nobody forced you to grind the f106, if you wanted it sure, but you weren’t being held at gunpoint
2 Likes
In a straight 1v1, pretty much every tank the Hetzer faces from 5.0-3.3 has absolutely 0 chances of even damaging it frontally, whilst Hetzer can nuke pretty much everything.
Kv-7 is easier to defeat in a 1v1, but it’s other factors (namely mobility and having three guns) allows it to take on multiple enemies at once.
That’s why I said the Hetzer is more OP, but the Kv-7 is a better tank. Same relationship applies to F-106A and F-100D.
Ragebait or entire skill issue?
The narrative of the AIM-4 being useless does not hold up to any scrutiny once you get past the pop-history surface level. Its really tiresome that no-one bothers going past the “click bait” articles and videos. If it was truly garbage it would have been dropped very soon, and not kept in service for decades and even been used by foreign militaries. Go see what an actual user of the missile, Bruce Gordon had to say.
1 Like
I can agree in that case. If the enemy decides to sit directly in front of them, the hetzer will do better.
You can test event vehicles before grind, so it’s your fault 💁♀️
Except it was garbage and was replaced as soon as possible with the AIM-9. Perhaps YOU should be the one to read more?
3 Likes
It’s not even that. Kv-7 will get more opportunities to score kills than Hetzer, but the fewer players who have to fight Hetzer are extra screwed over.
Yes, as long as they fight the hetzer head on.
The chinese 9.3 mig 21 actually holds itself pretty good cause it has two guns compared to the russian one but yeah the f106 still out accelerates, outruns, and outturns it I believe alongside an infinitely better gun setup.
Haven’t played f106 myself because I sold mine but even if missiles suck there’s some value to it having the radar guided variant allowing all aspect shots which can pick off people who are lacking some speed.
So I also think it’s the best 9.3. Could probably be 9.7 like the upengined premium ussr mig 21 as they seem somewhat similar to eachother but then again, I haven’t played either of them myself. Definitely seems to be a substantial upgrade over the 9.3 f104s though.
You can show me where the 102 or 106 ever had their missiles replaced with the Sidewinder. The Phantoms were trialing both missiles, and the poor integration of the Falcon led to them being dropped. So please, you can show me where they ever had an equally complete integration into an aircraft and were “replaced” with sidewinders.
Anything past the surface level wikipedia/pop-history understanding would be great.
Perhaps YOU could do anything more than be snarky and dismissive.
You really are that stupid. JFC. No wonder you’re called ‘soymilkman’. The Phantoms dropped the Falcons as soon as they could. They were GARBAGE. GARBAGE. The lack of a proxy fuse (remember ZSU-57-2 vs WZ-305?) should indicate just how shit they are. But, just because you asked so nicely for some proof, here it is:
Six Decades of Guided Munitions, Barry Watts claims (who bases this on ‘Clashes’, page 279) a ~8.19% k/l ratio (5 kills for 61 launches) of the AIM-4D (IR) mounted on F-4Ds (remember, my reply was about the missile). The same book claims (p 140) a 17% k/l ratio for the AIM-9 during Vietnam (averaged for all the models used during Vietnam), and a whopping 46% for the AIM-9G (23 kills for ~50 launches) in 1972.
Adapting to Disruption: Aerial Combat over North Vietnam - “The AIM-4D performed poorly in combat and forced the Air Force to scramble for a replacement. Less than 3 months after the Falcon’s introduction into theater, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces decided to replace all the AIM-4Ds on its F-4Ds with AIM-9B Sidewinders. The F-4Ds all had to be rewired to carry the old missile.” (p. 76-77). They chose 9Bs because the 9D requires a different rail which would not be adopted until the 70s. The same source mentions this: “The Air Force, in contrast, abandoned the AIM-9B and revived its AIM-4 Falcon infrared-guided missile, which had been beaten out by the Navy-developed AIM-9 in 1957. Like the AIM-9D, the AIM-4D had a larger engagement envelope than the AIM-9B and a cooled seeker. Unlike the AIM-9D, however, the AIM-4D stored its coolant in the missile body, which meant the supply of coolant was small and the missile had to be fired within 2 minutes of being armed or it would not work.” The contrast is with the Navy having developed the 9D which stored its coolant in the missile launch rail.
Huh, I guess the AIM-4 really was garbage. What do you know?
PS: They first chose to revive the AIM-4 as the AIM-4D IR variant and then comes the “going back to AIM-9B thing”. The quotes are in reverse in the book.
1 Like
“The Phantoms were trialing both missiles, and the poor integration of the Falcon led to them being dropped.”
I covered that. The missiles were very poorly integrated. Unlike in the 102 and 106, where they served til those planes were retired. From 1959 to 1988. They were so useless they were kept in service for more than 30 years. They also had a slightly higher kill per launch ratio than the AIM-7 Sparrow, again despite not being properly integrated into the F-4 unlike the sparrow. I’m not sure why you are so upset and resorting to insults, but you don’t have anything past a skin-deep understanding. Nuance is needed.
Are you playing at being a mental asylum patient or really are one? I really can’t tell. Anyway, on a serious note:
-
What does “very poorly integrated” mean? You don’t even try to explain it. If you mean “the plane was wired etc. from the start for them”, well, guess what? The F-4D was FROM THE START wired and setup for the Falcon ONLY.
-
The same source I posted contradicted you, with a ratio of 9.2 of k/l (56 kills to 612 launches) over all the Vietnam war for the AIM-7. Though the high failure in kills was mostly because of the pilots not knowing the proper envelope to launch the Sparrows. The Falcons had a bad one to start with. I’ll remind you the Falcon sat at ~8.19%.
-
We were talking about the AIM-4 and AIM-9. As far as I know, the only variant of the AIM-4 that was actually used in combat was the IR AIM-4D, which were fitted to the F-4Ds. The other versions were not used in combat and their effectiveness can only be estimated. I’ll remind that in testing, the DoD estimated a success rate no less than 71% and as high as 90% for the AIM-7 and around 65% for the AIM-9, pre-Vietnam. They used non-maneuvering drone targets at high altitudes with strengthened radar return, according to “Aerial combat over North Vietnam”, p.76. I imagine the same high, ridiculously optimistic estimations are true for the AIM-4.
-
The mildly better F/G (radar/IR) had a heavier warhead, different and better, but not by much, cooling (argon for the F/G and liquid nitrogen for D), still the same BS contact fuse (seriously, who equips A2A missiles with contact fuses?), the same poor seeker and it was specifically meant against bombers.
-
Again, the “30 years in services” means nothing. I quoted you a source that stated directly that in 3 months at the most, they replaced the AIM-4 with the AIM-9 after actual combat. They even rewired the rails for the AIM-9. The 1988 date you keep mentioning is only true because the F-102 and F-106 could not easily mount other weapons and they were retired in 1988 (well, 79 for the 102). And the ones that made it to 1988 were the F/G variants, which were not used in actual combat.
1 Like
Ah yes the one plane design to intercept planes that are below mach at a mach speed has a missile that needs to launch at said speeds
I really don’t see why you are being so hostile, this is about a 1950s missile, not a personal attack.
By integration I mean the fire control systems and cooling supplies. Which the F-4 did not have. Being wired up does not mean much past “it can fire them”. When properly integrated as on the 106, it would give the pilot an optimal firing solution, and could cool the missiles for as long as needed.
Kill ratio could be debated, Ive seen higher for the Falcon compared to Sparrow. Could be the difference of before/after rolling thunder, things changed quite a bit.
The Falcons had a better envelope than early/same time frame Sidewinders, obviously later Sidewinders got better, but vs Bs and the like, much better. Bs would guide to the ground or other warm reflections where the falcon would not.
I point out “30 years” because I doubt they would be kept in service so long if they were truly awful. They were expected to stop various Soviet bombers, carrying nukes to drop on the US, flying low, high, some extremely fast and some not. You can seek out interviews with Bruce Gordon, a pilot of the 102 and 106, that obviously used the Falcon. He trusted the weapon and even managed to get a hit on a Bomarc missile, which is capable of Mach 2.5.
I’m not talking about anything else here but this doesn’t make any sense.
1 Like
Again, you keep writing stuff but without anything backing them.
-
Now that you’ve explained what you actually mean. First, the cooling. As I mentioned above, the AIM-4 variants can be divided into 2 according to this metric. Before G and G. Before them, their cooling “bottle” was stored INSIDE THE MISSILE and it was filled with liquid nitrogen. This allows for only limited acquisition time and let’s not forget the target lock time was around 6-8 seconds. You could not try again. The AIM-4G, which was developed for the F-106 to be used against bombers and never saw actual combat, switched to argon, which allowed for better cooling. It was still kept inside the seeker. The plane here DOES NOT MATTER. The SARH variant was not cooled at all, so the plane does not matter again. “The Falcon, already operational on Air Defense Command aircraft, was designed to be used against bombers, and its slow seeker cooling times requiring as much as 6 to 7 seconds to obtain a lock on a target rendered it largely ineffective against maneuvering fighters. Moreover, it could only be cooled once. Limited coolant supply meant that once cooled, the missile would expend its supply of liquid nitrogen in two minutes, rendering it useless on the rail.”. As for fire control systems … I imagine the F-4D coming with only Falcon wiring would be a good indicator of its integration.
-
The kill ratios are for both missiles (AIM-4 and AIM-7) for the entire Vietnam War. I’ve mentioned that. In the end, the Sparrow has a better k/l ratio. It’s 1%, so tiny, but still better. I will conveniently NOT mention how you changed goalposts from the -9 to the -7.
-
The F-102 was mounted with AIM-4s to fire at night at the ground. That’s more of a moot point. According to “Aerial combat over North Vietnam”, during Rolling Thunder ALONE, the 9B had a k/l ratio of about 15%, which is almost double that of the AIM-4. And let’s not forget the AIM-4 achieved only 5 kills in its entire service period.
-
They only kept it for 30 years until 1988 because the F-106 was in service until 1988 and as I mentioned, it was more effort than worth to adapt it to other A2A missiles. The anti-bomber Falcons are the F and G variants, with a ~2x heavier warhead and better (not by a lot) cooling, which were never used in actual combat and they were mounted on F-106s. The one used in combat, the D variant, was a “dogfight” Falcon with a lighter warhead and the dogshit liquid nitro cooling. The D failed abysmally in its role and the F/G were NOT expected to be used again fast moving, agile targets at low altitude. Do not forget the lack of proxy.
3 Likes
definitely a tragedy , worst money i ever spent , need reparations for this tbh
Good bait for history here, another one for Shillelagh when?