First Phantoms in Vietnam
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- On the 5th of August 1964, the US Navy begins operations of a new aircraft over Vietnam. This new multirole aircraft - the F4 Phantom - will come to define Vietnam War era jet combat, but during these early missions the aircraft was still a work in progress. Today we look at the story of the first F4s in Vietnam.
Please consider supporting this channel by subscribing at our Substack militaryaviationvideos.substa... - here you will get full transcripts and discussion for subscribers.
You can also support us here: raafdocumentary.com/support/
If you are looking for an aviation themed gift and want to support this channel, check out the Military Shop by using our affiliate link militaryshop.com.au/?ref=AMAHA and you can also use our coupon code AMAHA for a discount!
We are also affiliates with Airfix Models - please use our link prf.hn/l/meNMQn5
____________ Disclaimer ____________
Original footage and recreated scenes may not be 100% accurate to the event being described but has been used for dramatic effect. This is because there may not have been original footage of a particular event available, or copyright prevents us from showing it. Our aim is to be as historically true as we can be given the materials available.
Copyright disclaimer under fair dealing sections ss 40/103C, ss 41/103A,ss 42/103B of the Copyright Act which includes research, study, criticism, review, and reporting of news. Copyright remains with the respective owners. These videos are made for educational purposes only.
The Australian Military Aviation History Association is a not-for-profit association with the intent of recording, preserving and promoting Australian military aviation history. - Фільми й анімація
Phantom is a legend !!
The THUNDERBIRDS & BLUE ANGELS both flew the PHANTOM at the sametime.
It's amazing that they used such a big aircraft for that sort of display flying - would have been fantastic to see. Loved the recent Blue Angels documentary!
The F-4 Phantom II was good at its job early on with mid / long range engagements, however after a few friendly kill incidents the top brass decided that fighters must make visual contact or visual identification before they can shoot to kill... and so this bought the F-4 Phantom II with no internal gun into dog fight situations.... and naturally in that kind of situation, the F-4 Phantom II begun to rack up major losses in combat.... it lead to the development of the F-4E variants, but the Navy did not take on the F-4E....
The F-4E was terribly unsuited to the main role of USN Phantoms, namely detecting and engaging large Soviet bombers at long range and over water.
@@Chilly_Billy That was not the role for the Phantom IIs anyway, thats why they developed the F-14 as the Fleet Defender
I remember at the 2016 Luke Days Air Show, a pilot brought a Phantom as a static display. He and the Phantom were the big dog on campus because many F-16 and 35 pilots wanted to fly it.
This combat jet an iconic warrior of Vietnam War for brave pilots a modern engeeniering piece.
Awesome use of the new dcs module.
I never saw F4Es in USMC markings before (~4:55). This has some interesting visuals, not all of them related directly to the topic. USS Princeton (LPH-5) is an example seen around 3:00.
Odd that this channel made no mention of F-4s in Australian service. We had our own 'first Phantom' experience. Cheers Bill H. (ex RAAF)
They have a separate video just on the F-4 in Australian service from maybe about a year or so ago
We actually put a link at the start of the video and in the notes for "Phantom F-4E in Australian Service" - plus we've a couple of interviews with former F-4 pilots.
Brilliant information on very little discussed early combat of the F4 over Vietnam ... BTW ... complete nit picking but the F4 shown for Terence Murphy @5:12 showed the carrier markings as the Connie CVA-60 ... but VF-96 was apparently on the Ranger CVA-61 for that cruise. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-96#Vietnam Loved the use of computer graphics brought it all to life far better than old grainy B&W video.
If you had ever heard an F4 Phantom flying "low and slow" over a valley (I miss that sound) you would never forget it. A fabulous fighter (even without a gun) but not worth stink for ground support except for bombs. A fighter should remain a fighter. For ground attack and infantry support the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt is the king. No doubt.
I'm hoping to see more Australian footage.
You've made that know a number of times and more Australian content is in the works. Hold on! It's coming.
!What misterbig9025 said!
I'll wait...
Make a video on Japanese 6th gen aircraft and bae tempest also.
Damn that's some sweet cgi.
thats DCS
With inaccurate tail codes and paint schemes galore. The thumbnail shows F-4s in 1980s Ferris camo, so much for "first phantoms".
What are the differences in the Phantoms flown by the Air Force and Navy?
Why was Oz even involved in Vietnam?
The Good old NATO Diesel!
Tonkin based on a lie
The first incident on 2 August did happen when the USS Maddox intel ship was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The second alleged incident on 4 Aug never occurred. The skipper of the Maddox, CAPT Herrick, initially reported radar and sonar contacts which the crew did actually fire on, but the same night CAPT Herrick reported that those were probably in fact weather anomolies.
Please, don't use in-game footage. This is a hallmark of clickbait UA-camrs. Real-world label + videos of gameplay. Nah.
"Crystal Kingdom denies your request, proceed with hostilities"
It should be obvious by now that we are not a "clickbait UA-camr" but in-game footage affords us to illustrate stories that otherwise wouldn't have the footage or we are left with photos. If it's more engaging for the viewer and we are trying our best to be true to the aircraft type/history, I don't see it as a problem. We've had a disclaimer (see any of our video descriptions) that explains our use of 'recreated scenes'.
@@raafdocumentaries My recommendation is: don't. Rather shorten the video instead of keeping it longer by inserting fake imagery into otherwise factual and real footage.
Do not force the user to scrutinize the details of the displayed imagery to determine if it is fake or not. It is distracting. If you must include fake imagery, then label it clearly with a watermark. Realize that some fake imagery is quite realistic and it takes time for users to discern what they are looking at.
Your argument about increased engagement is precisely what I dislike-using fake imagery, which is often hard to distinguish from genuine footage, to keep users engaged. That is shady. Disclaimers? Who reads them? Alibistic.
"Being true to history" is incompatible with the use of unlabeled fakes.
@@xuldevelopers geez man.
@@xuldevelopers BOOHOO, WOMP WOMP, WA WA WA.