Air tactics during the Vietnam War

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2321
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post20 Nov 2006, 06:10

Salute!

Yeppers, Snake, I only have the one tape of Crown calling the dude a "black" bandit.

I'll play it for ya next year at the rejoin.

Way we were briefed was red, white and blue. The 17's were white, 19's red and 21's blue. That right?

The words from Crown were, "possible black bandit, xxx from Bullseye, heading xxx". Then it was "xxx from bullseye, possible landing at Gia Lam". And then we heard bearings from bullseye indicating the guy was doing an arc around ground zero. So maybe he was staying outta the SAM engagement zone. All of us talked about the term "black bandit". Never heard it again, but it could have been an inside deal for the Crown folks. Disco never used the term that day, and they were trying to get another F-4 MIGCAP to hit the bandit. Tink it was Pontiac, but will have to review the tape. The wimp called "texaco", but that was expected from Double Ugly troops, always outta gas even when waiting for takeoff.

Heh heh. One great war story we had was a SLUF that landed at Udorn after a problem. Got fixed, got gas and taxied to end of runway. Big time delay due to a strike mission and weather.

Tower asks the SLUF what his "abort time" was.

SLUF driver scratches head, then asks, "What the hell is abort time?".

Tower, "How much time before you have to taxi back and get more gas".

SLUF driver looks at gas. Maybe 13,000 or more pounds. Maybe 1500 pounds to get to Korat from Udorn, plus 1000 pounds reserve. Burning about 500 pounds per hour sitting there and 1500 pounds per hour cruising 30 minutes to get home. So let's see........ His math wasn't so good, so he told the tower, "another 7 or 8 hours".

later,

Gums sends
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

HunterKiller

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2006, 10:01

Unread post21 Nov 2006, 14:21

On this previous analysis about MiG-21

Better read this if you can russian (MiG-21 two seater pilot manual)

http://www.maxho.com/lj/mig21um.pdf
Offline

HunterKiller

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2006, 10:01

Unread post21 Nov 2006, 14:26

RoAF wrote:Snake, I've got a couple of questions for you regarding VPAF:
2. What was the weaponry used by the MiG-19s? 2x 30mm guns only (MiG-19P) or did they also have the version with 4 AA-1 Alkali (MiG-19PM) and no cannons. There was also a wild rumor about adapting Atolls to MiG-19.
You must have had some kind of intelligence briefings about the enemy's equipment, maybe you can answer this.
Thank you.


RoaF, NVAF had also Chinese supplied F-6's alongside with MiG-19s. F-6 is Chinese built MiG-19, which has both two 30 mike-mike and Alkali's and this jurassic radar set.
Offline

Snake-1

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 286
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:05

Unread post21 Nov 2006, 16:34

Hunter-Killer

How about translating it and post the pertinent parts here??

Snake
Offline

Snake-1

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 286
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:05

Unread post27 Nov 2006, 00:33

Guys!!

Just watched number 4 in the the "Dogfight" series and it kind of hammered home most of the things I was saying to Hunter Killer. Number 1 was Randy Cunningham against 19's -- don't get into a turning fight. Number 2, was P-40 against Zeros-- don't get into a turning fight. Number 3 Robin Olds and "Bolo" -- don't get into a turning fight. And Number 4 the Wildcats against Zeros and Oscars -- Don't get into a turning fight. Always lacking in something our birds still came out the winners -- that's got to say something about the training and the guys in the seat.

Number 5 is next friday (12/1 on the History Channel) and again addresses the F-4 over Hanoi going against 21's.

Anyone want to guess at what rule one will be??????

Snake
Offline

Weasel_Keeper

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2006, 21:18

Unread post29 Nov 2006, 23:33

"FYI--The dogfights show covering the Thorsness MoH mission will air on Fri, 5 Jan, on the History Channel at 2100. Its a two-hour episode (which also covers a WWII engagement), so his segment might not be on until the second half of the show."

This comes via email to the Society of Wild Weasels from Jeff Duford, USAF Museum Curator (and honorary Weasel) who's advising quite a few of the "Dogfights" shows.
Cave Putorium!
SoWW #2485
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post28 Dec 2006, 12:19

I've just come across this picture (or still) on the net, no explanations attached, just that it's from Vietnam. Could someone explain what's in the image?
Looks to me like a SAM just missing that F-105...
Attachments
thunderchief-008b.jpg
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 4004
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post29 Dec 2006, 01:11

Looks like he may have actually been damaged by that SAM exploding. It appears as if he's streaming fuel and is on fire. That flame looks too big to be an afterburner. It would be interesting to hear from Gums and Snake on this, as they would have better insight.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2321
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post02 Jan 2007, 22:58

Salute!

The jet was hit by a SA-2. Classic explosion from one of those, and I have personally seen one go off right in front of me (targeted at flight about a mile in front).

Can't figure out who took the pic, as the angles don't look right for a Thud or Double Ugly. Could have been a Navy jet, but beatsthehellouttame.

out,
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 4004
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post03 Jan 2007, 05:10

Gums, it looks like he punched off those two bombs with the MER. They don't seem to be attached to anything else, and they are behind the contrail. Not sure what that plane could have been...Skyhawk, or Intruder perhaps?
Offline

Snake-1

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 286
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:05

Unread post05 Jan 2007, 22:16

Guys

IMHO!!!!

I don't think the MER was jettisoned as it appears (if you look real hard) to be attached to a pylon at the edge of the picture.

Also I don't think that what you are seeing is a contrail from the photo taking bird but instead a vapor trail that you sometines get from high G loading. Besides that when you jettisoned something from the birds of that time it would rapidly tumble away and not retain the same flight path of the aircraft.

snake
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 4004
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post06 Jan 2007, 19:55

Ah, gotcha Snake. At first, I wasn't sure if that was a pylon, or a shockwave. Now, I see that it's actually both. Looks like he's breaking right. But I agree with Gums on this one. The angles make it hard to tell what type aircraft it is. Could it possibly a Thud with an external camera taking the shot?
Offline

Snake-1

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 286
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:05

Unread post06 Jan 2007, 20:35

TC

You got me by the short and curlies!!!

I can't think of any bird of that era where you could crank around far enough in the cockpit to see that MER. Again maybe its a Navy Bird.

Additionally, I don't think its a pod photo as those are usually mounted to track ordnance deilvery.

If it was hand held and if the bird were loaded up to create those con's imagine the G loading on the pilot and stead hand he had to take that shot. His neck must have been as thick as a telephone post.

Snake
Offline

MKopack

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 860
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2004, 22:51
  • Location: North Carolina, USA

Unread post11 Jan 2007, 13:41

I can't say for sure, but according to: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/republic_f105.htm
Several F-105Ds were provided with a combat camera mounted in a protrusion on the lower nose just behind the radome.


I think I recall seeing this camera 'addition' as an angular box under the nose and I believe that it had the capability (at least from the windows) for taking a photo to the rear, straight down the centerline of the aircraft, making the MER in the photo possibily carried on the centerline station.

Wait, here's more (a lot more, sorry...): http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1975/jul-aug/appel.html
A new concept for measuring accuracy in combat came as a side product of the introduction of a new camera to the Vietnamese war theater. This was the Fairchild KA-71A and its follow-on model, the KB-18, a panoramic strike camera of high resolution designed to be carried aboard fighter-bomber type aircraft. The first cameras delivered to Southeast Asia were mounted in the nose of the F-l05, not for the purpose of measuring accuracy but to document what the pilot did; that is, what target he attacked and what damage ensued. The primary objective in using the camera was expressed in Air Force Regulation 95-13 as being the immediate evaluation of strike effectiveness. Such was the need for documentation that Lieutenant General William W. Momyer said, in July 1967, that we wanted a strike camera on every strike aircraft. Plans were therefore made to fit F-l05s, F-4s, F-l00s, and A-37s with the camera.

This camera, either housed in the body of the aircraft or carried in an external pod, was activated by the aircraft’s weapons release button and ran automatically for a preset length of time between 2 and 32 seconds. The lens aperture was controlled by an automatic internal light meter, and one, two, or four still pictures could be taken each second. With 250 feet of film, the capacity of the camera, approximately 300 exposures could be made. Designed for use in fighter or reconnaissance aircraft, the camera, with a rotating prism in front of the lens, was able to record, in one nine-inch frame, a scene encompassing 180 degrees vertically, fore and aft, and 40 degrees laterally. Such a side view of field generally recorded the complete flight path of the weapons from release to impact, no matter what aircraft maneuvers were performed after weapons release. Resolution of the resultant pictures was high and allowed precise location of weapon impact points.

Initial viewing of the product of this new camera, with its excellent portrayal of the battle scene, gave rise to the idea of measuring accuracy. To this end, a test program was started at the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing, Korat Royal Thai Air Base, in August 1967 to evaluate the F 105 on combat missions. The method of measurement developed was relatively simple. At the end of each daylight mission, the pilot of every strike aircraft was individually shown an intelligence prestrike photo of the target area and asked to indicate exactly where it was he was trying to center his bombfall. Such indication of the DMPI was made with an “X” mark. While this debriefing was going on, the film, which had been downloaded as soon as the aircraft landed, was being developed, an approximately 20-minute process. With prompt handling, the film was available for viewing at the completion of the pilot debriefing process. By careful analysis of the sequence of still photos, the weapons could actually be followed after their release from the aircraft to impact on the ground. Then by use of readily identifiable ground landmarks, bomb impact points were plotted on the original prestrike photo on which the pilot had indicated his target.


Mike
F-16A/B/C/D P&W/GE Crew Chief and Phased Maint.
56TTW/63TFTS 1987-1989
401TFW/614TFS 1989-1991
Offline

Snake-1

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 286
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:05

Unread post11 Jan 2007, 15:59

Mike

Read your offering with interest and maybe the Thud did carry such a camera from time to time (Busch has some experience here and maybe could add something to this). We also, from time to time, carried such a pod on the Hun and the double ugly but it wasn't an everyday thing and more of a PR gimmick then a strike evaluation de brief item. Maybe-- and this is a big maybe --- they put them on the A-37 but I never carried any. GUMS ?????

THe problem with on board camera's --- no matter which way they were pointed was they weren't worth a damn under high G loading conditions. The motors just weren't strong enough to pull the film through the cameras.
And you will notice on the rearward pictures you sometimes see on the Military or History Channel the delivery was shallow and the pull off very mild in comparison to what we did up north. Once you pulled more ten 3 or 4 G's the things were usless. On the good strike pictures you see --- they are usually shot though the gun camera after the roll in on the target and going down the chute. This was accomplished by pulling the trigger to the first indent which would energize the gun camera. And if it was either 3 or 4 in the flight you could get a fair idea of what kind of coverage or bomb damage you got (if you could see through the smoke).

The same held true for the small portable audio cassette players we use to carry to record our missions. Spent alot of money trying to find one that would work right but never found the one that could do the whole job without dragging.

Snake
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests