hongkongwargamer
Forum Guru
I have the best opponent in Witchbottles amongst other things. No solo'ing anytime soon!!
the solitaire Downtown/EV rules were formally published in a C3i magazine. Lee got permission from GMT to host them after that issue went out of print.
By the by - VASSAL has several modules for this - different versions. You want version 3.14 to get all the add-on counters and charts in the counter tray in case you decide to expand Downtown for the extra stuff from the old C3i issues.I have the best opponent in Witchbottles amongst other things. No solo'ing anytime soon!!
The major issue with the Phantom was two-fold over North Vietnam.Yes, but the Phantoms has their own capabilities. Indeed, it was not all that uncommon to be able to outrun some of their air-to-air missiles in real life. At least that was what was related to me at the time. In addition, the Mig-21 had some real reliability and endurance problems at the time.
Decent and concise summary of the F-4 in Vietnam.The major issue with the Phantom was two-fold over North Vietnam.
#1 it was a purpose-designed fast interceptor with a single mission profile - to shoot down unmaneuverable large nuclear bombers before they could release. It did so by carrying a full complement of both radar mid-range and heat seeking short range missiles, with no cannon capability whatsoever. The design was not meant or created to be a dogfighter, so its own maneuverability below 10,000 feet sucked (we accurately called our Phantom fighters in VMFA-312 and VMFA-333, "sky-pigs" because of this). The models fielded over DRV were the F-4B, RF-4B, RF-4C, F-4D. The Linebacker missions finally saw the F-4J and F-4G models come into the field. In a closing engagement even at the North Vietnam standard of a US "loose Deuce" 2 v 1 for one enemy closing MiG- the approach vectors mean even a slower MiG-17 is going to create a head on closure at over 800 K.I.A.S. No AIM-7 or AIM -9 model at that time could field a shot like that effectively, so the first burst often went to the 23mm armed MiG on a down the throat vector. Then the MiG goes into a low a altitude turning fight, the F-4 loses capability to compete without stalling out (bad design required high speed for airflow), and the MiG gets rear quadrant position for an easy deflection shot, or the F-4 is forced to zoom climb away (effectively disengaging) in order to prevent being shot down. The effective Phantom driver would reverse on the zoom, and enter what Bellevue did, inserting the Mig and the Phantom into a position called a vertical rolling scissors. The MiG is incapable of maintaining energy on the vertical climb, so each pass means the F-4 is at less risk of a rear quadrant low deflection cannon shot, and each pass ,the AIM-9 has a better chance of reversing into a rear quadrant lockup on a tailpipe heat signature.
Of all the USAF pilots in Vietnam, only a handful ever understood they had to fight their Phantom to its own strengths to defeat a MiG. Hence the 2.6 (+/-) to 1 Air to air losses from 1965-1971. By Linebacker I, the rate dropped to below 2.5 to 1, so Robin Olds stepped in personally to intervene. (The man behind the 1967 Bolo massacre of MiGs that gutted the MiG 17 air pilots of DRV).
#2 - The plane lacked a cannon. Pod cannons were tried later, but it was not until late model F-4Es came along that it got an internal cannon, and any pod mounted version jammed frequently, had severe limitations of ammo, and caused excessive drag, affecting dogfighting performance.
Overall, and I used to work on and love F-4s in all shapes and sizes, the F-8 crusader was a better dogfighter and better plane for North Vietnam.
The MiG 21 did everything it was designed to do, and was never used outside its intended design role. Cockpit armor and a belly armored fuel tank made it damn near impregnable to cannon fire unless its control hydraulics were shot away. The design was meant to zoom it at high speed under ground control take a shot, zoom away at high speed to get the enemy to pursue so the 17s and 19s could ambush them - or run away and live to fight another day. Their pilots never tries to dogfight anyone- they understood the plane's limitations there.The lack of cannon was a mistake there is no doubt. However, the MiG 21 had its own issues as described above.
The Kumansky R-25-series engines in the MiG21s of the 1960's and 1970s produced maximum military power thrust (without A/B selection on the throttle detents) for 41 minutes with no external fuel tanks onboard. The MiG 21 had a nominal combat efficient range with full missile and cannon load of just under 600 nm.Except one can not get passed reliability problems. As to run away the F4 was faster and had greater endurance.
I would agree with this statement overall. The airframes were approximately equal in their capability to shoot each other down in the 1967-1972 time frame, if both had been piloted by competent pilots capable of dogfighting to their airframes' strengths.And by 1972 the F4 had internal cannon. I am not saying that the MiG 21 was a lousy plane I am just saying that the F4 could more than hold it own.
double thumbs up - but Yankee Station contains a lot of info on fates.......For my fellow F-8 Crusader aficionados, I would recommend Barrett Tillman's 'Mig Master'.
It's a decent book ,but the information is a bit dated - On Yankee Station has similar issues, not quite so bad. the rest of these recommended are within the last 10 years. Clashes is well worth the money spent, the paperback is quite reasonable. Authors went to Vietnam to acquire firsthand primary source information about DRV in the "Yankee Air Pirate War" as it is termed in Vietnam. + MiG Masters is also an ebook...In addition, another book good book is Air War -- Vietnam by Drew Middleton. Unfortunately, the only one of any of the ones mentioned available in ebook format is On Yankee Station