New Guy's First Post
Cheers to all...
Interesting posts!
Whenever these kinds of questions come up, I'm encouraged to make the observation that pilots win engagements, not aircraft. And to put it more to the point, engagements are more likely lost than won, with somebody capitalizing on the mistakes of somebody else.
F-4 engine smoke was an issue, depending on observation angle and background lighting conditions. We would go into min burner when still far out...this would reduce the signature and not cost that much in gas.
No argument about number of losses in NVN...but Thud Ridge got its name from being used as a geographical feature used for ingress into the target areas.
As for Boyd, his EM work was invaluable. His "40 sec" maneuver, however, was only good when 1v1 and then only good when used against someone who was clueless. Anyone who was forewarned would simply yo-yo off and re-engage having never given up the 3/9 line.
The USAF hands on experience against Soviet aircraft was also invaluable but needed to be understood for what it was...experience against early model MiG-21s and export model MiG-23s.
USAF training philosophy back in the 60s was to discourage or even ban dissimilar air combat training. Formations and tactics tended to be stuck in Korean War concepts. It took the bitter lessons of the VN war and finally someone at flag rank listening to and understanding what the USN was doing at TOPGUN (and other places) that finally moved us forward.