Author Topic: Question on airwar in Vietnam (Read 1773 times)

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!

mora · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2005, 08:54:19 AM »

You should try from here too:
http://www.acig.org/forum/

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2005, 12:51:54 PM »

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

Boroda · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2005, 01:08:58 PM »

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!

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2005, 01:10:18 PM »

They are US aircraft destroyed by MiG or SAM.

Boroda · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2005, 01:24:51 PM »

Quote

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)

Habu · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2005, 01:35:03 PM »

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.

john9001 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2005, 01:41:48 PM »

total losses would also include anti-aircraft fire. the north had lots of AA guns.

Thrawn · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2005, 02:39:54 PM »

Quote

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.

john9001 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 17, 2005, 02:48:06 PM »

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.

Thrawn · « **Reply #10 on:** February 17, 2005, 03:09:57 PM »

Thanks john.

SunTracker · « **Reply #11 on:** February 17, 2005, 03:18:10 PM »

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.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 17, 2005, 04:26:04 PM »

Quote

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.

JB88 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 17, 2005, 04:39:58 PM »

always nice when you have to add the disclaimer - * not for propaganda purposes.

lol.

Suave · « **Reply #14 on:** February 17, 2005, 05:28:17 PM »

How many of those losses aren't helicopters ?