MiG-21: This Aircraft Changed Western Airpower
The MiG-21 vs F-4 Phantom II, it's a legendary duel in air warfare. Yet beyond the dogfight, we find a lasting legacy coming out of this combat in Vietnam.
Naval Institute Press 25% off with "MILAVHIS" at www.usni.org/press/books
- Đồng Sỹ Hưng, Combat in the Sky (2023): www.usni.org/press/books/comb...
- John A. Olsen (ed.), Airpower Applied (2023): www.usni.org/press/books/airp...
- John A. Olsen (ed.), Airpower Reborn (2023): www.usni.org/press/books/airp...
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Museum -
MiG 21 at Flugwerft Schleissheim: www.deutsches-museum.de/flugw...
F-4 FGR II at RAF Museum London: www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/
Technik Museum Sinsheim: sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
Brand, Matthew (2007) ‘Airpower and the 1972 Easter Offensive’, CGSC
Davies, Peter (2008) F-4 Phantom II vs MiG-21: USAF & VPAF in the Vietnam War, Osprey Publishing: Oxford.
Drenkowski, Dana and Lester W. Grau (2007). “Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II”. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies Vol. 20 No.4.
Dong Sy Hung (2023). “Combat in the Sky” Airpower and the Defense of North Vietnam, 1965-1973
Hankins, Michael (2016). ‘The Teaball Solution’. Air Power History 63, no. 3
Haun, Phil, and Colin Jackson (2016). ‘Breaker of Armies: Air Power in the Easter Offensive and the Myth of Linebacker I and II in the Vietnam War’. International Security 40, no. 3 (January 2016)
Harris, Warren (1987) ‘The Linebacker Campaign’ Air War College.
McCarthy, James R., George B. Allison, and Thomas A. Bussiere (2018). Linebacker II: A View from the Rock. New edition. Barksdale AFB, Louisiana: Air Force Global Strike Command Office of History & Museums, p. 92.
Teixeira, Leonard D.(1990) ‘Linebacker II: A Strategic and Tactical Case Study’. Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
Tilford, Earl H. (1991). Setup: What the Air Force Did in Vietnam and Why. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press.
MiG-21 in Thumbnail: dbiss21 www.digitalcombatsimulator.co...
- Timecodes -
00:00 - The Duel
00:25 - Explaining Airpower
00:54 - MiG-21 vs F-4 Phantom II
02:32 - Time Frame (1968-1972)
03:43 - North Vietnamese Air Force
08:45 - Sponsored Segment
09:18 - United States of America
09:53 - Training Revamp (Top Gun et al.)
12:57 - USA: Revolution in Airpower
18:53 - In a Nutshell
19:57 - Supporter Questions
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
*I guess you could say, they had us in the first half* ... In a world of never ending advertising on mobile games, random subscription services and website hosters, let's be bold and invest in life skills instead. And when it comes to life skills, what could be more important than understanding airpower? Get a head start by checking out our fantastic sponsor, the Naval Institute Press, and enjoy their book collection at 25% off with "MILAVHIS" at www.usni.org/press/books
That's a great sponsor Chris. Sure, "Established Titles" & "Masterworks" pay a lot more, but your sponsor choice just increases your overall credibility. Cheers from Gold Coast Australia.
Ich habe früher ein Projekt mit USNI gemacht. Sie haben unser Verlagssoftware! 😅
How funny this video came out with a female voice in Spanish speaking for you.🙄🤔🤔 I'm from Latin America, but your other videos are with your voice.
However in another search engine it is with your voice, it's rare
@@Valentino6977 Rare and very Oinky. = @ )
I randomly met a former Retired Lt.Col on a chair lift while skiing who flew F-4s and F-105 in Vietnam, he said he never fought any migs but was trained to fight them in the vertical, taking advantage of the thrust of the F-4. Cool guy, he later worked on the F-16 introduction program before retiring in the 80s
There is a old fighter pilot saying that goes something like this, " You meet a better class of pilots in the vertical..". The F4 had a tremendous thrust advantage to the Mig and vertical turns are actually superior to horizontal ones. The F4 actually had the fuel to light it afterburner and disengage from fights or use that fuel in vertical dogfights. The Mig21 was severely handicapped here. It has very little fuel capacity.
@@brealistic3542But did not the F-4 have some stability issues in nose high flight, if the speeds got low or something?
@@frosty3693 If you do it right then you don't get too slow.
@@NuclearFalcon146 Right. But someone had to learn how to do it right.
@@frosty3693 It was known, and low speed high alpha issues are a problem for ALL aircraft, especially those without fly-by-wire and/or thrust vector control. Anyone who has either flown the MiG-21 or dabbled with it in DCS knows that that thing does not like high alpha and slows speeds itself. That is not something unique to the F-4 and in the case of F-4 vs MiG-21 affects both sides pretty much equally.
During an exercise between USAF and Indian Air Force (IAF), "Cope India" in 2004, IAF used Sukhoi Su-30 MKI as a bait for the F-15s, while they used their radars to direct MiG-21 Bisons towards the USAF fighters. The MiGs did not transmit any radio- or radar signals and came in low and fast. With a small frontal area, the Americans had difficulty detecting them in time.
IAF su30mki is totally different from Russian one iaf su30 has Israeli radar and French and uk avionics and bvr from France and Russia and missile from India and Russia
@@saifalik6226 this is incorrect, Indian Sukhois use Russian radar.
First of all eagle was using restricted capabilities, it was only using only small range radar. Definitely it will only be able to detect mig 21 when it comes very near. Even then it was able to detect it but it was frustrating for eagle. Otherwise we know when Israel shot mig 21 with a ratio of 90 to 1.
Imagine actually believing this to be true instead of realizing that it was due to the extremely constraining rules of engagement.
@@snd9826 most of those where grounded attention to the details during Ramadan.
The N Vietnamese clearly took note of the old joke/saying: "How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time". And even though the US was the biggest elephant in the forest, the N Vietnamese had time on their side.
Well, the religiously intolerant & outrageously corrupt S. Vietnamese regime of Catholic fascists also helped the N. Vietnamese situation *a lot* by making enemies of the Bhuddist majority. Ensuring that absolutely no village wasn't going to house/feed/store weapons for the N. Vietnamese without constant suppression & observation. It's why Bhuddism is a boogeyman amongst many incurious Xian dominionists of a certain generation, today. The S. Vietnamese who fled persecution were themselves so often war criminals, or the lackeys of a brutal dictatorship created in the wake of French imperialism, & then propped up by the Dulles brothers.
They still got crushed by the elphant as it got bored and left.
GreenBlueWalkthrough As the crows (leftist politicians protestors Hollywood etc.) pecked at them to go home
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough That analogy doesnt quite fit
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough what with American and copium huffing lol ? The North VN achieved their military object while the US failed their which mean the US lost PERIOD
Something to note about TOPGUN and Red Flag is that until then, American pilots fought other American pilots in mock combat training, using American tactics & American planes. What TOPGUN did was examine MiGs; strong & weak points. Also about Soviet Union & North Vietnam doctrine & tactics. An analogous situation was fighting the P-38 vs the A6M. The Lightning learned to use the strengths of their aircraft against the nimble, but light weight Zeros. This was done on an ad hoc basis. TOPGUN systemized this by training pilots to learn their opponent's strength & weaknesses, and applying their strengths against opponent's weaknesses, while avoiding opponent strengths. It wasn't just "learn how to dogfight." I suspect the early low graduation rates were due to the fact that you had pilots with significant experience in mock dogfighting American pilots using American tactics. Just like us, only different. 😏 What you say about strategic bombing is true; it just didn't work against North Vietnam. But that's because the North's economy was too primitive to be vulnerable to strategic bombing. All the plane factories were in the Soviet Union, as were the munitions plants. Even oil refineries. No strategic campaign worked until Nixon, as you said, integrated one into overall strategy by mining Haiphong harbor.
Rolling Thunder was a disaster because of target selection and it's incremental nature ignored the maxim of concentrating overwhelming firepower on the most important targets. The incremental nature allowed the North Vietnamese to predict targets and to build up effective air defenses over time. Johnson and MacNamara were micromanaging the war and were not competent to do it! Mac had worked studying statistical bomb effectiveness in the Japan bombing campaign and so thought he was qualified.
Except that's incorrect as the americans replicated their adversary aircraft performance by finding an aircraft that flies similarly to said aircraft employing the adversaries tactics. But it was all for nothing as the conclusion was never widely thought to deployed squadrons
When did strategic bombing really worked as planned? In WW II? Was any country envolved forced out of the war by strategic bombing? Die the citizens revolt or resign? Did the industrial production collapse? No. Same in all wars and in Vietnam it was finally realized that strategic bombing never was successful and the strategy changed at last.
@@pelle7771 Worked in Japan, and after that they built Nuclear Missiles.
@@ryansta How did it work in Japan? Was Japan bombed out of the war by strategic bombing? Were the citizens rioting? Was the industrial capacity severly hurt before they had already lost? No. The strategic bombing did not work. It didn't achieve its goals. The nuclear weapons did.
Nice vid. Should’ve mentioned recon, too. Remember, the first letter in the OODA loop stands for “observe”… if you can’t see what the enemy’s doing or assess what impact your last actions had, it’s pretty hard to know what to do next. USAF reconnaissance doctrine, strategy, and equipment also radically evolved over the Vietnam War, alongside the other changes you featured. Unlike the big strike packages, though, the RF-101s and RF-4s flew, in their own motto, “alone, unarmed and unafraid.”
Better early warning systems are mentioned at 15:30.
I read that a recon pilot would joke, "Alone, unarmed, and unafraid,l- well two out of three isn't bad."
Unafraid= fearless. Fear is a good thing, it keeps you on your toes
This is simple. The Mig-21 took off kill the enemy then returned. It was basically a piloted surface to air missile, which did its job well.
kind of like the f 104 starfighter except the Mig 21 was the better and safer fighter
That was a great piece of content Chris. I both enjoyed it and learnt something new. Well done mate.
Thank you for featuring my MIG-21 DSC skin on your cover for this, big fan, huge honor! :D
love these deep dives, thank you good sir 0>
Great stuff. The air war in Vietnam is so complex, and saw so much effect, counter-effect wnd evolution that it really warrants much more attention than it gets.
Thanks Chris for a great video & explanation. Great channel too, of course !
Mig-21, a very agile fighter aircraft, was an ideal solution for 'Point Defence' purpose.
At the time us airplanes were inferior to the French the same mig 21 were dealt easily by Israeli pilots with mirage airplanes against the arabs
Great Video. Thank you for youre worke
Glad I found this channel. Great stuff..
I'm really enjoying this channel. Well done, keep up the good work.
Excellent video, very succinctly put. Well done.
It’s great doing a review on the recent history and bringing it together with doctrine (why) with numbers and what was done. Also, I visited Sinsheim Museum after seeing it from the roadway when I was stationed in Germany. It is now good to hear podcasts like yours, and others who live in Germany, and who share objective historical reviews and views. Keep up the good work. Thanks
Well researched and presented as always! I will definitely have a look into the sources and might make use of the discount code.
Excellent video! As you mentioned, the Vietnam air war is a huge and complex topic. If only you could extend the content a bit more since 20min can’t really capture much of it. I was so hooked up during the first half and wanted to understand better and in more depth how the US changed its way of dealing with the MiGs. After all, I understand producing a 60min video may take a lot more effort than a 20min one. So, if possible, I’m looking forward to a sequel of this topic😂. In any case, great stuff as always and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it and will continue promoting your channel to my friends who are interested in military aviation. Thank you!❤. BTW, I really like the PPT slides you made for a lot of the videos. Concise, pinpoint, informative and graphic. Must have put a lot into preparing it. Salutes from someone who makes ppt on daily basis.
Very interesting topic. I just love how every KZheadr tries to hide his Mic as best as possible. But here is one man who likes to flash his superior rode Mic and show us all who is boss :)
hah, I'm just not bothered with all these cosmetic nuances
I didn’t notice the mic untili saw the comment
Great video, I really enjoyed your deeper dive between the two. Just goes to show that there is always more going on than what most people just see on the surface
Excellent presentation! Thanks!
Excellent, just excellent.
Thanks so much, and for the long time support! 23 months!!! Wow
Great video, Chris...👍
Really appreciate all the effort and research you put into these videos.
Great video, with a very original look at the air war.
My understanding is the Vietnam war was the first time missile on missile combat happened. The tactics used by the Vienamese were also very well suited to the Mig21 and countering the F4. The mig 21 is very small, and very fast. At low level moving fast it is nearly impossible to see. Its radar was okay, but was also mostly a look up shoot down. It could gimbal up much more than down. The F4 had much better radar technology, but it would struggle to pick up the migs flying low level because of all the ground scatter. So the tactics followed the stengths of the machines.
I started as a young apprentice on MiG-21s in the early 90s. I was bullied and ridiculed by the rough sergeant-mechanics, two of them had a proper go at me. I witnessed a captain-engineer so drunk couldn’t stay up on his rear feet, yet climbing the wing in attempt to pull a fuel tank out of the fuselage. I saw a gang of rotten sergeant-fuelers stealing industrial amounts of kerosene. I left after two months of humiliation and don’t regret it. Post-communist 90s was a dystopian world of hopeless misery, and this is what MiG-21s are all about from my perspective.
My grandpa, to his dying breath, spoke of the 90's in the terms of a post-apocalypse. He missed the USSR more than he missed his wife or his brothers, and he missed the DDR more than that.
For me, hard stats is useful information when used in appropriate context, but it has to be used alongside soft stats like doctrines, pilot training, reliability, and so many other things, considering a superior aircraft used in a wrong way is just as useless as a flying brick, and the inability to improve that said weapon and solely focusing on improving the surface problems, ie adding guns to the f4 phantom, wont yield much results and will just exacerbate the problem even further
Excellent review of actual doctrine!!
Wonderful video as always, is there a chance you'll go over how the GCI system worked in North Vietnam?
I have this planned but it's still in the concept phase. I noticed fewer people are interested in Vietnam, which is a shame since it is just an important period in aviation history. That doesn't mean I won't make videos about it but I need to consider how to generate interest in it
EXCELLENT request. I will be looking forward to seeing the viedo. Thanks for asking about this subject.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory That's surprising, especially considering the fact that it's the most recent war where the USAF had an actually challenging opponent.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Works for me as a topic, the USAF got into the Vietnam war with its current doctrines, and then had to react and respond to a North Vietnamese air force who hadn't read the same manuals and were happy to try something different. I've a copy of John T. Smith's 'The Linebacker Raids' on my bookshelf, very interesting to me on the subject of political interference in how you, as an armed force, conduct a war you've been directed to fight by the same politicians...
@@MilitaryAviationHistory You probably could try comparing it to contemporary Soviet practices and other Soviet-influenced systems like Syria's. Or you could draw comparisons to later developments such as Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War and Russia in the present war in Ukraine
Very interesting, thank you!
I've just got to say that I really enjoy your new analysis of various air combat situations with information informed from original sources; not just parroting the 'known knowledge', but going back, to the information being used at the time. This is highly illuminating information. Especially your forays into the records of the Luftwaffe. Nothing is better than actually receiving information from their contemporaty documentation, regardless of how it fits into the 'big narrative'. I love your stuff.
Thanks for the good show & for featuring air forces.I like shows on aircraft duels.I like shows on air forces more,as there are few such shows.
Again a great content that explains very clear that it is not on one or two technical data concerning a fighter that proof combat capabilities. It is a holoistic view over alle aspects of the system plane, pilot training, ground control and tactics that made the effectiveness and efficiency of a fighter plane.
Great Again Chris .I think it is fantastic to see how you have grown your Channel ,I used to also enjoy you on IL2 ,do you still have time to fly on it? It's nice to see your passion for what you do and it must be wonderful to do sometime you enjoy for a job . Leigh
Hey Leigh, thanks so much! I sadly fly very rarely these days but do try to keep up a few hours when I can. I tend to keep with DCS at the moment for flight sims
I've heard that Vietnamese pilots benefitted from training with Chinese pilots who hadn't adopted the "missiles make dogfights obsolete" doctrine, and knew how to dogfight. Did any of your research mention this?
Our first jet was mig-17 they didn't have missile , so they were trained to do dogfight . We receive the MiG-21 later and our way of using mig21 was to avoid dogfight , launch your aa-2 missile then return to base.
As a vietnamese i would say that our pilot learned from Soviet. Actually in 1979 in Vietnam China war, when they aggressed us, they did not use airforce because they know how our pilots well and how our air defence strong.
This video is really very illuminating, thank you.
Thank you for an informative and concise video. Well done.
I would like to toss out an anecdotal tale about Vietnamese GCI from the Vietnam war. I was just a kid then, but my dad was an electronics engineer for a company which manufactured components for the terrain-following radar (TFR) in the F-111. One day my dad called home and said he wouldn’t be home for at least 2 or 3 days; I think it turned out to be 6 but I’m it sure any more. It seems that the Air Force had suddenly lost several F-111’s in a short period. The F-111’s were all grounded and essentially my dad was told he wasn’t coming home until the Air Force knew what the hell had happened. The Terrain-Following-Radar was the suspect, and my dad’s company was responsible for a lot of the hardware. Was it failing and causing crashes? Eventually, they figured out the problem: the TFR worked just fine... but it was predictable. The F-111’s were being used to bomb difficult targets from ‘treetop’ levels. Using the TFR they could come screaming in so low and so fast that the radar AA guns on the sites couldn’t be trained on them before they were gone. However, the NVA could see them on the long range radar and could easily determine their targets as they flew nice and straight in, if very low. They could also easily calculate their speed. So, they know the target, the speed, and the direction of approach. They set up a row of field mortars filled with tin foil. At a calculated moment they fire a wall of chaff. The TFR sees it and says, “Oh my God, a mountain cliff has suddenly appeared in front of us!!!” Naturally, it pulls the stick straight back into a vertical climb up the ‘wall’. Since the speed is known and the flight path is known and vertical, the AA guns have been trained at a calculated point in the sky, up on the wall, and the plane flys right into the flak. Pop goes the weasel. My dad said, (again this is all anecdotal) that they figured the the NV were shooting down multi-million dollar F-111’s for about $1500 a pop. Naturally, the Air Force -never- admitted this publicly.... the F-111 was already controversial enough. This would not have helped its reputation. I would love to know if there is any truth behind this memory; I know I've never read it anywhere, and it certainly seems to fit into the framework of the NVA using a sophisticated GCI system.
And some dare to say "stupid commies".
Thank you
Watching Chris, talking bout mig 21 being used 50 years ago, and then remembering our air force still use Mig 21 in 2024😂. Luckily Rafale should be coming soon. Servus from Croatia.
Your not alone mate we (Indian airforce) still using small number of mig21
@@saifalik6226and being replaced by Rafale too
the croatian armed forces is a decorative and demonstrative organization, you will never fight, so you don't have to spend money on a rafale
@@soviet_architect On what basis do you say that?
@@caffetiel I would say that on basis of drone which crashed in Zagreb.
Many years ago, i read an interesting book that touched upon some of the things in this video. I do find the Vietnam airwar really interesting because of where it sits in the way airpower developed in the 20th century. It was an autobiography of General Horner, who led the coalition airforce in Desert Shield and Storm. The book was cowritten with Tom Clancy. Gen. Horner started as a pilot in vietnam (flying wild weasel missions), and the book talked about the issues he experienced as a pilot in doctrine, training and equipment. How that affected the airforce immediately after the war. How the airforce changed as result and how those changes helped win the airwar over Kuwait. For anyone interested, the book is "Every Man a Tiger: The Gulf War Air Campaign"
Great video as always Chris! Vietnam is one of my favorite periods in history to read about and I have known that it was a major turning point and inflection point for US/western doctrine but I did not know about the semi adoption of more ground control by the US during Vietnam and it makes perfect sense when you explained it. The rate of change during this time period for aviation is rapid and such an interesting period to learn about.
Very interesting commentary. As you were describing the NVA approach to air defence at the beginning of the video I kept thinking that it was similar to the RAF approach to defending the UK in the Battle of Britain with a somewhat similar outcome. I realise the analogy is rough but there is still enough of a similarity to be recognisable.
What I thought also.
Excellent Video Chris! Excellent!
I know you said they don't perform as well but I love these cold war discussions!
A great illustration of how losing (or not winning) can be very useful.
My first enlistment started November 74, got to Luke AFB May 75, many of the airforce folks spent a few tours in Vietnam and Thailand, the anger on how things were run was noticeable, from mechanics and aircrew.
One interesting thing that I rarely see brought up is that the Soviets captured a Northrop F5, and found that it was better than the MIG 21 in air combat maneuvers and the 19
Is that why they had 3 to 1 losses compared to mig's
*Just keep trying johnny.*
the f 5 was actually a good machine but the mig 21 was better@@OleDiaBole
showing the physical books! thank you.
Great, really interesting. I have always be a fan of the MIG 21 - a fantastic looking aircraft, totally suited to its prime mission.
one of the classic matchups...great upload...id be in the phantom all day though
Because you can only spend an hour or two in the MiG-21? ;-)
MAH is a dream job for him. Thanks sir for the good content, loved this deep dive.
Thank you!
Love your content 🤘
Great video Chris, vielen dank dafür! One of the things that I've always felt about Vietnam, at least when talking about the US perspective, is the immense focus on the F-4 and to a lesser extent the B-52, however there were many other aircraft in the war on the US side that are often ignored: A-4, A-6, A-7, F-8, F-100, F-105, F-111, OV-10, etc. Certainly I'm forgetting quite a few there as well. Any thoughts on some kind of content on these less-discussed types? Thanks and keep up the great content!
Even the F-104 was used briefly!
Bearcats, Douglas Raiders, and P-51s too. Left over from Korea.
Every time I see a Mig 21 in person it always amazes me that those little wings can lift up that plane
Loved the sources
The Mig21 is a timeless aircraft. She never gets old. It's been 69 years in 2024 since she first flew. Still flying high in many airforces around the world. There will never be another fighter like you, Mig21 :)
EXCELLENT. I find very interesting your final conclusions at the end of the video. Please try to make one about the Vietnamese GCI. Thanks and greetings from Mexico City.
Sounds interesting 👍
clever intro, i understood that reference 😉
Surgical centrally guided small unit intercepts - on large force ( rendering unsustainable long-term costs on the attacker ) sounds exactly like the winning strategy in the Battle of Britain
Great presentation; a cogent analysis of what has, with the passage of time, led to a complete revamp. This story illustrates very well why the US and its allies have, by and large, turned a great many adversaries into burning piles of shattered stuff laying about. Its a combination, of course, of many factors. But I feel that this part of the bigger story is misunderstood or ignored by most commentators. Nice job!
Good content
are enjoying your wireless mic? any pros? any Cons? would you recommend?
The video ended too soon! I have one of those books on my list, I'll have to add two more now. Maybe some day when you have the time and energy, you could have something akin to Drachs drydock. So many questions
Interesting video!
You may have alluded to it. But, what about the criminal mismanagement of air assets by Johnson, McNamara, etc.? That had to be a huge factor in this big-picture analysis.
One thing to keep in mind when thinking about that conflict is that it didn't happen in a vacuum, this was part of something much bigger that could have erupted into global catastrophe. Managing the scale of the Cold War was very complicated, especially given all the things happening concurrently and the repercussions still playing out.
Hey cool you were in Sinsheim I mean the displays there arent always as historical accurate but the quantity of them makes it really worth a trip
You forgot one thing. That was the fact that the war could not take the battle to the enemy. No strafing or killing of the enemies airforce on the ground. Playing defense was a definite cross for aviation to really work as needed. I enjoy your work.
How to tackle this video? (1) While there were tactical innovations by 1972 the primary difference between Rolling Thunder and Linebacker I and II was Nixon untied the military's hands. The Strategic concept of operations was not revolutionary. it was used the same unlimted application of resourdes used in WWII. Yes, new technologies had a big impact on the application of air power but not its objectives. (2) The NVAAF rediscovered tactical integrated airdefenses used by the RAF and the Luftwaffe and used it within the limitations of tbeir force. (3) The Air Force did no better in air-to-air combat in terms of loss ratios in Linebacker than Rolling Thunder. (4) The Navy had better C2 from the beginning and they improved it throughout the war. They had both AWAC and missile cruisers (RED CROWN) from almost the beginning of the war. The cruisers had enough coverage that they shot down several Migs flying over North Vietnan at very long range. (5) The Navy improved their air-to-air performance in 1972 because they had a cadre of experienced fighter pilots in the F8 community who were very successful during Rolling Thunder. They provided the first opposition force at the fighter weapons school. The Air Force had no such cadre. Top Gun taught Navy F4 pilots how use their aircraft given the F4s strengths and limitations but that only decreased the losses. The kills went up beause the wider use of the AIM-9D which was more reliable and had a more robust engagement envelope. (6) Though they never said it out loud, the Navy understoid they chose the wrong aircraft in 1959 based on a faulty assumption about the Navy's likely air combat environment. An superiority fighter can do the interception mission but a dedicated multirole intercepter makes an mediocre air superiority asset. That is why the F-14 did not get air-to-groubd capability until the end of its operational life. It was an air superiority fighter like the Crusader. Vietnam led to redicovery of the strikefighter concept that both services used in WWII with the P-47 and F4U. It turns out that if you build a fighter for air-to-air combat it could make an excellent strike platform. Vietnam was more a natter of lesson relearned than a revolution. The biggest lesson learned was that using air power, or any military force, to send a controled message was futile. War is an all or nothing thing.
There was also dogfights between the two in the two in the Yom Kippur war in 1973, and I believe also in 1967.
Good to meet you at Oshkosh my mig sends its regards
This is an excellent analysis.
I am sorry, but I didn’t make the connection about how the Mig 21 versus F4 Phantom set to stage for our advances in AirPower to come later..
I always loved the look of the MiG 21
I think a lot of people have misconceptions that Russian aircraft are inferior to their western contemporaries but the truth is far from it. The Russian engineers knew their business and the aircraft themselves could only be said to be inferior (at times) in regard to less efficient power plants for their weight and fuel consumption, and cruder materials and construction methods, but the engineers accounted for that. The Mig 21 was excellent for its role and is in fact still a front line fighter in many air forces, which says much about its durability, supportability, and capability. A key point to how they were so effective against the F-4 can be summed up the same way you can analyze the Battle of Britain, call it the home field advantage where the RAF could scramble and vector limited numbers of freshly fueled planes to meet Luftwaffe fighters that had to fly there from France and only had about 20 minutes of loiter or combat time before they were bingo fuel. The short range of the Mig-21 did not matter because they were the defenders while the US had to fly in from offshore carriers or non-forward air bases leaving little fuel left for the turning and burning needed to dogfight. The Migs had the advantage of friendly SAM and Radar to help them thin the attackers number or spoil the formations, so like the lion splitting off a gazelle from the herd the Mig-21s can rush in and pick off a stray from a position of superiority. The defenders were fighting an asymmetrical war thus have the advantage of picking the fights where they have the advantage of numbers and/or energy and the Mig-21 was perfectly suited for Hit and Run tactics like that as a dedicated interceptor. Much of the Top Gun and Red Flag training that helped turn the tide for the US was honing that energy state estimation and learning to know when to fight or run along with learning to exploit your aircrafts strengths and enemy aircrafts weaknesses.
Watching this video should be mandatory for every „plane x vs plane y“ video/book/documentary creator out there. Air power is so much more complex than that.
Another excellent book I recommend for anybody interested in post WW2 era combat aeroplanes, is by Bill Gunston, titled "F4 Phantom" (1977), German title was "F4 Phantom Die Geschichte eines modernen Kampfflugzeuges" (1981), both copyright by W.T.Gunston. Bill Gunston OBE, FRAeS (1 March 1927 - 1 June 2013) was a British aviation and military author, and has a Wikipedia page.
Chris, anyone with such great English will always be keen to make it better. At 14:27 it should be "tough sell".
I believe that’s what he said, but maybe you’re hearing ‘sale’ because of how he pronounces the e (or I’m misunderstanding him)
@@Myfavorite192 Yeh, but go back and look at how it's WRITTEN on the accompanying graphic.
@@wordsmithgmxchyes, you’re right
If you factor in the much lower cost the fact that early missiles were unreliable and the MIG had a gun the Mig looks pretty good.
During the Navy's next generation fighter competition in 1959 George Spangenberg, who was head of the Navy's evaluation team, cautioned the Navy that they were relying on unproven technology and it could come back to bite them. The fix was in for the Phantom. By the RFP's terms of reference the Phantom won despite the Crusader III outperforming it. The Navy wanted two crew and two engines. They also wanted to keep McDonnell alive. Vought wss still building F8s and had the A7 coming down the pipeline. McDonnell had nothing after the Demon. In retrospect Vought got invited to compete to avoid a sole source procurement
MiG21 AKM T55 All the same thing: workhorse
What a beautiful plane the Mig is, looks like a dart!
Find some pictures of the height and speed record version, it's really impressive.
@@marcusott2973 even more beautiful
computers were primitive back then so yes the Russians basically build a super fast dart
Would be interesting to analyze the 1973 Yom Kippur War's effect on the employment of air power. Vietnam and the Middle East were almost at the same time seeing Soviet and US air power/air defense doctrine crossing swords. Well done Chris.
Great presentation Chris! However, if there wasn't a piece of runway long enough to operate a MiG, or a harbor facility to support them (and SAM's), this video would not have been made. But, thanks to the experts in Washington, that's how it was. At least we learned some valuable lessons for the future. I do think the MiG-21 was an excellent interceptor for it's day, simple, robust, and it looks great! BTW, love the Stuka book, any chance of Ju-88 next?!! You seem to know your way around the Bundesarchiv.
When I stopped playing War Thunder due to time management issues, my best Western fighter was an F-86F. But I've already had the East German MiG-21. Brilliant aircraft, much better than the lumbering MiG-19. A powerful engine with some bits added to it to guide it to victory. The Phantom, pioneer of the next generation, was more than just an example of brute force. Both respect inspiring machines.
Mig 21 : The F-16 killer. 💪🏼💀
Have you read the US Navy "Ault Report". This has a big influence on air combat results in Vietnam, and why air combat results in 1973 Arab - Israeli War and subsequent wars were much different.
Can you do a video about air combat in the falkland War?
Even though I might be a B25 historian and restorer, My favorite military aircraft is and always has been the F4 Phantom II!
It's always a big win if you can force the enemy to change tactics and over-resource routine activities.
Comparing the Mig -21 to the Phantom is a bit of comparing apples to oranges. Except they did face each other. Now the Indian Air Force, using the Mig-21, really woke up the US Air Force in war games in the early 2000's. Used as designed, by well trained pilots it's a very dangerous weapon. Perhaps less so today. With exceptional pilots the F-4 could surprise pilots that misjudged it.
Its kill ratio was however terrible with 240 planes shot down by MIG21 in all wars it have fought, while 501 MIG-21 jets have been lost in air combat. Not entirely the fault of the plane perhaps. But still... I guess that I'm not impressed. Despite all Vietnam myths did the F-4 Phantom do well in the fighter role and had a positive kill ratio with 41 Phantoms lost and 151 enemies shot down. While 95 MIG21 were lost in the Vietnam war while they only managed to shot down 78 enemy planes. And in almost every metrics was Phantom the better plane. It was ahead of its time. It was super fast, it had superior climb rate, it did set many world records in flighing at high altitudes, it had a radar superior to that of Draken and even more to that of MIG-21, It had twice as many hardpoints as MIG-21 and could carry twice as much payload, its range with external fuel tanks made it able to fly further than nearly all other fighters of the 1960s. It was not just a one-trick pony like MIG-21. Instead was the Phantom used as a fighter, an attack aircraft, recon aircraft and an electronic warfare aircraft. It was used by a large number of airforces around the world and is still even used today by Turkey. It was used by the US airforce, Marine corps, and Navy which shows what a flexible and powerful aircraft it was. It came into service just one and half decade after world war 2 ended and was capable of flying at Mach2 and nearly fly up into space. The plane itself was good. And when a plane fligh high, then the air is thinner and the missiles can also glide a further distance to a target which gives them superior range to an enemy that cannot fly as high. So it was superior in that regard and its radar had a range of 160km compared to 70km for MIG-21. So flying low to blend in with the enviroment so the superior radar could not spot the MIGs was probably the only tactics that could be used. The superior turn rate of MIG21 was one of the only few strengths the MIGs had. And fortunatly for them were they not bound by any rules of engagment unlike the Phantoms where the pilots first had to see the enemy planes with their own eyes before they were allowed to fire on them. So much of Phantoms superiority at long range combat was thereby lost. The large smoke trail from the Phantom engines also made them easy to spot. Furthermore was F-4 Phantoms much more common over the skies over Vietnam that they were therefore more likely to get shot down than the MIG-21s which were rare. So those factors considered should the loss statistics for the MIG-21 look even more terrible than what it already are, while the F-4 Phantoms kill ratio should look even better.
@@nattygsbordcoping
Dude. Have you seriously not done one on the P-38 yet? Did I miss it? Ok, I get that your focus is kind of Europe, but you've done a lot of other Pacific aircraft..... To say the least, I am increadibly f---ing curious to hear what you have to say about this plane! Zusätzlich noch: Ist deine Inhalt auch auf Deutsh irgendwo Verfügbar? Wenn du nach Münchener Raum kommst kauf ich dir gern ein Schnitzel und ein Bier oder ein Tofuschnitzel? Was auch immer du magst. Finde dein Channel super!
By far one of your best ones Chris. One on the coursair vs N.V. air force would be good. HINT HINT!
Both of these are my favorite Cold War aircraft.
An advertising I can get behind for once!
It's a beautiful little fighter
Das video passt ja bestens mit der Heatblur F4 am Horizont.