on the TV - First channel showed a documentary about Vietnam. Second episode tonight, but I am afraid I'll be drinking somewhere...
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Heehee. And allready rewriting to suit the need.
:D
What made you think so? Mike supplied numbers that are quite reasonable, and there is no way (yet) to doubt them. Ratio of "combat" and "non-combat" losses is probably the same as in Korean war.
As a sane person (at least I think so ;)) I have deepest respect to American servicemen who fought in Vietnam, Korea, and other places. They had their orders, and they were an enemy worthy of respect. This is not bloody "political correctness", this is what I really think. !
-
Originally posted by Boroda
- if Russia will open the archives as we did for Korean war material, there will be reliable (classified) material about Soviet combat victories there.
I'll (must) be drinking .......
:rolleyes:
-
Need another nickname for "no words answer" urgently.
At least I'll be sober tomorrow.
-
US Navy F-4 Kills 65-70. Edit Forgot to Add, that the MiG-17 down South near Hainan, was a Chinese MiG, It was also the First Navy Kill possibly the First Kill by US Forces of the War.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/145_1100571997_6570.jpg)
US Navy F-4 Kills during Linebacker I and II
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/145_1100572334_linebackerkills.jpg)
-
"Clashes" by Marshall Michel has a lot of figures on SAM and MiG losses too, I'll post those ASAP.
I would expect SAM and MiG kills to be overestimated by the DRVN and underestimated by the USAF/USN/USMC, for simple technical reasons. Fighter pilots are always going to report some damaged planes as kills because they weren't able to follow the target visually to impact, and SAM operators are often too far from their target to confirm a kill. On the other side, the US would only record a MiG or SAM loss if they had an eyewitness or there was evidence from radio traffic or radar tracks. Otherwise it would just go in the book as a combat loss of unknown cause.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
"Clashes" by Marshall Michel has a lot of figures on SAM and MiG losses too, I'll post those ASAP.
I would expect SAM and MiG kills to be overestimated by the DRVN and underestimated by the USAF/USN/USMC, for simple technical reasons. Fighter pilots are always going to report some damaged planes as kills because they weren't able to follow the target visually to impact, and SAM operators are often too far from their target to confirm a kill. On the other side, the US would only record a MiG or SAM loss if they had an eyewitness or there was evidence from radio traffic or radar tracks. Otherwise it would just go in the book as a combat loss of unknown cause.
It's exactly as I see it. Patiently waiting for your next post. Thanks again!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What made you think so?
Mmmmmmm...maybe because the first rattle out of the box you disputed them? Think that could be it?
You then go on to say if only Russia would open the records you would have "reliable" information. Maybe that had something to do with.
Sort of comical really. There`s a crackhead that runs around a town not to far from here that I would designate "reliable" before anything that ever has or ever will come from Russian records.
-
Heh I'm 100% sure that those classified records that were made in order to please the party leaders and ensure the survival of the reportee will show without questions that the whole US airforce was shot down 2 to 3 times during the campaign. Plus accidents of course.
:D
Boroda must be quite naive to think anything the communist regime reported was actually accurate. The system was and still is without doubt the most corrupt chain of lies known to man.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I'll be drinking somewhere...
And your opinions will reflect that fact, as they normally do.
dago
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You then go on to say if only Russia would open the records you would have "reliable" information.
Sort of comical really. /B]
That was a giggle wasn't it?
If Pravda said Russia built the Sun and the Moon, boroda would come on this board and swear to it as fact. :D
dago
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Boroda must be quite naive to think anything the communist regime reported was actually accurate.
Ding ding ding!!!!! Truer words were never spoken.
-
Dago did you know that they had factories producing tractors.
One factory produced supplies to the machines. The other compiled them. The third painted them and fourth 'sold' them.
The system was government funded just like anything back then.
So, when there was a shortage of metal the first factory couldn't manufacture the parts. The second couldn't put them together and fouth couldn't sell them to citizens.
What did they do? They faked reports that showed parts flowing to the facility, faked reports that showed tractors shipped to the sales and everyone was happy. Government paid monthly for a nonexistent production. :D The factory workers went about doing basically nothing, if you count out them stealing everything that wasn't bolted to the ground.
I recall Pres. Bush saying drunk 'Only in America' in one video. Well this was 'Only in Soviet Union'
Then later when SU broke up, the factories were split among the workers as it was 'peoples property.'
Every worker had a few shares. They hadn't got paid for several months for thier work. Like millions of russians, they earned thier income from different kinds of trading, usually stolen material. The president of the factory who had loads of 'money' gained from legal and mostly illegal activities, bought out all the shares of the workers for a few rubles per share.
This way the workers got enough money for a bread loaf and the president owned a factory. Some then started actually manufacturing something and got filthy rich. One such example was the guy who bought out a medicine factory and is now one of the richest men in Russia. I think he even ran for president at one time.
Some, that now owned factories with really heavy outdated equipment that was used to build parts for panzers etc. simply SCRAPPED the whole factories and sold them for SCRAP IRON! :aok
This way the russians destroyed a huge chunk of their production facilities and the factory bosses became millionaires from the scrap metal value of the factory equipment. ROFL!
They now drive humwees and S-class mercedeses and live behind armoured walls and doors that look like a bank safe. The workers were laid off (DUH!) and became poorer than ever if that's possible.
The economy was flushed down to the toilet at the same time when millions of people were without work, the government no longer supported them and they had to commit differnet crimes to survive - or start simple trade economy in order to bring food to the table.
It's really difficult to grasp the huge **** up they created there.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Some, that now owned factories with really heavy outdated equipment that was used to build parts for panzers etc. simply SCRAPPED the whole factories and sold them for SCRAP IRON! :aok .
Makes sense, if they are so out of date they have more value as scrap iron, than scrap it. The iron will be put to better use.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Makes sense, if they are so out of date they have more value as scrap iron, than scrap it. The iron will be put to better use.
You dont think they might have wanted to consider updating rather than completely scrapping the whole factory?
Maybe look forward, plan and build for the future rather than grapping the quick buck?
Remember the "give a fish/teach to fish" idea?
dago
-
Yeah not to mention that the workers got about $1 worth and the manager traded his worthless currency to a multi-million dollar establishment.
Many of those newly riches got lynched quickly later. Gee, I wonder why?
-
Boroda has posted some retarded stuff in the past, but I can't for the life of me see why this thread needed to be turned into a personal/national hate fest.
-
Hmm.. this is history as it happened. How does that translate to a hate fest?
-
Originally posted by Dago
You dont think they might have wanted to consider updating rather than completely scrapping the whole factory?
Maybe look forward, plan and build for the future rather than grapping the quick buck?
Remember the "give a fish/teach to fish" idea?
dago
Sure, why do you think they didn't consider it? Maybe because they were commies and this whole captialism thing was new to them? Exactly who was going to pay for the upgrades and how?
-
Originally posted by Dago
That was a giggle wasn't it?
If Pravda said Russia built the Sun and the Moon, boroda would come on this board and swear to it as fact. :D
dago
That is simply false.
Boreroda has only laid claim to lighting the fire on the sun, not to the actual building thereof. Conform comrade before it is too late. :D
-
Maybe because they were commies and this whole captialism thing was new to them? Exactly who was going to pay for the upgrades and how?
There were businessmen who created a successful business out of the factories and then there were thieves who cheated the stock from the workers for practically no price and then scrapped the whole functional plant for a quick buck.
I heard stories that high quality milling machines were sold for scrap metal when you could have sold them on the regular market for $10000. This means that the persons behind the selling did not:
A) Give a rats bellybutton about the workers OR the economy of the whole nation
B) Were greedy as hell and opted to have 10% immediately instead of getting 100% in the long run.
These people did a serious crime against thier nation as they crippled a large chunk of the production capability which was a requirement for any kind of capitalist system to work in the first place. The workers aided in this because they had no idea at that time of the value of the stock. Even if they did, they were extorted and threatened to sell (mafia works well in Russia.)
Well, some of those machines were sold later for 10x the price as soon as they passed over the border. Still a bargain for any western machine shop. :)
One of the things SU was good at was milling machines and optics (surprising, coming from me isn't it?;) ). You could buy high quality optics for a camera for a fraction of the western price.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Here are some numbers from unknown sources for SAM aces:
Chan Say ("unit" commander; 196?)
VietCong Fam Chyong Uiy (division commander; 43?)
VietCong Nguyen Suan Day (division commander; 40?)
Not speaking about Soviet advisors and their scores... It's the only hope - if Russia will open the archives as we did for Korean war material, there will be reliable (classified) material about Soviet combat victories there.
How do you quote numbers from an unkown source? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can tell you right now If any 1 sam site/operator shot down anywhere near 196 planes it would have been destroyed and everything in the area would have gotten flattened in the process. You watched that show on discovery then you saw how deadly the wild weasels became at their job.
I can just picture these SAM operators firing off salvo's of SAM's then shutting of their radar when weasel's are coming in and then claiming kills so that they dont get shot for turning their radars off.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I need information on American air losses and victories in Vietnam, can anyone give me any links?
Not for propaganda purposes, there is no reliable statistics from Red side as far as I know to compare the data as I tried to do on Korean war.
What I need is probably statistics by year, by plane model, how it was lost (SAM or air combat), and, certainly - non-combat losses statistics too.
Thanks in advance!
can you tell us how many Russian pilots were killed?
or is that still kept a secret in your 'free' country?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Mmmmmmm...maybe because the first rattle out of the box you disputed them? Think that could be it?
You then go on to say if only Russia would open the records you would have "reliable" information. Maybe that had something to do with.
Sort of comical really. There`s a crackhead that runs around a town not to far from here that I would designate "reliable" before anything that ever has or ever will come from Russian records.
Well, in fact I meant that in case we have statistics and flight records from both sides - we can compare how every encounter is described by both sides and work out some version that is based on facts, not propaganda or traditions. It was really interesting to compare 64th IAK records with American data, it works both ways, both sides were exaggerating their victory numbers. Unfortunately, there were very few (if any) Soviet pilots in Vietnam, and even SAM crews were mostly Vietnamese. So disclosure of exact data is now on Vietnamese comrades.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Unfortunately, there were very few (if any) Soviet pilots in Vietnam, and even SAM crews were mostly Vietnamese. So disclosure of exact data is now on Vietnamese comrades.
I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale. You interested? I`d let it go cheap.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale. You interested? I`d let it go cheap.
Этот Хуйну меня и сбил :(
I hope that my sentence in Russian above is as confusing for you as your offer was to me. Anyway, how much? Frankly speaking I'll prefer some piece of an ocean beach in Minnesota, cilmate there is more like we have here.
If you have evidence or documents about Soviet pilots fighting in Vietnam - please share them. All I have read about Soviet pilots there is just rumours or some mentally sick people telling fairy-tales, like flying Tu-128 interceptors from DRV against American planes in 1965.
-
Boroda, Jackal's comment about selling you ocean front property in Arizona is a pretty common one here in the US.
It's normally used when a person will say something that is unbelievable or said to someone who is being incredibly naive. Arizona is basically one big desert. To someone who is being naive it might be said in the context that 'if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I can sell you'.
Thats probably not a real good explanation, maybe someone else can do better. :(
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Boroda, Jackal's comment about selling you ocean front property in Arizona is a pretty common one here in the US.
It's normally used when a person will say something that is unbelievable or said to someone who is being incredibly naive. Arizona is basically one big desert. To someone who is being naive it might be said in the context that 'if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I can sell you'.
Thats probably not a real good explanation, maybe someone else can do better. :(
So how about selling me some piece of ocean beach in Minnesota? ;)
I asked for evidence about Soviet pilots flying combat missions (let's say it this way to avoid misunderstanding) in Vietnam. I don't care, if they were there - they were volunteers fighting an enemy. It can be interesting. I am proud of 64th IAK pilots who saved thousands of people in Korea. I am proud of my Uncle, who has 4 victories in Vietnam as a SAM targeting officer. I simply don't know anything about Soviet fighter pilots who fought in Vietnam. Maybe it's a big lack in my education :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If you have evidence or documents about Soviet pilots fighting in Vietnam - please share them. All I have read about Soviet pilots there is just rumours or some mentally sick people telling fairy-tales, like flying Tu-128 interceptors from DRV against American planes in 1965.
boroda, reading your posts makes me understand how the soviet and nazi regimes remained in power.
do you truly believe that the soviets, wanting to have their mig21 frontline fighters tested in combat against the American planes, would rely only on reports from the North Vietnamese pilots?
that they wouldn't want to test their own pilots against the americans?
hey, would you like to buy some land on Jupiter?
-
If they were there and scored some kills - I'll be proud of them. I just don't have any evidence. All I have read so far were fiction or some sick fantasies.
Этот Хуйну меня и сбил. It's a quote from a Russian joke about Soviet pilots in Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I All I have read so far were fiction or some sick fantasies.
that's a good description for every offical report published in the USSR.
but I'm sure you believe those.
-
So how about selling me some piece of ocean beach in Minnesota?
How about some lake front property? Say on Lake Superior? The great lakes are large enough to simulate an ocean :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
How about some lake front property? Say on Lake Superior? The great lakes are large enough to simulate an ocean :)
how many tons of salt needed ? ;)
-
No salt needed or wanted. Would kill off all the fresh water fish. Then we would have PETA and other organizations screaming, crying and gnashing their teeth for decades. No thanks :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Этот Хуйну меня и сбил :(
I hope that my sentence in Russian above is as confusing for you as your offer was to me.
This Хуйну also has brought down me
OK. Try......That dog won`t hunt. :D
-
US Air-to-Air Losses in the Vietnam War (http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html)
US Navy & US Marine Corps Aircraft Losses Vietnam War 1962-73 (http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/usa/usnlossesvietnam.html)
Also found this, can't verify it but the Red River Valley guys are very serious folks and if they published the list it's probably one of the best out there.
Here's losses of aircraft in combat over NORTH Vietnam:
USAF
F-105--282
F-4--192
F-100--16
F-102--1
F-104--4
F-111--6
RF=101--27
RF-4--37
B-52--17
C-130--2
EB-66--4
B-57--5
RC-47--1
A=1--18
T-28--1
O-1/2--5
USN
A-4--173
A-6--52
F-4--73
A-7--38
RF-4--1
F/RF-8--18
A-3--1
RA-5--21
A-1--43
This is NVN combat losses not totals in-theater. Source is Red River Valley Fighter Pilot's Ass'n 30th Anniversary Memorial Progam.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
-
Thanks, Toad!
I didn't know that there were F-102s in Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
How do you quote numbers from an unkown source? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can tell you right now If any 1 sam site/operator shot down anywhere near 196 planes it would have been destroyed and everything in the area would have gotten flattened in the process. You watched that show on discovery then you saw how deadly the wild weasels became at their job.
I can just picture these SAM operators firing off salvo's of SAM's then shutting of their radar when weasel's are coming in and then claiming kills so that they dont get shot for turning their radars off.
I don't have discovery. Anyway their historical programms are like comic books :(
Are you aquainted with SAM tactics?
My Uncle was severely wounded by one of the first Shrikes. They understood how to deal with them pretty soon.
Good, echeloned SAM defence is very hard to beat. Weasels were killed in ambushes just like other planes. Using one launcher as a bait against bait and then shredding weasels with Shilkas was just one of the tactics successfully used.
Also please don't forget that S-75 is... hmmm... I can call it "mobile". In Syria Soviet crews used only 3-4 trucks to hunt, manual tracking. Uncle said they worked mostly on manual tracking too.
-
Originally posted by JB88
always nice when you have to add the disclaimer - * not for propaganda purposes.
lol.
:D
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Heh I'm 100% sure that those classified records that were made in order to please the party leaders and ensure the survival of the reportee will show without questions that the whole US airforce was shot down 2 to 3 times during the campaign. Plus accidents of course.
:D
Boroda must be quite naive to think anything the communist regime reported was actually accurate. The system was and still is without doubt the most corrupt chain of lies known to man.
Siaf,
are you a punk ?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Boroda has posted some retarded stuff in the past, but I can't for the life of me see why this thread needed to be turned into a personal/national hate fest.
I totally agree that these BBS has began to look like a toilet hole for some wise guys who post here irrelevant hateful crap.
What's their point ? If somebody wants to start a respectful hate dialogue (not the hate monologue) I'll be glad to join and have some fun. But there's no need to stick their tongues into ANY conversation here.
:mad:
:D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
That is simply false.
Boreroda has only laid claim to lighting the fire on the sun, not to the actual building thereof. Conform comrade before it is too late. :D
Jack, the Soviets really started the fire on the Sun, but got burnt by the sun rays (see the USSR coat of arms). Another true fact is that the Soviet people built the Moon in order to capture American astronauts and put them into the Moony labour camps guarded by NKVD space corps.
On the other end we can see the USA claiming to have built the Egyptian pyramids and NOVO ORDO SECLORUM but loosing the Big Eye in the process (you just check a one dollar bill).
:rofl