Consider this; using the current duty aircraft (F-14,15,16,18) the F-5 Tiger and A-4 Skyhawk were, and are still used in the Aggressor Squadron(Top Gun) to simulate MiG flight characteristics because of their slippery design. YET, during the Viet-Nam war, the F-5/A-4 were used to drop bombs. What did they throw at the MiG's? A gun-less F4 Phantom. But, superior pilot training prevailed over the MiG's.
ahh, y'know, these new high-tech fighters dont have the rawness that classic fighters like the 50's or 60's have. the f105, f101, f102 f100, f104, f8, and the f4 have.
Phantom is an attack aircraft, which happens to be suitable for intercept.
I’d argue that F designation. A fighter/bomber is an “A.” F4 is too much of a locomotive, and bleeds too much energy in the horizontal to be otherwise.
@centurion180ad Id diagree the F-4 was an interceptor that could drop bombs. The F-4 was originaly designed around the AIM-7 with the goal of knocking out bombers that might threaten the fleet.
WHERETF authors found 2.5:1 kill ratio??? according to stats (as US says), it should be about 0.46:1! what a blatant lie... | USA loss: F-4 Phantom -- 445 total, 382 in combat (USAF) F-4 Phantom -- 138 total, 75 in combat (USN) | North Vietnamese loss: Claimed by US (air to air combat only): MiG-17 -- 110 MiG-19 -- 10 MiG-21 -- 90 Claimed by VPAF: 146 MiG aircraft lost through all causes, including 131 in air combat | see wikipedia:Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War
@Winexoid Kill ratio is air to air. Most F-4s were lost to surface to air missles and AAA. Close air support and any type of bombing mission breeds those kind of losses. And the F-4 flew a LOT of air to ground sorties.
@Winexoid Unfortunately, this is common in US to lie on TV. All of their media allways says, that their weapon systems are the best. Propaganda, you know.
I had the privilege of working on the F-4S with VMFA-122 at MCAS Beaufort, SC. We had pilots that could make that plane dance. We went to Top Gun in 1981 and made quite a showing. I will always have a soft spot in my heart (and head) for the F-4. Ooh-Rah!
Here are the facts: 5000+ Phantoms produced. 600+ were lost in the Vietnam War alone, many shot down by obsolete Migs flown by farmer-pilots. When it was first deployed, they were only shooting down 4 Migs for every Phantom II shot down. F-4 with it 2 man crew, and weapons cost around $5M while Mig-17 costs less than $500,000 and Mig-21 less than $2M. Hardly an effective weapons platform. It was smoky and took a lot of training (Top Gun school) to make it effective.
@AccordGTR Hardly an effective weapons platform? Israel used their Phantoms to absolutely deadly effect against Mig-17s, Mig-19s, and Mig-21s many of which were piloted by Soviet aircrew. Israel started whooping ass with their F-4s from day one. Another thing I'd like to point out is that the vast majority of the Phantoms downed in Vietnam were to AAA and SAMs. Top Gun makes better PILOTS, not better planes. You need to get your facts straight.
@discofishing did you read the book on Top Gun? The movie is propaganda fyi. If u knew better, its the pilot that flies the plane, not the plane flies itself. And its tactics that dictate whether the pilot wins or gets shot down. Obviously, IDF pilots were better trained and had better tactics than the Arabs. American tactics before 1971 was shit and got a lot of pilots killed. Whatever, NVA pilots downed about 54 Phantoms with their measly air force. I got more facts than you do.
@AccordGTR If the Phantom was such a horrible weapons platform why did the USAF, USN, and USMC fly it? Why were there several different models? If the Phantom was so horrible, it would have been retired quickly like most of the century series aircraft and types of the early 50's. But it wasn't. That's because it was a great weapons platform. The F-4 pioneered the concept of multi-role tactical aircraft. It took retraining of the pilots to realize how effective a platform the Rhino actually was.
@discofishing haha so your logic if they produce it in great numbers that means it is good. Well, what about the other statistics and facts I mentioned? A lot of US weapons are chosen more for the politics than their real effectiveness. Like the Sherman tank, M-16 and Beretta, not the best weapon of its time but they were produced in great numbers. F-4 pioneered multi-role?? P-51's and P-47 were used as both fighters and ground attack in WW2. Mosquito was fighter, bomber and reconnaissance.
@AccordGTR Dude, I'm not saying the F-4 was without faults. No weapon system is without draw backs, limitations and shortcomings. Look at the service length of the F-4, which is still on going and then compare that to the Mustang or Thud. F-4s have set the standard for subsequent aircraft such as the F-16 and F-18 and even the F-35. In fact the F-35 specifically.
@AccordGTR We are getting away from the root of the argument, which is whether or not the Phantom is or was a good weapons platform. History has shown it was. It was then and it still is now, although in more upgraded forms. No, it's not a 9G pulling, 1 to 1 thrust to weight ration having hotrod, but it got the job done. You are also forgetting the political implications of Vietnam. Aircraft engagements were purely defense in many situations so as to not upset Ivan......
@AccordGTR that's a fallacy, the rediculous rules of engagement that were imposed on American pilots during vietnam eliminated many of the advantages the Phantom had over the migs. add to that the fact that all the "experts" had decided that the age of the dogfight was over & it was not even taught, older pilots like colonal Robin Olds flew rings around the migs. If the F-4 were such a terrible weapon platform why would the German's have used them up till 2011? politics? LOL!
@kdrapertrucker Yup, politics! Don't you remember the US occupied Germany after WW2 and has military bases since? Germany and the US are part of NATO. How political can that get? The German govt didn't want training anymore in Germany cuz of so many crashes by American fighter planes so they moved their training to Holloman AFB, New Mexico 1996. After the Phantom, did Germany order any new US fighter planes after that? It chose the Eurofighter which was partly designed in Germany
@AccordGTR No, Germany designed the Tornado together with the UK and Italy first. The Phantoms are still in service, with the last being expected to go out of service in 2014 in the JG 71. The Starfighter was killed off as quick as possible because it was rubbish, as opposed to the F-4. Had the Phantom been crap as well, it would have been replaced by Tornados rapidly, too.
@TheValKBawz Well, whatever. My point is, if the Germans prefer USA tech to its own, it would have ordered more American planes like F-15 or F16 but it didn't. I think the Luftwaffe flies the F-4 because it was available at the time when it did not have its own fighter aircraft yet. Since thousands were produced by the US, it was economical for the Germans to adopt them because they were NATO allies. So I think the F-4 was more a convenient choice at the time.
@kdrapertrucker Actually the ROE in Vietnam was there to protect Americans from getting shot down by other Americans because it would likely be an American plane than the enemy. Vietnam only had a few dozen planes operational while US had thousands. Also LBJ wanted to gradually pressure the NV to the bargaining table, hence the ROE. Fact is, the Phantom II was not particularly Phantom-like cuz it was big, smoky, noisy while the Migs were small, agile and did not emit smoke.
I was very fortunate to get a summer job at McDonnell Aircraft in 1973 when the last of these were in production. Even though they were obsolete at the time, they still had an intimidating look and I greatly enjoyed seeing them built.
does any of you read Rolling Thunder by Mark Berent? looking for this novel to read. He made a 5 part series. Rolling Thunder, Steel Tiger, Phantom Leader, Eagle Station, and Storm Flight. Supposed to be a great novel and really looks into how the vietnam conflict was organized...Only read Steel Tiger
but i fear that "dogfights" are just propaganda..for example B bobmers was shot down on vietnam a lot. Mirage 2000 is shitty plane, is 2 mach plane for hit and run tactics...dogfighting against skilled mig-23, harrier, or4th generations planes is suicide
@dergrossen The British Phantom had a pair of RR Spey engines instead of J79s, so they had higher specific excess energy but lower maximum speed. But top speed isn't the most important thing in shorter range combat, so for dogfighting the RAF/RN had a distinct advantage.
@michaelhviper Depends. The Navy had the F3H Demon and F-8 Crusader before the F-4. The Air Force, the F-100 and F-104. Direct line predecessor would be the Demon.
The F4 was never originally designed for ACM, it didn't even have a gun originally. The 1st generation AIM 7s and AIM9s were notoriously unreliable in the tropical climate of Vietnam. But in the hands of a good pilot, the F4 could dogfight. It could do a tighter high-speed turn than a Mig 17 because the Mig lacked hydraulically assisted controls and a g-suit for the pilot. Col. Olds' acid comments about the mentality of the Pentagon brass at that time were on target.
The real triumph for this aircraft was against the Russian piloted syrian Migs where the IADF force did not lose a single fighter to a generation newer fighter.
@RingSight91 Waht part of AMERICA?, ARGENTINA? i know AMERICA is a full continent Like EUROPE and this first one is not divided like north or south, i least in europe show us AMERICA is a one CONTINENT. BUT IF YOU MEAN UNITED STATES OF (I SAY OF) AMERICA is an other thing.
@RingSight91 And United States make a good plane like this, a least i like it and it have a nice desing. So Unites States proof to the world to make a nice brick's whit big engines. XD!!!!
@iambrockmartin. The f-4 was replaced by the F-15 eagle for the air force and the f-14 tomcat for the US Navy. Both of which are far more capable fighters. However the last varient of the phantom served with the Air Force all the way up to the mid nineties as a SAM site killer.
@TheRalphus666 Ya they were SAM hunters. Their tactics were insanely bold. They'd skirt any available terrain, purposely get lit up, then pop up over a hill or mountain and strike with HARM weapon systems.
@TheRalphus666 You've got your SAMs confused. The SA-7 (Grail or Strela 2) didn't need "sites", they're man-portable, shoulder-fired, IR-homing missiles. The Radar-guided types were the SA-2,3,4,5,6,8, after which later series it would be suicide to interdict using the F-4G Wild Weasel II. When the SA-10 came out it became clear you'd need stealth or else.
@iambrockmartin It was simply outclassed by the new 4th generation weapons platforms coming online. She was a beautiful warbird nonetheless and served her warriors well.
There is only so much modification and updating you can do before an airframe and it's modification envelop is exhausted. Plus there's the ever present defense/offense in any arms race. Pretty interesting stuff to educate oneself about. Check out the battleship arms races of the early and mid 20th century.
@iambrockmartin What kind of question is that? Why 80s cars are better than 60s? Because it get what we say "morally old". However, with deep modernization of every part of it except fuselage, it can get good BVR abilities comparable with 4th gen fighters like F-15.
Israel did that. F-4 2000 served in IAF for many years and was taken out of service just several years ago. But in dogfights F-4 is far more inferior to any 4th gen. fighter.
Ребята, он же деревянный, Фантом ваш... Чем вы хвастаетесь? Тем что проиграли войну в голодной и выжженной стране? Уроды. Честное слово - мне бы волю дать, закидал бы РС20 вас :)
I love the look of the Phantom. I wish to see one but I believe that won't happen because Phantom production ended in 1979 and were taken out of service in 1996. Anybody know of a museum that has an Phantom on display?
PS: To the guys out there my age, 15 and younger, shut up please. Playing a video game doesn't make you a good pilot or an expert on planes. If you really want to know about the F-4, talk to people who actually flew them or who were mechanics in the war. Show some respect.
@JRS3013 The F4 Phantom is one of the most beautiful planes of all times, i had the pleasure of seeing two Phantoms in the Air Museum of Madrid, Spain, there are a F4C and a RF4...Beautiful planes
@JRS3013 I don't know where you live, but they have a beautiful green and brown camouflage F-4 Phantom ll at the Museum Of The United States Air Force at Dayton Ohio, USA! It was flown by a Vietnam Ace! It's in the Cold War Building! I was also in the USAF, and a F-4 Phantom landed at our base for a day! I went out on the flightline to look it over, and I was astounded by how huge this plane was! I got to see it take off, and it went straight up like a rocket in afterburner with roar, GONE!!!
@JRS3013 Ah, a smart kid! Don't see many of those these days. I'm not that much older than you, but I also figured out a long time ago that in general, adults knew better than I did, even if I didn't always understand why. Not that I ALWAYS listened...but I think I generally knew unconciously that I was being dumb when I didn't! Now I wish I had listened better...things would have worked out a lot smoother. =/
just find " Vietnamese Famous Pilots" then you will see how many fighter in USAF be killed by them. All together 320 American aircrafts were shooted down.
@gunlock4k40 320 USAF aircraft shot down? I thought it was a lot more than that! Or is that just the number that were shot down by Vietnamese fighters? Because I think it was like 3,500 US planes lost during the war, total, plus another 5,000 US Army helicopters. Mostly the AA though, not to enemy fighters. The North didn't have much of an airforce, but like all Vietnamese, they were brave and skillful, especially when you consider what they were up against.
@TigerIPanzer I think that to say the F-4 was "a pile of shit" is a really ignorant thing to say. It had the minor flaw of being gunless in the first models (which they fixed quite easily), and held the world records for speed, climb rate, and altitude for a long time, until the F-15 and the MiG-25 came out. It was an incredible technical achievement by men probably far smarter and skilled than yourself, and still has better performance (and combat record) than many more modern fighters.
@TigerIPanzer Nationalist bias? Brother, you don't know me. I'm about as unbiased as it gets. And although the F-4 certainly had it's share of flaws, it was always a capable warplane, especially compared to it's contemporaries. I guarantee you, not EVERY F-4 pilot thought it was "shite". Maybe the ones stuck flying that big old beast when the other pilots were flying newer planes thought it was crap, but that doesn't make it so. The Me 163....THAT was shite.
@beatniksen "You can't wreck an F-4"? I think that I, and the ghosts of several hundreds of pilots killed in F-4's would beg to differ with you on that point. Blanket exaggerations are annoying.
"(The F-4)...achieved a 2.5:1 Kill Ratio against North Vietnamese jets". A poor record but this didn't really didn't reflect the failure of the Phantom, rather a failure of US tactics at the time. By the end of the War, the US Navy achieved a 13:1 Kill Ratio, after Top Gun school
Um.. Yea, the mig 17 did. Mig 21? That thing couldn't turn, also if in a total spin, it could go out of control. Fantom II owned the mig by all respects. Go read please, stop playing video games :)
@lercool1234 Mig-21 was better in turning above 30,000 feet but below that Phantom had a definite advantage. All the F-4 had to do was stay below that altitude and keep its speed higher than 450 knots and it could easily beat the Mig-21 (from Top Gun the book)
@AccordGTR Yeah, but how do you force the enemy to fight you where you want to fight? And the usual tactic for MiG-21's was to wait at low level, and use the MiG's incredible acceleration and rate of climb to pop up on the Phantom's tail and hit him with an Atoll missile before he even see's you. Air combat is very complex and unpredictable, but neither the F-4 or the MiG-21 were "dogfighters"...they were interceptors. And to keep above 450kts in a turning fight ain't easy; the F-4 hated turning
@justforever96 On the contrary, I tried it in the sim and the tactic works. Before when I tried to get into a turning fight with a Mig, it would be hard. Then when I used the "lag pursuit" tactic keeping my speed above 400 knots, I could wait till the Mig bled off power then easily turn into his 6 and shoot him down. It's easy to keep above 400 knots if you use a larger turning radius and stay out of his gun-range.
Tactics makes the Phantom unbeatable cuz it has more powerful thrust
@AccordGTR Well....I'm tempted to go into the difference between a simulation and the real deal, but even that aside, I didn't say it was impossible, just that it's not as easy as you make it sound. I know it get's cliche after a while, but it really DOES depend on who starts where, who sees who first, and all that. Once you both get into a turning fight, then the F-4 has some advantages. What I said was that the NVAF used tactics to their advantage as well...they knew the MiG-21's weaknesses.
@justforever96 U bring up an interesting point...NVAF had successes early in the air war because they knew their limitations and US tactics and used that knowledge to maximum advantage. The US were overconfident, thinking they were fighting obsolete planes and 3rd world pilots and got their asses shot from under them. But when the US got a hold of a couple of Migs and taught its pilots tactics and how to fly the Phantom, then the USN started seeing high kill ratios again.
Dogfights if pure propaganda, anyone ever notice that over 90% of the videos feature american aces, despite the fact that there were plenty of enemy aces that were better than them....
I see dogfights as a very good production. Great documentary with the guys that actually were there. If the production was Russian it would show Russian Aces, if it was German it would show German aces, etc. It's normal that a US production will show American Aces.
Yes, I've noticed that too. But, like he said, it's an American production. And I guess not all Americans are like me, only too happy to hear both sides of the story. At LEAST some British aces, or something. If nothing else, than how about Eagle Squadron? Those were American pilots, even if they were flying for the RAF. But I suppose it would never do to suggest that America wasn't the mighty country who single-handedly beat the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and the Japanese all at once. =P
Hmmm....a country left as a chemical dump, with mines littered all about. By definition I suppose we lost Korea as well? When we bombed DNam halfway to oblivion we went to the peace table. Watergate was a problem for Nixon and the U.S. people simply got tired of the monotony of D'Nam. Americans have never "lost" a war. Even when casualties approach the Nam level of 45-50 per month in G-stan we still sip our mocha lattes and don't even pay attention. "Unless u have Family that Serve" Heros!
KUDOS ! To you sir !! -- Although, I would say that Vietnam was a poorly managed war.Waaay too many needless deaths & casualties & it lasted waaay too long.Had we fought it with a HUGE offensive,it probably wouldve been over in 24 mo.The commie underground succeeded in stopping the war by winning over public opinion -- AT THE COST OF SEVERAL MILLION CAMBODIANS !! -FOR ALL U COMMIE /LEFTIES READING THIS! LIBS: HOW DO U EXPLAIN YER "HUMANITARIAN" VIEWS ON THAT 1 ?!!
Uh..."D'Nam"? G-stan? Where the hell did that come from? Plus, I wouldn't be too sure that we would have "won" in Vietnam even with a massive campaign. After a certain point, bigger isn't always better in warfare. It's like trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. And "victory" is tough to define. Same as Iraq, if it was a question of DEFENDING OURSELVES, easy. Crush 'em. But we're (supposed to be) HELPING, not CRUSHING them. You come in too hard, you alienate the "good guys" and the world too.
@justforever96 All they had to do to win the Vietnam War was carpet bomb Hanoi and Haiphong until both were concrete rubble! Instead we bombed the HoChi Min trail and killed a bunch of Bamboo Vipers! We were afraid of the paper tiger Russia getting involved! With their cities in rubble, there would be no supplies for the HoChi Min trail! My father was a B-24 pilot in WW2, and they killed 78,000 Germans on one mission alone! War is hell, but you have to go all out if you want to win!
@johnjayden1 It all depends on how you define "win". And maybe there was a real need to kill 78,000 Germans in one mission (although I wouldn't brag about it anyway), who exactly would have benefited from us reducing North Vietnam into rubble? We could say "we won!", which is nice, but we probably shouldn't have started the damn fight in the first place. Who knows how things would have worked out if Vietnam HADN'T happened, but as far as I know things turned out okay even after the North won.
@justforever96 You are right about one thing! We don't know what the outcome would have been! But I do know that the North Vietman regulars and "CHARLIE" would have run out of supplies and come to a screaching halt! Barry Goldwater in 1964 said he would bomb North Vietnam back to the Stone Age if elected, but the Democrats scared the voters into thinking he would start WW3! Thousands of US lives would have been saved if we didn't have to fight with 1 hand tied behind our backs thanks to LBJ NIX
@justforever96 Ist thing is things have turned out well because the people got sick of living in slavery to a Communist Totalitarian state! Even Vietnam today has reached out to us! After the collapse of the USSR, so many free societies! Germany,Japan, the Ukraine, Georgia! Even China is our biggest trading partner! Russia is going bakwards under Putin! How would you like to live in North Korea or Iran? Many civilians died in air raids because ball bearing and munition plants were neighborhoods
@johnjayden1 Yeah, they got sick of it and dealt with it....by themselves. We needn't have gone over and started the whole thing in the first place. I respect your dad and what he did, but being a airman doesn't mean he's an expert on international politics. I believe that there was a big difference between the WWII and VN, and I'm not at all sure we could have just bombed them until they gave up. Bastards were tough, seriously. Plus, is it really right to "save" people by killing them all?
@justforever96 The Phantom was designed to carry bombs and missles and go real fast! It was not designed to maneuver, or dog fight! Just shoot down the enemy with air to air missles! That didn't work out! We had to disengage in full afterburner to get away and come back and re-engage! Only after getting the M61 20mm cannon did we achieve a 2.5/1! Best plane we had at the time! F-15 was designed by the same company to correct all the flaws of the F-4! The air war over Germany + troops won the war
@justforever96 To sum it up, my father was 21 flying a B-24! Around 1969 he would watch coverage of the war, and would get angry seeing that we weren't using our air power to it's capacity! We defeated Hitler by bombing all his factories till his war machine ground to a halt! So that's why He wanted us to bomb those 2 cities where the supplies came from! We never lost a major battle in Vietnam! We never tried to win! Maybe we should have (DROPPED THE BIG ONE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS) F-4 The BEST!!
@johnjayden1 Also, the bombing only defeated Hitler because there was also millions on the ground who fought and bled and died before it was over....bombing made victory possible, but that alone wouldn't have won the war. And Russia wasn't a "paper tiger"...I guarantee you, "dropping the Big One" would have been a very, very bad idea. Like in Afghanistan...our excuse is that we're "saving them from the Taliban"...so, we go in and "drop the big one"? Who the hell is that gonna save but us?
2.5 to 1? MAYBE as an average over the entire war! There were periods were the Vietnamese were making 1 to 4 over the US. Last I knew, the total at the end of the war was maybe 1 to 1, a bit in the favor of the US. Offset that against the fact that we lost the war and each F-4 cost what 4 MiGs did. The US didn't call an aircraft a combat loss if it made it back to friendly airspace before it crashed. If a large part of the frame survived to be rebuilt, it wasn't a loss. Typical of the whole war.
But that was just the Navy, who weren't given the toughest jobs. I would also assume that some lists are for ALL enemy aircraft, including cargo/transports and aircraft destroyed on the ground, not just fighters. Plus, everyone knows that US NAVY KICKS USAF ASS!!!! (LOL, sorry, just a joke....please don't come and drop a JDAM on me or anything, okay, USAF?)
Only the SAF versions had the 20mm cannon; the Navy F-4's were missile-only. I assume they could carry the gun pods if they wanted, but that hurts performance and sterilizes a potentially useful hardpoint.
the F4 Phantom 2 is the greatest Jet in the W"orld .I see this Baby 1993 over Germeny and i can lissen the J79 ge17 .Guys thats just lout an i love it .Thunder in Heaven.Phantom Power
Yes, I don't wonder about it. What is really interesting that Russians says that in total the USA have lost 362 Phantoms, while the US themselves says about 700!!! This is almost double number from Russian estimations. This is really interesting.
Btw if you want to see russian side of story, watch this - /watch?v=orsmMGG3dAE
I would guess that the US count includes either all losses including accidents/failure, or maybe even world-wide losses, not just SE Asia losses. The Russian number might just be the US combat loss tally, which was fudged to look better. Example: an F-105 is hit by AAA, yet makes it back to friendly airspace before crashing, or it lands but is written off because severe damage...it's not a "combat loss". "Combat losses" are only if you get hit and shot down in a "combat zone".
@irondragsportster Where am I from? I'm originally from the town of Cabot, in Vermont, a small country on the US/Canadian border. We used to be one of the States, but declared independence and became our own small country. Since then, the CIA has managed to sneak thousands of middle-class yuppies into our borders. The situation looks grave, but we have a few tricks up our sleeve yet. Specifically, I grew up in the Town of Cabot, which incidently makes the The Worlds Best Cheddar Cheese. Really.
Of course, it is possible that America lies too. Once in a great while, of course. =P. Here's a revealing fact: the US fudged aircraft loss numbers just like they did the "body counts" and casualty lists. I guess in US minds, "fudging" is okay, as long as you're not outright lying. Just like "propaganda" is an evil thing that never, ever happens in the US, but "objective pieces" are okay since you're "just trying to prove a point" (i.e. half-truths, etc.)
Consider this; using the current duty aircraft (F-14,15,16,18) the F-5 Tiger and A-4 Skyhawk were, and are still used in the Aggressor Squadron(Top Gun) to simulate MiG flight characteristics because of their slippery design. YET, during the Viet-Nam war, the F-5/A-4 were used to drop bombs. What did they throw at the MiG's? A gun-less F4 Phantom. But, superior pilot training prevailed over the MiG's.
RacerXGTO 1 week ago
ahh, y'know, these new high-tech fighters dont have the rawness that classic fighters like the 50's or 60's have. the f105, f101, f102 f100, f104, f8, and the f4 have.
Hip48Xn3 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Hip48Xn3 2 weeks ago
F-4 is the King !
boeing747sp86 2 weeks ago
1:24 And that good sir, would make an excellent picture.
Blahmarrow 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great sound track would be" My Little F4" by the Seatbelts.
GreenRayStudio 2 months ago
Great sound track would be" My Little F4" by the Seatbelts
GreenRayStudio 2 months ago
@GreenRayStudio ROFL :D
starguard 2 months ago
Phantoms Phorever baby! USMC F-4 mechanic for five proud years. Love those hawgs
PhormerPhantomPhixer 2 months ago
Phantom is an attack aircraft, which happens to be suitable for intercept.
I’d argue that F designation. A fighter/bomber is an “A.” F4 is too much of a locomotive, and bleeds too much energy in the horizontal to be otherwise.
centurion180ad 3 months ago
@centurion180ad Id diagree the F-4 was an interceptor that could drop bombs. The F-4 was originaly designed around the AIM-7 with the goal of knocking out bombers that might threaten the fleet.
upyr1 3 months ago
15000 pounds? I like
Blahmarrow 3 months ago
0:12 WINDOWS FAIL...
jakicevic 5 months ago
Winexoid 5 months ago
@Winexoid 1.wikipedia fails 2.thatswas the first model the later model with a gun was 2.5 to 1
XxSniperXXairsoftxX 5 months ago
@Winexoid Kill ratio is air to air. Most F-4s were lost to surface to air missles and AAA. Close air support and any type of bombing mission breeds those kind of losses. And the F-4 flew a LOT of air to ground sorties.
aaronz741 4 months ago in playlist Awesome Phantoms
@Winexoid Unfortunately, this is common in US to lie on TV. All of their media allways says, that their weapon systems are the best. Propaganda, you know.
EagleOwlHayakawa 2 months ago
Comment removed
Winexoid 5 months ago
2.5:1 kill ratio is nothing short of horrible.
discofishing 5 months ago
I had the privilege of working on the F-4S with VMFA-122 at MCAS Beaufort, SC. We had pilots that could make that plane dance. We went to Top Gun in 1981 and made quite a showing. I will always have a soft spot in my heart (and head) for the F-4. Ooh-Rah!
b8ssman 5 months ago
@b8ssman Did the F-4S have the smokeless J79s and leading edge slats?
discofishing 5 months ago
2.5 to 1... Didn't expect that
MasterBolitz 6 months ago
in which part of the History channel dogfights series is this video???????
taktoka 6 months ago
@taktoka Probably "dogfights of the vietnam war" or "Hell over hanoi"
qelleri 6 months ago
Here are the facts: 5000+ Phantoms produced. 600+ were lost in the Vietnam War alone, many shot down by obsolete Migs flown by farmer-pilots. When it was first deployed, they were only shooting down 4 Migs for every Phantom II shot down. F-4 with it 2 man crew, and weapons cost around $5M while Mig-17 costs less than $500,000 and Mig-21 less than $2M. Hardly an effective weapons platform. It was smoky and took a lot of training (Top Gun school) to make it effective.
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR Hardly an effective weapons platform? Israel used their Phantoms to absolutely deadly effect against Mig-17s, Mig-19s, and Mig-21s many of which were piloted by Soviet aircrew. Israel started whooping ass with their F-4s from day one. Another thing I'd like to point out is that the vast majority of the Phantoms downed in Vietnam were to AAA and SAMs. Top Gun makes better PILOTS, not better planes. You need to get your facts straight.
discofishing 5 months ago
@discofishing did you read the book on Top Gun? The movie is propaganda fyi. If u knew better, its the pilot that flies the plane, not the plane flies itself. And its tactics that dictate whether the pilot wins or gets shot down. Obviously, IDF pilots were better trained and had better tactics than the Arabs. American tactics before 1971 was shit and got a lot of pilots killed. Whatever, NVA pilots downed about 54 Phantoms with their measly air force. I got more facts than you do.
AccordGTR 5 months ago
@AccordGTR If the Phantom was such a horrible weapons platform why did the USAF, USN, and USMC fly it? Why were there several different models? If the Phantom was so horrible, it would have been retired quickly like most of the century series aircraft and types of the early 50's. But it wasn't. That's because it was a great weapons platform. The F-4 pioneered the concept of multi-role tactical aircraft. It took retraining of the pilots to realize how effective a platform the Rhino actually was.
discofishing 5 months ago 7
@discofishing haha so your logic if they produce it in great numbers that means it is good. Well, what about the other statistics and facts I mentioned? A lot of US weapons are chosen more for the politics than their real effectiveness. Like the Sherman tank, M-16 and Beretta, not the best weapon of its time but they were produced in great numbers. F-4 pioneered multi-role?? P-51's and P-47 were used as both fighters and ground attack in WW2. Mosquito was fighter, bomber and reconnaissance.
AccordGTR 5 months ago
@AccordGTR Dude, I'm not saying the F-4 was without faults. No weapon system is without draw backs, limitations and shortcomings. Look at the service length of the F-4, which is still on going and then compare that to the Mustang or Thud. F-4s have set the standard for subsequent aircraft such as the F-16 and F-18 and even the F-35. In fact the F-35 specifically.
discofishing 5 months ago
@AccordGTR We are getting away from the root of the argument, which is whether or not the Phantom is or was a good weapons platform. History has shown it was. It was then and it still is now, although in more upgraded forms. No, it's not a 9G pulling, 1 to 1 thrust to weight ration having hotrod, but it got the job done. You are also forgetting the political implications of Vietnam. Aircraft engagements were purely defense in many situations so as to not upset Ivan......
discofishing 5 months ago
@discofishing Plus it just looks badass
jbnwc 2 months ago
@AccordGTR that's a fallacy, the rediculous rules of engagement that were imposed on American pilots during vietnam eliminated many of the advantages the Phantom had over the migs. add to that the fact that all the "experts" had decided that the age of the dogfight was over & it was not even taught, older pilots like colonal Robin Olds flew rings around the migs. If the F-4 were such a terrible weapon platform why would the German's have used them up till 2011? politics? LOL!
kdrapertrucker 2 months ago
@kdrapertrucker Yup, politics! Don't you remember the US occupied Germany after WW2 and has military bases since? Germany and the US are part of NATO. How political can that get? The German govt didn't want training anymore in Germany cuz of so many crashes by American fighter planes so they moved their training to Holloman AFB, New Mexico 1996. After the Phantom, did Germany order any new US fighter planes after that? It chose the Eurofighter which was partly designed in Germany
AccordGTR 2 months ago
@AccordGTR No, Germany designed the Tornado together with the UK and Italy first. The Phantoms are still in service, with the last being expected to go out of service in 2014 in the JG 71. The Starfighter was killed off as quick as possible because it was rubbish, as opposed to the F-4. Had the Phantom been crap as well, it would have been replaced by Tornados rapidly, too.
TheValKBawz 2 months ago
@TheValKBawz Well, whatever. My point is, if the Germans prefer USA tech to its own, it would have ordered more American planes like F-15 or F16 but it didn't. I think the Luftwaffe flies the F-4 because it was available at the time when it did not have its own fighter aircraft yet. Since thousands were produced by the US, it was economical for the Germans to adopt them because they were NATO allies. So I think the F-4 was more a convenient choice at the time.
AccordGTR 2 months ago
@kdrapertrucker Actually the ROE in Vietnam was there to protect Americans from getting shot down by other Americans because it would likely be an American plane than the enemy. Vietnam only had a few dozen planes operational while US had thousands. Also LBJ wanted to gradually pressure the NV to the bargaining table, hence the ROE. Fact is, the Phantom II was not particularly Phantom-like cuz it was big, smoky, noisy while the Migs were small, agile and did not emit smoke.
AccordGTR 2 months ago
@WBDE it wasn't obsolete then, the F-4E AUP 2000 isn't even obsolete now.
Porty1119 7 months ago
I was very fortunate to get a summer job at McDonnell Aircraft in 1973 when the last of these were in production. Even though they were obsolete at the time, they still had an intimidating look and I greatly enjoyed seeing them built.
WBDE 7 months ago
All very well but this is not the full story at all...
dergrossen 7 months ago
"GET SOME" !!
kanukster 7 months ago
does any of you read Rolling Thunder by Mark Berent? looking for this novel to read. He made a 5 part series. Rolling Thunder, Steel Tiger, Phantom Leader, Eagle Station, and Storm Flight. Supposed to be a great novel and really looks into how the vietnam conflict was organized...Only read Steel Tiger
cartel1231 9 months ago
F-4 is truely impresive plane
but i fear that "dogfights" are just propaganda..for example B bobmers was shot down on vietnam a lot. Mirage 2000 is shitty plane, is 2 mach plane for hit and run tactics...dogfighting against skilled mig-23, harrier, or4th generations planes is suicide
MartasekM 10 months ago
@MartasekM WHAT AREE U TALKING ABOUT!MIRAGE 2000 IS NOT CAPABLE OF DOGFIGHT...SOMEONE SHUT THAT STUPID PERSON'S SPEAK PLEASE...
TheSubzerogr 7 months ago
SHALOM VERY NICE VIDEO THANKS !!!!!!
mrmakemakkara 10 months ago
British Royal Navy taught USA how to fly this machine. The lessons were the beginning of the school at Miramar.
dergrossen 10 months ago
@dergrossen The British Phantom had a pair of RR Spey engines instead of J79s, so they had higher specific excess energy but lower maximum speed. But top speed isn't the most important thing in shorter range combat, so for dogfighting the RAF/RN had a distinct advantage.
cageordie 4 months ago
What is the Phantoms predecesser?
michaelhviper 11 months ago
@michaelhviper Depends. The Navy had the F3H Demon and F-8 Crusader before the F-4. The Air Force, the F-100 and F-104. Direct line predecessor would be the Demon.
PolarizedMechs 10 months ago
The F4 was never originally designed for ACM, it didn't even have a gun originally. The 1st generation AIM 7s and AIM9s were notoriously unreliable in the tropical climate of Vietnam. But in the hands of a good pilot, the F4 could dogfight. It could do a tighter high-speed turn than a Mig 17 because the Mig lacked hydraulically assisted controls and a g-suit for the pilot. Col. Olds' acid comments about the mentality of the Pentagon brass at that time were on target.
usafvet100 1 year ago
The real triumph for this aircraft was against the Russian piloted syrian Migs where the IADF force did not lose a single fighter to a generation newer fighter.
redifreddy14 1 year ago
MIG killer
kidd912thomas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If your kill ratio is 3 to 1, but it costs you 10 times as much to make, then you are losing.
falstoffe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If your kill ratio is 3 to 1, but it costs you 10 times as much to make, then you are losing.
falstoffe 1 year ago
Comment removed
falstoffe 1 year ago
The D model had the Gatling gun was mounted on the center line.
The long range fuel tank was also mounted there.
stangcolbra 1 year ago
@stangcolbra they called it "gun pod"
truonghthe 1 year ago
Mine too! What's the television series they starred in??? It was just called piloter = Pilots in danish. In was in the 80's I think.
gingermoose 1 year ago
the coolest looking jet fighter ever, even still
azspotfree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assou3l3 So you are retard?
XmodGT1 1 year ago
"America's proof to the world, that given a big enough engine, even a brick can fly."
RingSight91 1 year ago
@RingSight91 Waht part of AMERICA?, ARGENTINA? i know AMERICA is a full continent Like EUROPE and this first one is not divided like north or south, i least in europe show us AMERICA is a one CONTINENT. BUT IF YOU MEAN UNITED STATES OF (I SAY OF) AMERICA is an other thing.
XmodGT1 1 year ago
@RingSight91 And United States make a good plane like this, a least i like it and it have a nice desing. So Unites States proof to the world to make a nice brick's whit big engines. XD!!!!
XmodGT1 1 year ago
The Phantom II is just so terrifying looking. Phantom was a perfect name.
TTDMFfreaknew 1 year ago
"The Triumph of Thrust Over Aerodynamics"
SCE2AUX 1 year ago 29
@SCE2AUX
It's possible with enough thrust, that a brick can fly.
The2ndFirst 6 months ago
@SCE2AUX That statement really was more true of the F-105.
kblackav8or 5 months ago
I Love the F4 phantom,the rear part is so sweet
TheRalphus666 1 year ago
ISRAEL AIR FORCE PILOT IS BEST
mrmakemakkara 1 year ago
why'd they take the f4 out of service?
iambrockmartin 1 year ago
@iambrockmartin. The f-4 was replaced by the F-15 eagle for the air force and the f-14 tomcat for the US Navy. Both of which are far more capable fighters. However the last varient of the phantom served with the Air Force all the way up to the mid nineties as a SAM site killer.
DSmith99000 1 year ago
@DSmith99000 Ya good old Wild Weasels. So effective.
Lionwolf0777 1 year ago
@Lionwolf0777 Wild weasels took out S.A.M(SA7) sights right??
TheRalphus666 1 year ago
@TheRalphus666 Ya they were SAM hunters. Their tactics were insanely bold. They'd skirt any available terrain, purposely get lit up, then pop up over a hill or mountain and strike with HARM weapon systems.
Lionwolf0777 1 year ago
@Lionwolf0777 Yea those guys had balls of steel,Bless those pilots that didnt come home.
TheRalphus666 1 year ago
@TheRalphus666 Amen to that.
Lionwolf0777 1 year ago
@TheRalphus666 You've got your SAMs confused. The SA-7 (Grail or Strela 2) didn't need "sites", they're man-portable, shoulder-fired, IR-homing missiles. The Radar-guided types were the SA-2,3,4,5,6,8, after which later series it would be suicide to interdict using the F-4G Wild Weasel II. When the SA-10 came out it became clear you'd need stealth or else.
RingSight91 1 year ago
@RingSight91 yea I screwed up
TheRalphus666 1 year ago
@iambrockmartin
it was never supposed to be in service. it was a experiment that got lucky.
xomanowar42 1 year ago
@iambrockmartin It was simply outclassed by the new 4th generation weapons platforms coming online. She was a beautiful warbird nonetheless and served her warriors well.
There is only so much modification and updating you can do before an airframe and it's modification envelop is exhausted. Plus there's the ever present defense/offense in any arms race. Pretty interesting stuff to educate oneself about. Check out the battleship arms races of the early and mid 20th century.
Lionwolf0777 1 year ago
@iambrockmartin old and problematic. doesnt matter though f15's never been shot down in air combat
Inklebonker1 1 year ago
@iambrockmartin What kind of question is that? Why 80s cars are better than 60s? Because it get what we say "morally old". However, with deep modernization of every part of it except fuselage, it can get good BVR abilities comparable with 4th gen fighters like F-15.
Israel did that. F-4 2000 served in IAF for many years and was taken out of service just several years ago. But in dogfights F-4 is far more inferior to any 4th gen. fighter.
BitnikGr 1 year ago
MiG killer
MrVro1 1 year ago
@MrVro1 Really? Exactly which MiGs?
MiG-15/17? Correct.
MiG-21? Wrong. Overall kills score in aerial battles in Vietnam F-4 vs MiG-21 was 54 to 102.
There is no such thing as general "MiG killer" or "F killer". Be more specific.
BitnikGr 1 year ago
This great Phantoms still fly over my home In Eskisehir Turkey, 2010 :)
spankerpoligoli 1 year ago
Ребята, он же деревянный, Фантом ваш... Чем вы хвастаетесь? Тем что проиграли войну в голодной и выжженной стране? Уроды. Честное слово - мне бы волю дать, закидал бы РС20 вас :)
Kamowlol 1 year ago
some are still being used to this day
sliderbox 1 year ago
I love this plane, it was the best in the world at that time.
watsupzzful 1 year ago
I love the look of the Phantom. I wish to see one but I believe that won't happen because Phantom production ended in 1979 and were taken out of service in 1996. Anybody know of a museum that has an Phantom on display?
PS: To the guys out there my age, 15 and younger, shut up please. Playing a video game doesn't make you a good pilot or an expert on planes. If you really want to know about the F-4, talk to people who actually flew them or who were mechanics in the war. Show some respect.
JRS3013 1 year ago
@JRS3013 The F4 Phantom is one of the most beautiful planes of all times, i had the pleasure of seeing two Phantoms in the Air Museum of Madrid, Spain, there are a F4C and a RF4...Beautiful planes
chimango171 1 year ago
@JRS3013 I don't know where you live, but they have a beautiful green and brown camouflage F-4 Phantom ll at the Museum Of The United States Air Force at Dayton Ohio, USA! It was flown by a Vietnam Ace! It's in the Cold War Building! I was also in the USAF, and a F-4 Phantom landed at our base for a day! I went out on the flightline to look it over, and I was astounded by how huge this plane was! I got to see it take off, and it went straight up like a rocket in afterburner with roar, GONE!!!
johnjayden1 1 year ago
@JRS3013 Ah, a smart kid! Don't see many of those these days. I'm not that much older than you, but I also figured out a long time ago that in general, adults knew better than I did, even if I didn't always understand why. Not that I ALWAYS listened...but I think I generally knew unconciously that I was being dumb when I didn't! Now I wish I had listened better...things would have worked out a lot smoother. =/
justforever96 1 year ago
just find " Vietnamese Famous Pilots" then you will see how many fighter in USAF be killed by them. All together 320 American aircrafts were shooted down.
gunlock4k40 1 year ago
@gunlock4k40 , continue living in your dreams.
mbukukanyau 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mbukukanyau continue living in your dreams.
gunlock4k40 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mbukukanyau continue living in your dreams.
gunlock4k40 1 year ago
@mbukukanyau yeah, continue living in your dreams too
gunlock4k40 1 year ago
@gunlock4k40 320 USAF aircraft shot down? I thought it was a lot more than that! Or is that just the number that were shot down by Vietnamese fighters? Because I think it was like 3,500 US planes lost during the war, total, plus another 5,000 US Army helicopters. Mostly the AA though, not to enemy fighters. The North didn't have much of an airforce, but like all Vietnamese, they were brave and skillful, especially when you consider what they were up against.
justforever96 1 year ago
i love its design
trisky1234 1 year ago
very sexy bird...Best all time is a reach.....But a great bird for sure..
pkrippa 1 year ago
Cool plane, when i play Battlefield Vietnam i kick enemy asses with it !!!
aurora7641 1 year ago
f-4ejkai is my fave but i love the f-22 raptor
161cola 1 year ago
It is not possible to watch "Bloodiest Day" anymore huh? ;-(
mossmusic 1 year ago
J79 rocks
TheSubzerogr 1 year ago
the F-4 was a pile of shit because it relied totally on air-to-air missiles without having a gun = big mistake by the designers
TigerIPanzer 1 year ago
@TigerIPanzer i agree with the gun part but not the aircraft sucks part
steel939 1 year ago
@TigerIPanzer I think that to say the F-4 was "a pile of shit" is a really ignorant thing to say. It had the minor flaw of being gunless in the first models (which they fixed quite easily), and held the world records for speed, climb rate, and altitude for a long time, until the F-15 and the MiG-25 came out. It was an incredible technical achievement by men probably far smarter and skilled than yourself, and still has better performance (and combat record) than many more modern fighters.
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 you're wrong man...the pilots themselves said the F-4 was shite..you need to lose your nationalist bias and accept the facts
TigerIPanzer 1 year ago
@TigerIPanzer Nationalist bias? Brother, you don't know me. I'm about as unbiased as it gets. And although the F-4 certainly had it's share of flaws, it was always a capable warplane, especially compared to it's contemporaries. I guarantee you, not EVERY F-4 pilot thought it was "shite". Maybe the ones stuck flying that big old beast when the other pilots were flying newer planes thought it was crap, but that doesn't make it so. The Me 163....THAT was shite.
justforever96 1 year ago
i have seen a f4 wich got struck by a missle
the whole top cover of the wing was missing but it was still able to land
hard but safely
you cant wreck a f4
beatniksen 1 year ago
@beatniksen "You can't wreck an F-4"? I think that I, and the ghosts of several hundreds of pilots killed in F-4's would beg to differ with you on that point. Blanket exaggerations are annoying.
justforever96 1 year ago
lol at 0:13 windows fail
KartKing4ever 1 year ago 52
"(The F-4)...achieved a 2.5:1 Kill Ratio against North Vietnamese jets". A poor record but this didn't really didn't reflect the failure of the Phantom, rather a failure of US tactics at the time. By the end of the War, the US Navy achieved a 13:1 Kill Ratio, after Top Gun school
AccordGTR 1 year ago
The mig 21 owned the f-4's so hard, they still do in battlefield vietnam :):D
lercool1234 1 year ago
Um.. Yea, the mig 17 did. Mig 21? That thing couldn't turn, also if in a total spin, it could go out of control. Fantom II owned the mig by all respects. Go read please, stop playing video games :)
Tyco200 1 year ago
@lercool1234 Mig-21 was better in turning above 30,000 feet but below that Phantom had a definite advantage. All the F-4 had to do was stay below that altitude and keep its speed higher than 450 knots and it could easily beat the Mig-21 (from Top Gun the book)
AccordGTR 1 year ago
@AccordGTR Yeah, but how do you force the enemy to fight you where you want to fight? And the usual tactic for MiG-21's was to wait at low level, and use the MiG's incredible acceleration and rate of climb to pop up on the Phantom's tail and hit him with an Atoll missile before he even see's you. Air combat is very complex and unpredictable, but neither the F-4 or the MiG-21 were "dogfighters"...they were interceptors. And to keep above 450kts in a turning fight ain't easy; the F-4 hated turning
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 On the contrary, I tried it in the sim and the tactic works. Before when I tried to get into a turning fight with a Mig, it would be hard. Then when I used the "lag pursuit" tactic keeping my speed above 400 knots, I could wait till the Mig bled off power then easily turn into his 6 and shoot him down. It's easy to keep above 400 knots if you use a larger turning radius and stay out of his gun-range.
Tactics makes the Phantom unbeatable cuz it has more powerful thrust
AccordGTR 1 year ago
@AccordGTR Well....I'm tempted to go into the difference between a simulation and the real deal, but even that aside, I didn't say it was impossible, just that it's not as easy as you make it sound. I know it get's cliche after a while, but it really DOES depend on who starts where, who sees who first, and all that. Once you both get into a turning fight, then the F-4 has some advantages. What I said was that the NVAF used tactics to their advantage as well...they knew the MiG-21's weaknesses.
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 U bring up an interesting point...NVAF had successes early in the air war because they knew their limitations and US tactics and used that knowledge to maximum advantage. The US were overconfident, thinking they were fighting obsolete planes and 3rd world pilots and got their asses shot from under them. But when the US got a hold of a couple of Migs and taught its pilots tactics and how to fly the Phantom, then the USN started seeing high kill ratios again.
AccordGTR 1 year ago
The only five American pilots to become aces in the last 35 years did so in the Phantom jets...
KhmerSerey1 2 years ago
i was at space camp...and we were watching this before dogfights and Mach2 and Mach3s wer passing out XD
Herpkid56 2 years ago
Dogfights if pure propaganda, anyone ever notice that over 90% of the videos feature american aces, despite the fact that there were plenty of enemy aces that were better than them....
deruntergang1 2 years ago
I see dogfights as a very good production. Great documentary with the guys that actually were there. If the production was Russian it would show Russian Aces, if it was German it would show German aces, etc. It's normal that a US production will show American Aces.
locowil 2 years ago
I guess you'r right. But a lot of shows on air nowadays are from the US so i wish there was a less biased opinion
deruntergang1 2 years ago
Yes, I've noticed that too. But, like he said, it's an American production. And I guess not all Americans are like me, only too happy to hear both sides of the story. At LEAST some British aces, or something. If nothing else, than how about Eagle Squadron? Those were American pilots, even if they were flying for the RAF. But I suppose it would never do to suggest that America wasn't the mighty country who single-handedly beat the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and the Japanese all at once. =P
justforever96 2 years ago
Hmmm....a country left as a chemical dump, with mines littered all about. By definition I suppose we lost Korea as well? When we bombed DNam halfway to oblivion we went to the peace table. Watergate was a problem for Nixon and the U.S. people simply got tired of the monotony of D'Nam. Americans have never "lost" a war. Even when casualties approach the Nam level of 45-50 per month in G-stan we still sip our mocha lattes and don't even pay attention. "Unless u have Family that Serve" Heros!
rentnation 2 years ago
KUDOS ! To you sir !! -- Although, I would say that Vietnam was a poorly managed war.Waaay too many needless deaths & casualties & it lasted waaay too long.Had we fought it with a HUGE offensive,it probably wouldve been over in 24 mo.The commie underground succeeded in stopping the war by winning over public opinion -- AT THE COST OF SEVERAL MILLION CAMBODIANS !! -FOR ALL U COMMIE /LEFTIES READING THIS! LIBS: HOW DO U EXPLAIN YER "HUMANITARIAN" VIEWS ON THAT 1 ?!!
hazor777 2 years ago
American scum. Shut your mouth.
ANimouz 2 years ago
Uh..."D'Nam"? G-stan? Where the hell did that come from? Plus, I wouldn't be too sure that we would have "won" in Vietnam even with a massive campaign. After a certain point, bigger isn't always better in warfare. It's like trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. And "victory" is tough to define. Same as Iraq, if it was a question of DEFENDING OURSELVES, easy. Crush 'em. But we're (supposed to be) HELPING, not CRUSHING them. You come in too hard, you alienate the "good guys" and the world too.
justforever96 2 years ago
@justforever96 All they had to do to win the Vietnam War was carpet bomb Hanoi and Haiphong until both were concrete rubble! Instead we bombed the HoChi Min trail and killed a bunch of Bamboo Vipers! We were afraid of the paper tiger Russia getting involved! With their cities in rubble, there would be no supplies for the HoChi Min trail! My father was a B-24 pilot in WW2, and they killed 78,000 Germans on one mission alone! War is hell, but you have to go all out if you want to win!
johnjayden1 1 year ago
@johnjayden1 It all depends on how you define "win". And maybe there was a real need to kill 78,000 Germans in one mission (although I wouldn't brag about it anyway), who exactly would have benefited from us reducing North Vietnam into rubble? We could say "we won!", which is nice, but we probably shouldn't have started the damn fight in the first place. Who knows how things would have worked out if Vietnam HADN'T happened, but as far as I know things turned out okay even after the North won.
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 You are right about one thing! We don't know what the outcome would have been! But I do know that the North Vietman regulars and "CHARLIE" would have run out of supplies and come to a screaching halt! Barry Goldwater in 1964 said he would bomb North Vietnam back to the Stone Age if elected, but the Democrats scared the voters into thinking he would start WW3! Thousands of US lives would have been saved if we didn't have to fight with 1 hand tied behind our backs thanks to LBJ NIX
johnjayden1 1 year ago
@justforever96 Ist thing is things have turned out well because the people got sick of living in slavery to a Communist Totalitarian state! Even Vietnam today has reached out to us! After the collapse of the USSR, so many free societies! Germany,Japan, the Ukraine, Georgia! Even China is our biggest trading partner! Russia is going bakwards under Putin! How would you like to live in North Korea or Iran? Many civilians died in air raids because ball bearing and munition plants were neighborhoods
johnjayden1 1 year ago
@johnjayden1 Yeah, they got sick of it and dealt with it....by themselves. We needn't have gone over and started the whole thing in the first place. I respect your dad and what he did, but being a airman doesn't mean he's an expert on international politics. I believe that there was a big difference between the WWII and VN, and I'm not at all sure we could have just bombed them until they gave up. Bastards were tough, seriously. Plus, is it really right to "save" people by killing them all?
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 The Phantom was designed to carry bombs and missles and go real fast! It was not designed to maneuver, or dog fight! Just shoot down the enemy with air to air missles! That didn't work out! We had to disengage in full afterburner to get away and come back and re-engage! Only after getting the M61 20mm cannon did we achieve a 2.5/1! Best plane we had at the time! F-15 was designed by the same company to correct all the flaws of the F-4! The air war over Germany + troops won the war
johnjayden1 1 year ago
@justforever96 To sum it up, my father was 21 flying a B-24! Around 1969 he would watch coverage of the war, and would get angry seeing that we weren't using our air power to it's capacity! We defeated Hitler by bombing all his factories till his war machine ground to a halt! So that's why He wanted us to bomb those 2 cities where the supplies came from! We never lost a major battle in Vietnam! We never tried to win! Maybe we should have (DROPPED THE BIG ONE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS) F-4 The BEST!!
johnjayden1 1 year ago
@johnjayden1 Also, the bombing only defeated Hitler because there was also millions on the ground who fought and bled and died before it was over....bombing made victory possible, but that alone wouldn't have won the war. And Russia wasn't a "paper tiger"...I guarantee you, "dropping the Big One" would have been a very, very bad idea. Like in Afghanistan...our excuse is that we're "saving them from the Taliban"...so, we go in and "drop the big one"? Who the hell is that gonna save but us?
justforever96 1 year ago
2.5 to 1? MAYBE as an average over the entire war! There were periods were the Vietnamese were making 1 to 4 over the US. Last I knew, the total at the end of the war was maybe 1 to 1, a bit in the favor of the US. Offset that against the fact that we lost the war and each F-4 cost what 4 MiGs did. The US didn't call an aircraft a combat loss if it made it back to friendly airspace before it crashed. If a large part of the frame survived to be rebuilt, it wasn't a loss. Typical of the whole war.
justforever96 2 years ago
the U.S. Navy finished the war with a kill ratio of 13:1....
notmetricviolin 2 years ago
But that was just the Navy, who weren't given the toughest jobs. I would also assume that some lists are for ALL enemy aircraft, including cargo/transports and aircraft destroyed on the ground, not just fighters. Plus, everyone knows that US NAVY KICKS USAF ASS!!!! (LOL, sorry, just a joke....please don't come and drop a JDAM on me or anything, okay, USAF?)
justforever96 2 years ago
-__- it's tempting but I'll try to control myself
lordazn 1 year ago
it might be better as a bomber than a fighter but thats my opinion
Devilkid222 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are so right! It was a piss poor dogfighter. The pilots had to actually learn ways around its shortcomings to even hope to fight with MiGs.
bullcurr 2 years ago
i like this jet only thing suks about it that its got no gun
zerosk8ter9 2 years ago
its got a gun under the nose. it can also carry gun pods
saboter123 2 years ago
Only the SAF versions had the 20mm cannon; the Navy F-4's were missile-only. I assume they could carry the gun pods if they wanted, but that hurts performance and sterilizes a potentially useful hardpoint.
justforever96 2 years ago
UK Navy/ RAF used this plane. Too it was my fave as a kid.
RustiSwordz 2 years ago
F4s are my fav plane ever.
xXCloudKunXx 2 years ago 13
luv the f4 greatest jet bomber EVA im with u
Twoggy95 2 years ago
I wish i received this channel, the videos are so awesome
jaw1024 2 years ago
Does anyone know if there are any civilian owned phantoms?
limestoneroad 2 years ago
I know you can get a second hand (unarmed) Saab J-35 for about £200,000/$350,000, and that's pretty fast
jaw1024 2 years ago
i remember when those things would take off from behind my house
strideisgood 2 years ago
the F4 Phantom 2 is the greatest Jet in the W"orld .I see this Baby 1993 over Germeny and i can lissen the J79 ge17 .Guys thats just lout an i love it .Thunder in Heaven.Phantom Power
Hannemaster 2 years ago
Russian documentary says that F-4s shot down 54 Mig-21. And Migs shot down more than 100 Phantoms.
See it in my video about F-4 with English subtitles.
BitnikGr 2 years ago
Of course Russia will say their planes shot down more.
agentfazexx 2 years ago
Yes, I don't wonder about it. What is really interesting that Russians says that in total the USA have lost 362 Phantoms, while the US themselves says about 700!!! This is almost double number from Russian estimations. This is really interesting.
Btw if you want to see russian side of story, watch this - /watch?v=orsmMGG3dAE
BitnikGr 2 years ago
I would guess that the US count includes either all losses including accidents/failure, or maybe even world-wide losses, not just SE Asia losses. The Russian number might just be the US combat loss tally, which was fudged to look better. Example: an F-105 is hit by AAA, yet makes it back to friendly airspace before crashing, or it lands but is written off because severe damage...it's not a "combat loss". "Combat losses" are only if you get hit and shot down in a "combat zone".
justforever96 2 years ago
It make sense. Thank you.
BitnikGr 2 years ago
@justforever96
Where are you from?
irondragsportster 2 years ago
@irondragsportster Where am I from? I'm originally from the town of Cabot, in Vermont, a small country on the US/Canadian border. We used to be one of the States, but declared independence and became our own small country. Since then, the CIA has managed to sneak thousands of middle-class yuppies into our borders. The situation looks grave, but we have a few tricks up our sleeve yet. Specifically, I grew up in the Town of Cabot, which incidently makes the The Worlds Best Cheddar Cheese. Really.
justforever96 1 year ago
they still managed to damage the plane thats why it crashed.
tanikz 2 years ago
Of course, it is possible that America lies too. Once in a great while, of course. =P. Here's a revealing fact: the US fudged aircraft loss numbers just like they did the "body counts" and casualty lists. I guess in US minds, "fudging" is okay, as long as you're not outright lying. Just like "propaganda" is an evil thing that never, ever happens in the US, but "objective pieces" are okay since you're "just trying to prove a point" (i.e. half-truths, etc.)
justforever96 2 years ago
gosh i love those things
ingaenterprise13 2 years ago
5/5
PhantomPhorever1977 2 years ago
this is old u fo
MidNight8181 2 years ago
philippine airforce still fly this things.. T_T
kintatzu333 2 years ago
wow, i thought the isralies were the last to fly them
snowyplace3 2 years ago
germany to 2012^^ but I appreciate this plane a lot^^
95predator 2 years ago
Its still a great plane
geronimo1059 2 years ago 5
so this is why they named it phantom! firing prior detection by radar, so cool at its time!
michaeltaby 2 years ago
0:51 commie downed!
cyberarmy007 2 years ago
the phantom II can reach the 2600km/h ( 1500 mph ) its faster than a f-16 and a mirrage and its price is only 2.5 mil
hetfield15 2 years ago 3
Its speed record wasn't beat until the f-15 came along but yes it was and still is a very fast jet.
MegaVesper04 2 years ago