US Aircraft Losses over Vietnam

[Izzy1]

Just been reading about North Vietnam's SAM defences during the Second Indochina War with the US/South Vietnamese and Allies.

The figures are interesting:

1965: 194 SAM launches. 11 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 5.7%. In other words for every 1 downed aircraft it took over 17 missiles to register a hit.

1966: 1,966 SAM launches. 31 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.2%. 63 missiles for every one hit.

1967: 3,202 SAM launches. 96 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 3.0%. 33 missiles for every one hit.

1968: 322 SAM launches. 3 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 0.9%. 107 missiles for every one hit.

Linebacker Operations
1972: 4,244 SAM launches. 49 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.15%. 87 missiles for every one hit.

Apart from the blip of 1967, its clear to me that US tactics and ECM had gained the upper hand over the SA-2 after 1965. I'm sure it has been upgraded, but the SA-2 remains for many nations the backbone of their air defences - Vietnam, North Korea and China with their HQ-2 version cases in point. Given today's technology, its pretty certain to me that the percentages would be even smaller. Anyone know of SA-2's performance during the Gulf Wars with Iraq?

One interesting thing additionally, the PAVN deployed the SA-7 MANPADS in the 1972 Eastertide offensive and although I don't have numbers launched, they did down 16 aircraft at the Battle of Quang Tri alone. I find that an astonishing figure for such a crude piece of kit.

Figures from Colonel Harry G. Summers' 'Vietnam War Almanac', 1985.

[Tasman]

Apart from the blip of 1967, its clear to me that US tactics and ECM had gained the upper hand over the SA-2 after 1965. I'm sure it has been upgraded, but the SA-2 remains for many nations the backbone of their air defences - Vietnam, North Korea and China with their HQ-2 version cases in point. Given today's technology, its pretty certain to me that the percentages would be even smaller. Anyone know of SA-2's performance during the Gulf Wars with Iraq?





Those are very interesting figures Izzy. No wonder there was a resurgence of efforts to produce agile manned fighter aircraft following experiences in Vietnam!

Cheers

[Chrom]

Just been reading about North Vietnam's SAM defences during the Second Indochina War with the US/South Vietnamese and Allies.

The figures are interesting:

1965: 194 SAM launches. 11 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 5.7%. In other words for every 1 downed aircraft it took over 17 missiles to register a hit.

1966: 1,966 SAM launches. 31 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.2%. 63 missiles for every one hit.

1967: 3,202 SAM launches. 96 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 3.0%. 33 missiles for every one hit.

1968: 322 SAM launches. 3 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 0.9%. 107 missiles for every one hit.

Linebacker Operations
1972: 4,244 SAM launches. 49 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.15%. 87 missiles for every one hit.

Apart from the blip of 1967, its clear to me that US tactics and ECM had gained the upper hand over the SA-2 after 1965. I'm sure it has been upgraded, but the SA-2 remains for many nations the backbone of their air defences - Vietnam, North Korea and China with their HQ-2 version cases in point. Given today's technology, its pretty certain to me that the percentages would be even smaller. Anyone know of SA-2's performance during the Gulf Wars with Iraq?

One interesting thing additionally, the PAVN deployed the SA-7 MANPADS in the 1972 Eastertide offensive and although I don't have numbers launched, they did down 16 aircraft at the Battle of Quang Tri alone. I find that an astonishing figure for such a crude piece of kit.

Figures from Colonel Harry G. Summers' 'Vietnam War Almanac', 1985.

The figures somehow doesnt seems right. USA lost more than 2000 aircrafts of all types over NV, and most of them attributed to SAM's. I can hardly believe what it implies more than 100.000 SA-2 missilles fired...

We can draw many opposite conclusion from that statistic:

1. SA-2 become less effective against USA bombers...
1a. Due to ECM
1b. Due to more effective SEAD
2. SA-2 remained just as effective against USA bombers but USA bombers learned to avoid SA-2...
2a. avoid without major hit in bombing perfomance.
2b. avoid at the cost of major hit in bombing perfomance.
3. SA-2 remained just as effective against USA bombers but most SA-2 missiles was fired against other aircraft types...
3a. Firing against other types was ineffective
3b. It was effective
4. etc.

We should see much more complete statistic to draw any conclusion.

[Izzy1]

USA lost more than 2000 aircrafts of all types over NV

2,251 to be precise, 514 due to operational malfunction alone. But I will check these figures over and get back to you on here. I'm a bit surprised by them too.



I can hardly believe what it implies more than 100.000 SA-2 missilles fired...


Think you need to check your calculator, the total figure is 9,928 SAMs fired. Which sounds plausible considering the Soviets delivered just over 10,000.

[Waylander]

I thought most aircrafts over Vietnam were still destroyed by AAA.
Not long ago I read a statistic about this, maybe I find it again.

[Chrom]

2,251 to be precise, 514 due to operational malfunction alone. But I will check these figures over and get back to you on here. I'm a bit surprised by them too.





Think you need to check your calculator, the total figure is 9,928 SAMs fired. Which sounds plausible considering the Soviets delivered just over 10,000.

So, as you see, unless SA-2 fired ONLY at B-52 you cant claim any % missiles-to-hit ratio. The article is classical example of (intentionally) wrong use of perfectly right statistic.

[Izzy1]

you cant claim any % missiles-to-hit ratio

Why not?

Tell that to the Pentagon or the USAF, they're probably Col. Summer's source. Read them as you may, but those percentiles and figures do make pretty good reading for the pilots and a clear indicator that their tactics and countermeasures worked. And I'm pretty certain PAVN didn't just fire their SAMs at B-52s.

I also have read a little more and Waylander is correct, PAVN's AAA was highly effective - especially against attack aircraft like the A4 Skyhawk and Super Sabre.

[Chrom]

Why not?

Tell that to the Pentagon or the USAF, they're probably Col. Summer's source. Read them as you may, but those percentiles and figures do make pretty good reading for the pilots and a clear indicator that their tactics and countermeasures worked. And I'm pretty certain PAVN didn't just fire their SAMs at B-52s.

I also have read a little more and Waylander is correct, PAVN's AAA was highly effective - especially against attack aircraft like the A4 Skyhawk and Super Sabre.
Again, these figures dont tell ANYTHING AT ALL. For example, from these figures we can conclude what USA bombers learned to avoid SAM's fires by NOT flying over protected targets, i.e. unloading they bombload in void. Or we may conclude what SAM's supply reached such level what it become possible to shot missiles at SEAD aircrafts such as F-4 or F-105. Or we may conclude 1000 other things what are just as likely as this article unfounded assumtions
The numbers itself are probably correct, but they interpretation is absolutely false.

P.S. This is like claiming 1:10 ratio for USA aviation vs NV aviation on the base of Mig-21 vs F-4 ratio. While the numbers might be correct, the direct interpretation would be false as Mig-21 probably can also claim 1:10 ratio by shooting a lot of bomber/transports/etc and for Mig-21 fighters such as F-4 was low-priority targets. Note, this is just example and not real comparasion.

[Izzy1]

For example, from these figures we can conclude what USA bombers learned to avoid SAM's fires by NOT flying over protected targets, i.e. unloading they bombload in void.

That's complete fantasy - everybody knows US bombing worked, ask the residents of Hanoi and Haipong! 'Linebacker' brought the North Vietnamese back to the peace-table. The 1972 Eastertide Offensive was stopped in its tracks by a massive US bombing effort. North Vietnam's demand for an effective and elaborate air defence system underlines the effect US bombing had in the Vietnam War.

And if the mass-USAF tactic was dropping short to avoid SAMs, then why did the PAVN fire them?

There is no magic in these figures, 9,928 SAMs launched - they hit a 190 planes, plain and simple.

[Chrom]

That's complete fantasy - everybody knows US bombing worked, ask the residents of Hanoi and Haipong! 'Linebacker' brought the North Vietnamese back to the peace-table. This is rather unlikely as USA couldnt sustain "Linebacker" losses for any prolonged time. The peace was signed due to varios reasons, and Linebacker was surery not the most important. The 1972 Eastertide Offensive was stopped in its tracks by a massive US bombing effort. North Vietnam's demand for an effective and elaborate air defence system underlines the effect US bombing had in the Vietnam War.
There was a lot of stationary infrastructure targets in NV what USA was repeadly tryed to destroy for years with bombers but failed - losinig also many planes trying. If that dont hint you about how USA bombers avoided SAM's fire - then i dont know what is.

Thats said, USA bombing camapaignt surery had a LOT of effect on NV, and was devastating. After all, USA didnt lost 2000 planes for nothing, no?
But here we are speaking about the SAM's effectivity. I gave you facts which proves what SAM's was very effective. In fact, given they numbers and resources spend SAM's was certainly more effective than aviation what you could get with similar resources.


And if the mass-USAF tactic was dropping short to avoid SAMs, then why did the PAVN fire them?
Becouse contrary to your believe, the first and upmost important SAM's job is to PROTECT, and NOT to kill. Kill is only a nice addidition but SAM's crew job is NOT judged by kills - it is judged by whenever they managed to protect the object.
There is no magic in these figures, 9,928 SAMs launched - they hit a 190 planes, plain and simple.

Cant see how you deduct that from the presented numbers - only 190 aircrafts was hit by SAM's? What had brought down another 2000 then?

And again, even IF these numbers would be true - it still dont tell as ANYTHING about SAM's effectivity. For examle, SAM's could force USA bombers/SEAD aircrafts to fly low-level avoiding SAM's fire - but in the same time suffering heavy loses to AAA fire due to that. In that case looking at kill ratio you may conclude what SAM's became less effective against aviation - while in fact they become MORE effective by denying the high-alt flights to enemy and completely fullfilling they objective.

[Izzy1]

This is rather unlikely as USA couldnt sustain "Linebacker" losses for any prolonged time. The peace was signed due to varios reasons, and Linebacker was surery not the most important.

Are you saying the plan for Linebacker III never came into play?
Quote:
The 1972 Eastertide Offensive was stopped in its tracks by a massive US bombing effort. North Vietnam's demand for an effective and elaborate air defence system underlines the effect US bombing had in the Vietnam War.

There was a lot of stationary infrastructure targets in NV what USA was repeadly tryed to destroy for years with bombers but failed - losinig also many planes trying. If that dont hint you about how USA bombers avoided SAM's fire - then i dont know what is.

Thats said, USA bombing camapaignt surery had a LOT of effect on NV, and was devastating. After all, USA didnt lost 2000 planes for nothing, no?
But here we are speaking about the SAM's effectivity. I gave you facts which proves what SAM's was very effective. In fact, given they numbers and resources spend SAM's was certainly more effective than aviation what you could get with similar resources.


Quote:
And if the mass-USAF tactic was dropping short to avoid SAMs, then why did the PAVN fire them?

Becouse contrary to your believe, the first and upmost important SAM's job is to PROTECT, and NOT to kill. Kill is only a nice addidition but SAM's crew job is NOT judged by kills - it is judged by whenever they managed to protect the object.
Quote:
There is no magic in these figures, 9,928 SAMs launched - they hit a 190 planes, plain and simple.

Cant see how you deduct that from the presented numbers - only 190 aircrafts was hit by SAM's? What had brought down another 2000 then?

And again, even IF these numbers would be true - it still dont tell as ANYTHING about SAM's effectivity. For examle, SAM's could force USA bombers/SEAD aircrafts to fly low-level avoiding SAM's fire - but in the same time suffering heavy loses to AAA fire due to that. In that case looking at kill ratio you may conclude what SAM's became less effective against aviation - while in fact they become MORE effective by denying the high-alt flights to enemy and completely fullfilling they objective.



Chrom - does any of that change the fire to hit ratios? Honestly?

[Izzy1]

This is rather unlikely as USA couldnt sustain "Linebacker" losses for any prolonged time. The peace was signed due to varios reasons, and Linebacker was surery not the most important.

Chrom, come on. Even Kissinger attributes 'Linebacker' with that.

After all, USA didnt lost 2000 planes for nothing, no?


When? What type? And what one single year?


Getting back to the point of this thread before your your pointless hijacking.

The Vietnamese have a bit to go.

[Marsh]

Chrom is correct in that you would also fire SAM's in an effort to achieve soft / mission kills (is there a technical term for that?) despite low PoK as long as you had sufficient munitions. On the other hand, I find those figures fairly credible in general terms as it was my understanding that flak was responsible for most aircraft losses to enemy action over Vietnam - somwhere in the region of 80-90%?

Interesting mental comparison between the SA-2 effectiveness in rounds per kill and figures available for flak guns. General lesson is you 'need' a lot of misses per hit :)

Izzy, do the 500-odd losses to 'malfuntions' count general accidents or just aircraft lost over enemy territory on mission?

[Chrom]

Chrom - does any of that change the fire to hit ratios? Honestly?

No. But fire-to-hit ratio have very little to do with SAM effectivity as i showed. Besides, i'm still not convinced what said ratio dropped that much- the presented numbers are very incomplete.

The relative Linebacker success is mostly attributed to 2 factors:

1. New weapon used - precision strike bombs for the first time.
2. Greatly reduced USSR support.

We can say what in Linebacker USA bomber aviation became generation ahead of NV SAM's (old SA-2 vs . EO/laser-guided bombs).

[Chrom]

Chrom, come on. Even Kissinger attributes 'Linebacker' with that.



When? What type? And what one single year?


Getting back to the point of this thread before your your pointless hijacking.

The Vietnamese have a bit to go.

2000 planes for whole NV war. 10.000 missiles for whole NV war. Even if only 20% USA planes was shot down with SA-2, the average hit ration is still close to 5% . Draw your conclusion.

P.S. Moreover, WHAT forced USA aviation in the heat of flak guns fire? Think about it...

[Marsh]

P.S. Moreover, WHAT forced USA aviation in the heat of flak guns fire? Think about it...


I'm not sure you can claim as a general rule that the presence of SA-2s forced aircraft in to the lethal zone of flak, though it is perfectly possible that some were downed by flak while dodging SAMs.

[Grand Danois]

Being a bit lazy here, so I had a look at what Wiki had to say. There are so much detail that would have to be disseminated to reach a proper conclusion, but some input:

United States Air Force

All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft, 1,737 because of hostile action and 514 for operational reasons. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]

and

United States Navy

Twenty-one aircraft carriers conducted 86 war cruises and operated 9,178 total days on the line in the Gulf of Tonkin. 530 aircraft were lost in combat and 329 more in operational accidents, causing the deaths of 377 naval aviators, with 64 others reported missing and 179 taken prisoner-of-war.

an excerpt of detail

* B-52 Stratofortress-- --31 total, 17 in combat

-First losses non-combat mid-air collision 2 B-52F 57-0047 and 57-0179 (441st Bomb Squadron, 320th Bomb Wing), June 18, 1965, South China Sea during air refueling orbit, 8 of 12 crew killed
-Final loss B-52D 55-0056 (307th Bomb Wing Provisional) to SAM January 4, 1973, crew rescued from Gulf of Tonkin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

I'd say that if this discourse should continue, I'd like to siphon off the Causes of US Aircraft Losses over Vietnam posts and make a new thread of them. I presume you'd want that too or huh?

[swerve]

...I'd say that if this discourse should continue, I'd like to siphon off the Causes of US Aircraft Losses over Vietnam posts and make a new thread of them. I presume you'd want that too or huh?

Fair enough.

I tried looking up the air combat losses a few years ago, & as I recall I found:
1) According to N. Vietnamese admitted losses, the US claims of N. Vietnamese losses were remarkably accurate. Far better than for any previous war, e.g. Korea. There were some claims which did not match a loss, but also some losses the Vietnamese attributed to US aircraft which weren't in the US list.

2) Several researchers have gone through the N. Vietnamese claims & compare them to US losses. Almost all US losses attributed by the US to fighters have been matched to a N. Vietnamese air-air claim, as have some put down by the USA as due to other causes (flak or SAMs) or unknown. N. Vietnamese claiming seems to have been far more accurate than Soviet/Chinese over Korea, but significantly less so than the US over Vietnam.

[merocaine]

I can't remember where I read this but during US and brit bombing campains over Germany a loss ratio above 4% per sortie was unsustainable. I think it floated around 3% for most of the war.
In that context 0.2 is very low.

[nero]

Chrom, come on. Even Kissinger attributes 'Linebacker' with that.



When? What type? And what one single year?


Getting back to the point of this thread before your your pointless hijacking.

The Vietnamese have a bit to go.


we r talking about the modern vietnamese military here & not the old conflict.

can anybody please tell me what kind of modern air-defence the present vietnamese regime has ???

SA-21-Growler ?? or is it the the old s-300s ??

kindly update if possible .

regards

also it would be nice if u can inform me about the tactical weapons that the elite vietnamese commamdoes use.

cheers .


.

Mod edit: Posts moved to new thread.

[T-95]

we r talking about the modern vietnamese military here & not the old conflict.

can anybody please tell me what kind of modern air-defence the present vietnamese regime has ???

SA-21-Growler ?? or is it the the old s-300s ??

kindly update if possible .

regards

also it would be nice if u can inform me about the tactical weapons that the elite vietnamese commamdoes use.

cheers .


.

Mod edit: Posts moved to new thread.

Modern Vietnamese's AD systems include the S-300. The S-400 was only exported to China.

[XaNDeR]

Very nice info , tnx

[Chrom]

Modern Vietnamese's AD systems include the S-300. The S-400 was only exported to China.
S-400 EXPORTED??? Lol. S-400 is not exported anywhere, and will be not for several years at least.

[qwerty223]

Is hard to give a correct defination, at least, American did not declare lost to the veitnames

[Chrom]

Is hard to give a correct defination, at least, American did not declare lost to the veitnames
Of course they didnt. Only undeniable loss for USA would be NV tanks in Washington, that couldnt happen no matter what anyway. There is also no question what USA could steamroll NV if they would declare full scale war and allocate ALL resources. Simply becouse USA is much, much bigger. But USA failed to achieve claimed objectives, completely failed. In most definitions it is consdered lost war.

[swerve]

Is hard to give a correct defination, at least, American did not declare lost to the veitnames

US aircraft losses in Vietnam are very accurately recorded, & details are publicly available. The only areas of uncertainty are the exact causes, & in some cases locations, of losses.

[qlvnch]

Here are U.S's losses. Btw, N Vietnam fired a total of 5885 SAMs, this number from the Vietnamese sources, not from some Westerners. As for the number of aircrafts losses by N Vietnam, I have no figures of this but the total number of combat aircrafts that N Vietnam had for the entire war numbered no more than 200.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/qlvnch/ThongkethiethaimaybayMy.jpg

North Vietnamese MiGs remained a threat to USAF operations
throughout the entire air campaign against North Vietnam. In addition
to damaging and shooting down literally hundreds of USAF fighters, they
forced thousands of strike aircraft to jettison their bombs in order to
maneuver to survive MiG attacks, and forced strike formations to adopt
tactics, formations and other measures that dramatically reduced the
effectiveness of USAF operations. See Marshall L. Michel III, Clashes:
Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972, Naval Institute Press,
Annapolis MD, 1997 for a detailed analysis of the impact of MiG attacks
on USAF strike packages during the Vietnam War

[Lancer1978]

:nutkick With all do respect, according to the North Vietnamese and the Russian's the actual number of US airccaft shot down over Vietnam, was 4,181. In most cases backed up weckage. This does not count helicopters! Also its worth note that both the Russians and Vietnamese state the excellance of Vietnamese People's Army Air Force; and that Migs downed aircraft then SAMs. For example the VPAAF claims that Mig-21's downed 320 US aircraft; including 110 F-4 for the admitted loss of 54 Mig-21s. At least 13 airmen became aces flying Fishbeds. Thats a 6 to 1 kill ratio in favor Mig-21 overall, and a 2 to 1 ratio against the best America fighter at that time. Great job VPAAF! viva la Vietnam.

[swerve]

:nutkick With all do respect, according to the North Vietnamese and the Russian's the actual number of US airccaft shot down over Vietnam, was 4,181. In most cases backed up weckage. This does not count helicopters! Also its worth note that both the Russians and Vietnamese state the excellance of Vietnamese People's Army Air Force; and that Migs downed aircraft then SAMs. For example the VPAAF claims that Mig-21's downed 320 US aircraft; including 110 F-4 for the admitted loss of 54 Mig-21s. At least 13 airmen became aces flying Fishbeds. Thats a 6 to 1 kill ratio in favor Mig-21 overall, and a 2 to 1 ratio against the best America fighter at that time. Great job VPAAF! viva la Vietnam.

Interesting that you assume the N. Vietnamese published figures are accurate, & that the Americans lied about their own losses. Care to explain why?

[KGB]

The way an air force confirms/verifies kills varies among countries. I recall for example that the Luftwaffe's kill verification wasn't as quite stringent as the allies, so their pilots were credited with kills that might have been "probable" for the allies. Not that it matters, Hartman, Marseille, and the rest probably would have been legendary whatever the method of crediting kills.

[Izzy1]

Not that it matters, Hartman, Marseille, and the rest probably would have been legendary whatever the method of crediting kills.

Rubbish.

[Waylander]

Why?

Most of the high scores by German pilots are hard to achieve for allied pilots.
Not because they were better but when one starts to fly fighters at the beginning of WWII and go on flying till it ends or till you die you just have a lot more opportunities to make kills than the usual allied pilot.

[merocaine]

Rubbish.

why do you say that? Seems a fair enough comment.

[swerve]

The way an air force confirms/verifies kills varies among countries. I recall for example that the Luftwaffe's kill verification wasn't as quite stringent as the allies, so their pilots were credited with kills that might have been "probable" for the allies. Not that it matters, Hartman, Marseille, and the rest probably would have been legendary whatever the method of crediting kills.

The Allies had different kill verification systems, & their application varied from time to time & place to place. British & American got better as the war went on, German got worse, but remained better than Soviet, IIRC. I remember an interesting point someone once made: claims tend to be more accurate when an air force is winning than when it's losing. This can be seen in WW2 in both Europe & the Pacific, & on both sides.

RAF kill verification in the BoB was terrible. The RAF made no attempt to cross-check claims against the Ministry of Aircraft Production data on recovered German wrecks, for example. The USAAF was even worse when it first started operating over Europe. Partly this was political: high claims were good for morale, & trying too hard to verify them was not encouraged.

The best kill checking I know of was the USA over Vietnam.

[gf0012-aust]

The best kill checking I know of was the USA over Vietnam.

The Nth Vietnamese also used to count Firebees in their aircraft kills. :rolleyes:

[swerve]

The Nth Vietnamese also used to count Firebees in their aircraft kills. :rolleyes:

The Serbs included UAVs (most of what they shot down . . . ) in their claims of aircraft shot down in the Kosovo affair.

[Lancer1978]

[The best kill checking I know of was the USA over Vietnam.


Swerve I have disagree with you on this; during the Vietnam war the United States claims to have shoot down 193 VPAAF aircaft. The North Vietnamese only admit losimg 134 and at least several of them were downed by friendly fire. So that works out to about 70% accuracy, not very good.

Some in exceptional cases of accuracy that I can think are the Finnish AF in WW2 and the Polish AF during the 1939 campaign. In both cases their respective adersaries the Red AF and Luftwaffe admit losing slightly more planes to enemy aircaft then they claimed. Thats over 100% accurate!

[Lancer1978]

Interesting that you assume the N. Vietnamese published figures are accurate, & that the Americans lied about their own losses. Care to explain why?

I ask you why do assume that they are not accurate? Are Americans inherently more honest then Vietnamese or Russians? I don't think so. There are always two sides to a story. Often people forget that and I thought someone should mention the other prospective. I have studied the Vietnamese People's Army Air Force;and in my opinion, as well the Russians and the Americans the VPAAF is a well trained, professional AF. So why would I write off their claims. Like most air arms VPAAF pliots needed to meet at least 2 of 3 criteria; produce gun camra footage, eyes witness or weakage to get a confirmed kill. These were meretriciously scrutinized, for historic record and propaganda; as well providing empirical proof of effective defense to their Soviet and Chinese advisers.

Also while I have utmost respect for the American fighting men and women, do I trust the US governments word? "NO" The US gov. lied and did plenty of underhanded things during Vietnam War era, for example the fabricated attacks by torpedo boats in the gulf of Tonkin, or the CIA backed coup and assination of South Vietnam's Presdent Diem. Would I put lying about Aircraft losses and/or their causes above them? NO

Thank You

[swerve]

[The best kill checking I know of was the USA over Vietnam.


Swerve I have disagree with you on this; during the Vietnam war the United States claims to have shoot down 193 VPAAF aircaft. The North Vietnamese only admit losimg 134 and at least several of them were downed by friendly fire. So that works out to about 70% accuracy, not very good.

Much better than most, even if not quite as good as the other examples you cited.

[swerve]

I ask you why do assume that they are not accurate? Are Americans inherently more honest then Vietnamese or Russians? I don't think so. There are always two sides to a story. Often people forget that and I thought someone should mention the other prospective. I have studied the Vietnamese People's Army Air Force;and in my opinion, as well the Russians and the Americans the VPAAF is a well trained, professional AF. So why would I write off their claims. Like most air arms VPAAF pliots needed to meet at least 2 of 3 criteria; produce gun camra footage, eyes witness or weakage to get a confirmed kill. These were meretriciously scrutinized, for historic record and propaganda; as well providing empirical proof of effective defense to their Soviet and Chinese advisers.

Also while I have utmost respect for the American fighting men and women, do I trust the US governments word? "NO" The US gov. lied and did plenty of underhanded things during Vietnam War era, for example the fabricated attacks by torpedo boats in the gulf of Tonkin, or the CIA backed coup and assination of South Vietnam's Presdent Diem. Would I put lying about Aircraft losses and/or their causes above them? NO

Thank You

I'm not assuming greater honesty on one side or the other, though you seem to. If we assume equal honesty, we must assume US statistics on own losses to be more accurate than N. Vietnamese claims. They know what they lost. Sometimes, they did not know the cause, & they may have a loss attributed to ground fire, or unknown, which was actually in air-air combat. Cross-checking N. Vietnamese & US records has identified the causes of many US losses, but also shows that many claims do not correspond to a loss, & that multiple claims sometimes correspond to a single loss.

One need not assume N. Vietnamese dishonesty for this to be so. It is notoriously difficult to work out exactly what happened after an air combat. Things happen fast. In one case written up (IIRC) by Toperczer, an F-8 was last seen by the N. Vietnamese trailing smoke & going down over the DMZ. It was perfectly reasonable to assume it was shot down. It actually landed, damaged but still (just) flyable, at an airfield in S. Vietnam, & was repaired & returned to service, by which time the pilot (uninjured) had been back in action for weeks. AFAIK, that's still logged as a kill for the VPAAF pilot.

As for the accuracy of US statistics: the USA was not, in the 1960s, a society in which it was possible to conceal the losses of aircrew, & there is no evidence of falsification of USAF & USN records of aircraft losses, which are far more open than those of N. Vietnam.

[Lancer1978]

I'm not assuming greater honesty on one side or the other, though you seem to. If we assume equal honesty, we must assume US statistics on own losses to be more accurate than N. Vietnamese claims. They know what they lost. Sometimes, they did not know the cause, & they may have a loss attributed to ground fire, or unknown, which was actually in air-air combat. Cross-checking N. Vietnamese & US records has identified the causes of many US losses, but also shows that many claims do not correspond to a loss, & that multiple claims sometimes correspond to a single loss.

One need not assume N. Vietnamese dishonesty for this to be so. It is notoriously difficult to work out exactly what happened after an air combat. Things happen fast. In one case written up (IIRC) by Toperczer, an F-8 was last seen by the N. Vietnamese trailing smoke & going down over the DMZ. It was perfectly reasonable to assume it was shot down. It actually landed, damaged but still (just) flyable, at an airfield in S. Vietnam, & was repaired & returned to service, by which time the pilot (uninjured) had been back in action for weeks. AFAIK, that's still logged as a kill for the VPAAF pilot.

As for the accuracy of US statistics: the USA was not, in the 1960s, a society in which it was possible to conceal the losses of aircrew, & there is no evidence of falsification of USAF & USN records of aircraft losses, which are far more open than those of N. Vietnam.

Ok, if we assume equal honesty on both sides;then the Vietnamese still come out better. The United States claims to have downed 193 Vietnamese aricraft; yet the Vietnamese admit losing 134. Thats an accuracy of about 70% for the US. For their part the Vietnamese claim to have downed 4,181 US aircraft; while the US admits to losing 3,720. That eqauls an accuracy of 89% pretty good by any standard. These numbers seem back up a an excellant statment made by you on a previous post; "that the losing side tends to be less accurate, then the winning side."

I assume that you are referring to a comfirmed kill on April 3rd, 1965 credited to a Mig-17F flown by Pham Ngoc Lan against an F-8E Crusader flown by Lt. Cdr. Spencer Thomas. The F-8E although badly shot up by the Mig; did infact make an emergancy landing at Da Nang. However it still met the VPAAF criteria for a comfirmed kill; the gun camra cleary showed the Mig scoring hits on the F-8 and there were witness both in the air and on the ground. So it was reasonable assume to the F-8 was downed, and the kill was confirmed in good faith.

As for US the being a society that could conceal aircraft losses I disagree with you on this. If I were to list all of the things that the US gov. lied about, concealed, and distorted during the 60's anf 70's it could fill another site! So their record speaks against them in my opinion. They have motivation to distort their losses; the Vietnam war is sore spot, which scares the American psyche and the war was extremly unpopular at home. So while I dont know for a fact that the US gov. intentionaly lied about or disturted aircraft losses. I am saying given its track record and motivation, that it is possible and perhaps even likey!

Thank you:cool:

[Todjaeger]

I assume that you are refiring to a comfirmed kill on April 3rd, 1965 credited to a Mig-17F flown by Pham Ngoc Lan against an F-8E Crusader flown by Lt. Cdr. Spencer Thomas. The F-8E although badly dameged up by the Mig; did infact make an emergancy landing at Da Nang. However it still met the VPAAF criteria for a comfirmed kill; the gun camra cleary showed the Mig scoring hits on the F-8 and there were witness both in the air and on the ground. So it was reasonable assume to the F-8 was downed, and the kill was confirmed in good faith.


This instance illustrates an important point to keep in mind during any discussion of aircraft kills or losses between countries and conflicts. That point is namely what is considered a kill or loss, if different sides and/or in different conflicts different standards are used, that can makes statements, claims or assumptions misleading. Similarly, judging the accuracy of kill/loss claims by comparing the numbers from the opposing side(s) does not give a true picture since without honest and accurate record keeping on both sides, great dissimilarities from the absolute and correct numbers will appear. If as mentioned, differing standards for kills/losses are used, then any depiction of accuracy will be further divergent from reality.

In the case of the Vietnam War, it is quite possible that on the US side there was some inflation of kill claims achieved, much like the body count claims sometimes being based off the number of rounds fired as opposed to bodies recovered. By the same token and for similar reasons of propaganda, it is quite possible that North Vietnam overstated how many kills were achieved by their air defence apparatus.

If the standards used to define a claim were to be examined and found comparable and then comparisons and contrasts were made to each claim made by either side as well as any before and after aircraft inventories, then perhaps something close to the correct number of losses would emerge.

-Cheers

[swerve]

...

As for US the being a society that could conceal aircraft losses I disagree with you on this. ...

Thank you:cool:

What I actually said was that the USA could not conceal aircrew losses. The most that could be done was to conceal the causes of deaths, & systematic falsification of the causes of death of aircrew would have shown up very quickly. There are people who trawl through local newspapers looking for death notices, y'know.

I think short-term concealment of aircraft losses would have been possible, but not long-term, not in large numbers. Too many people involved. Too many thousand mouths to keep shut. Too much public disclosure of the inventory of combat aircraft, so discrepancies would have shown up.

The sort of concealment you talk of is possible when everyone involved is committed to it in advance. It is not possible (at least, not in any Western country) for an enterprise involving tens of thousands of people at any one time, several hundred thousand cumulatively, who are committed only to operational security, not long-term falsification of history. People who were there peruse the published lists of US losses & add their comments & corrections in public fora, & have done so for over 30 years. Do you really think that systematic concealment would not have been uncovered?

[M21]

For zyzy1

US pilot is good, but North vietnamese has nothing to lose. be fair, If you are South vietnamese, you got defeated by north army i think nothing to be ashame. your country now is united as one. here in this forum just about history. Don't be mad and said Rubbish,history is history. My country give to north vietnam only 7156 SAM 1-2 missiles for total whole war...North vietnamese used to shoot down american 4160 airplanes...and other 4 thousand hellicopters they shoot down by ..guns, RPG,igla portable missiles...all statistic you can go to US university to get it (ARVN in the war heavy depend on US and ROK,Philline,Thai.newzland..I think like that. So yo lost the battle that is your command is not good..not by you.

[ZPU2]

To go back to the initial question, the US aircrafts had to go down for several reasons:
- threat of SAM 2 and lack of proper countermeasures.
- lack of precision guided munition warranting a kill of the target beyond 10000Ft.
- Threat of migs which could engage the fight on their terms.
- powerful doctrine enforced in US and Nato air forces about the attack at 100ft above 500Kts.

Even if the SAM 2 were not statiscally so efficient, they were a real threat and necessitated the incorporation of ECM, ECM tactics with ECM pods dictating strikers formations, and ultimately the creation of units specialised in SAM sites destructions, the Wild Weasels and Iron Hand units. And as the SAM were effective in altitude, aircrafts had to go low and fast to avoid SAM threat as US doctrine believed that SA2 was inefficient at low level. A lot of US pilots would discover this was wrong..

Presence of Migs and an excellent GCI procedure dictated also the need to go low to avoid Migs and GCI detection close to target.

The main reason was the lack of PGM enabling a kill at long range and high altitude without obliging the aircraft to keep a predictable path (as was the case with the Bullpup or the Walleye)