True. But the Viets did wonders with the total shitpiles they had to work with. One of the few strong cases for pilots v. equipment is Vietnam IMO, almost no other war saw guys with shitpile and really dated Soviet crap go toe to toe with the Western jets in the air like in that war. Also, I'm a Phantom guy myself.
>But the Viets did wonders with the total shitpiles they had to work with
They really did't. Veitnamese air activities were so limited they were basically unnoticeable in the scale of the air war. The whole "muh soviet migs in vietnam are woooah" meme is 100% manufactured by commie propaganda at home.
Here's a fun fact - a single F-5C evaluation squadron that was sent to Vietnam has racked more sorties during the war than all vietnamese MIG-21's combined during the same period.
>The Russian equivalent is always worse.
Closest russian equivalent would be su-7, so you are 100% right, anon.
Both were 1955 fighter-bomber degsins that in the end were used solely as bombers.
But, Thud was faster, carried 3 times heavier bombload, had slightly better TWR, better rate of climb, had significantly better ergonomics (su-7 was quite atrocious ), and was much easier fo fly (again, orginal su-7 handling was awful)
The only part where Su-7 was slightly better was range, but Thud had aerial refueling capability, while Su-7s did not.
No, its original role was low level nuclear strike where you had to get in and out fast
In Vietnam they used it has a bomb truck with a gas tank in its bomb bay against heavy AA and using the same routes
The Thud was an amazing aircraft. Ended up being used in a role completely different than what it was designed for yet excelled anyways.
>only plane pulled from service due to losses
A lie. It wasn't pulled due to losses. It was pulled due to low readiness levels because they flew the wings off them. And there have been many aircraft pulled from service due to losses. Happened a lot in WW2.
>MiGs shot them all down
Also a lie. Thud has a positive KDR. Literally shot down more MiGs that got in its way than they shot down thuds.
>Muh SAMs killed them
Nope. SA-2s work best against high altitude targets which the F-105 almost never did. Tactics changed a lot during the conflict but the biggest killer for Thuds by far was AAA. Especially radar guided.
The F-105 was a total chad. Could carry more bombs than a B-17 over a longer range. Could go supersonic on the deck. Pioneered modern SEAD doctrine.
The Russian equivalent is always worse.
True. But the Viets did wonders with the total shitpiles they had to work with. One of the few strong cases for pilots v. equipment is Vietnam IMO, almost no other war saw guys with shitpile and really dated Soviet crap go toe to toe with the Western jets in the air like in that war. Also, I'm a Phantom guy myself.
yes this is because radar was basically brand new and missiles sucked shit
when you are rolling with gunfights anything can be competitive if you get the drop
>But the Viets did wonders with the total shitpiles they had to work with
They really did't. Veitnamese air activities were so limited they were basically unnoticeable in the scale of the air war. The whole "muh soviet migs in vietnam are woooah" meme is 100% manufactured by commie propaganda at home.
Here's a fun fact - a single F-5C evaluation squadron that was sent to Vietnam has racked more sorties during the war than all vietnamese MIG-21's combined during the same period.
>The Russian equivalent is always worse.
Closest russian equivalent would be su-7, so you are 100% right, anon.
Both were 1955 fighter-bomber degsins that in the end were used solely as bombers.
But, Thud was faster, carried 3 times heavier bombload, had slightly better TWR, better rate of climb, had significantly better ergonomics (su-7 was quite atrocious ), and was much easier fo fly (again, orginal su-7 handling was awful)
The only part where Su-7 was slightly better was range, but Thud had aerial refueling capability, while Su-7s did not.
moronic thread is moronic
I like spices
No, it just flew the hardest missions in an era where IFF wasn't fully developed, and SEAD was in its infancy.
no it was based and carried a frickton of bombs
it was simply the first plane the US had that went unprepared against modern sams. It was also the testbed for SEAD
Related offtopic
Indeed. I always found how Vietnam deeply influenced the development of military technology, particularly missiles, to be super interesting. Thanks!
DIRTY DEEDS
10/10 Would pilot a Thud over a Widowmaker
gotta go fast
t. pikasonic
*sonichu
No, its original role was low level nuclear strike where you had to get in and out fast
In Vietnam they used it has a bomb truck with a gas tank in its bomb bay against heavy AA and using the same routes
True. Remember /k/, Westmoreland was a tard that brought up nukes routinely.
>
You are one cluelessly stupid motherfricker.
The Thud was an amazing aircraft. Ended up being used in a role completely different than what it was designed for yet excelled anyways.
>only plane pulled from service due to losses
A lie. It wasn't pulled due to losses. It was pulled due to low readiness levels because they flew the wings off them. And there have been many aircraft pulled from service due to losses. Happened a lot in WW2.
>MiGs shot them all down
Also a lie. Thud has a positive KDR. Literally shot down more MiGs that got in its way than they shot down thuds.
>Muh SAMs killed them
Nope. SA-2s work best against high altitude targets which the F-105 almost never did. Tactics changed a lot during the conflict but the biggest killer for Thuds by far was AAA. Especially radar guided.
The F-105 was a total chad. Could carry more bombs than a B-17 over a longer range. Could go supersonic on the deck. Pioneered modern SEAD doctrine.
You forgot the best parts.
1) it looks cool as frick
2) “THUNDERCHIEF” is about the coolest fricking nickname for a plane since 1903
It's garbage because judeo free masonic prostitutes made it.
And look at that satanic star it's displaying, tfu...tfu!