Eagle vs. Foxbat: Samurra Air Battle

Any chance I could know the name of the BGM used starting from 4:07?

Swapnil Sirdeshpande

I forgot to comment on this! I absolutely loved this video. Just your introduction on what Iraq was at the beginning of the war, recontextualized a whole era for me. Simply wonderful work.

Camrydriver

Everytime I watch one of your videos I wonder how you do it. The 3D work is astonishing and blows away even most big network documentaries.

Axel

I never knew about this engagement. Incredible occasion, and brilliantly told in the video. Some incredible flying by those two pilots, no doubt.

Sam Wise

Thanks for your feedback. There’s a lot to unpack here. A lot of the points you make are correct, but they are far outside the scope of a 13 minute video about the origin of the F-15. This video isn't about the F-4 Phantom, and it’s not about the long drawn out history of the Vietnam air war. If I take a deep dive into some of your points, like the history of sparrow missile reliability, I’m going to lose half the audience. The purpose of Mustard has always been to bring the magic of engineering and aviation to the broader audience. I want more people to fall in love planes, trains, and ships :) Now to some of the points I disagree with: The Phantom was an interceptor and fighter-bomber, not an air superiority fighter like you claim. By definition an air-superiority fighter is one that's purpose built for air-to-air engagements, like the F-15 was (not the Strike Eagle of course which came much later). Before the F-15, the last air superiority fighter produced by the United States was the F-86. The F-22 is also an air superiority fighter. The F-4 is not an air superiority fighter - it dropped far more bombs than it ever fired missiles. I realize that later versions of the F-4 had an internal gun, but that wasn't the case in 1967 during the initial days of the F-X program. I realize that towards the end of Vietnam, the F-4 had significantly improved air to air successes, but the F-X program was significantly impacted by early losses in Vietnam (which when compared to the Korean War were shocking). During the initial deployment of the Phantom, the kill ratio was about 3 to 1…that compares to nearly 10 to 1 during the Korean War. Most of the poor performance was due to rules of engagement (which required visual confirmation of targets), poor missile reliability and zero training for close engagements was also a factor (all of these were gross miscalculations by military planners about what air wars would be like in the future). The Phantom was the wrong plane for the job in 1967. The F-5 would have been far better suited to handle North Vietnamese MiG-17s 19s and 21s, but it simply lacked the range required. The Phantom’s long legs meant it was the only plane that could do the mission required. I will stress though that inadequate training and stringent rules of engagement was the biggest issue. Your statement about the F-4 being more maneuverable than any Soviet fighter is incorrect. Only at supersonic speeds does the F-4 have an advantage (not surprising given that it was originally built to intercept soviet bombers) . Dogfights in Vietnam were subsonic. Here’s a handy chart that shows how disadvantaged the Phantom is against the Mig-21: https://balloonstodrones.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/emt.jpg Even against the delta winged Mig-21, the F-4 is outmatched in a turning fight. Against far more nimble Mig-17s and Mig-19s the big heavy Phantom is in big trouble. I realize that by 1972 sparrow and sidewinder missile reliability had significantly improved, but my F-15 video focuses on the F-15's development (the Eagle was already flying by 1972) - so the improvement in missile reliability in the 1970's is somewhat outside the scope of the video. Early missiles were alarmingly inaccurate, and this surprised military planners who had built the Phantom entirely around the use of missiles. Again, the focus here is on the 1967-1969 timeframe as it impacted F-15 development. I also realize that later versions of the F-4 had an internal gun, but that wasn't the case in 1967 during the initial days of the F-X program. The F-X program was significantly impacted by shocking early losses in Vietnam, by poor missile reliability, and by lack of dogfighting capability as a result of inadequate training. All of these deficiencies were fixed by the early 1970's, but again, that's outside the scope of the video which is focused on 'how the F-15 came to be'. I appreciate your points here, but keep in mind that the most challenging part of making any video is keeping it focused, entertaining and in scope. There are other great channels that take a super detailed deep dive into aviation history.

Mustard

The quality of your videos is insane

Excellent work.

Chris Franklin

Sure, I'd love to provide you with a great (very detailed) example (but, get ready to learn some stuff...): In the video above, Mustard makes the claim that the F-4 was "pulled into close quarter combat with more agile Migs"... while they may have been lighter, they were not necessarily "more agile". He continues by stating that, "the Phantom's guided missiles proved hopelessly inaccurate", and that those missiles were "designed for larger, high altitude targets", and "initially, only 14% ever hit anything". (<< Oh, let's definitely put a pin in THAT statement). He goes on, stating that, "when the missiles failed the pilots were left defenseless" and "the larger, less maneuverable phantoms with their notoriously smokey engines were easily spotted... the more agile Migs lured the F-4s in close, knowing they were vulnerable." He continues by stating that, "American pilots were being downed at alarming rates"_. At this point, he attempts to tease out the actual truth and almost manages to actually do it, mentioning that, _"Air Force planners scrambled to respond, equipping the F-4s with pod mounted gatling guns and training pilots to engage the more maneuverable Migs"... but these were only "stop-gap solutions...", and "what the Air Force needed was a dedicated air-superiority fighter." Okay... now for the actual truth: The U.S. military already had an air-superiority fighter. One that was more than capable of taking on every single Mig (including the venerated Mig-21) in a dogfight. You may have heard of it. It was called... the F-4 Phantom. Yeah... the F-4 may have been a heavier aircraft... but it was more than agile enough to dogfight with every Soviet Mig flown during the Vietnam War. Top speed of a Mig-21 is 1,385 mph. Top speed of the F-4... 1,473 mph... and it's just as nimble in a dogfight. The U.S. military did not "scramble" to respond... they simply responded, knowing that they had the better plane. Not only were gatling pods used, the U.S. began installing cannons onto the next gen F-4s immediately. The Navy responded to the pilot problem by inventing a school, know affectionally as "Top Gun". The Air Force responded in kind. Now... let's talk about the missiles. There's a huge reason that Mustard said that "INITIALLY... only 14% ever hit anything". That's because the U.S. quickly figured out what the problem was, and corrected it. The U.S. air-to-air missiles were being mishandled by their weapons handlers... in addition, they had not considered what repeated landings (especially carrier landings) were doing to the missiles that could effect their reliability. As for the weapons handlers... some of the things they were doing was assembling missile fins with hammers... HAMMERS. Yeah... you're not supposed to assemble them that way. So... a study was conducted, corrections were made and lo and behold... missile reliability shot through the roof. In 1972 alone, 60 Mig 21's were downed by U.S. pilots (54 of those Migs were downed by F-4 pilots)... which was pretty standard for the war. Of the 199 Soviet Migs that were downed in air-to-air combat, 147 (which works out to approximately 73% of them) were downed by F-4 Phantoms... << They were not "less agile"... with "hopelessly inaccurate missiles". Yeah... about that. In 1967, during one of the very first missions of the F-4C, colonel Robin Olds lead two squadrons of Phantoms and downed seven Mig-21s in a single engagement, with those "hopelessly inaccurate missiles". <<< IN 1967. During the entirety of the Vietnam War... 78 U.S. fighter aircraft were downed in air-to-air combat That's 78 of EVERY TYPE OF U.S. FIGHTER PLANE, not just F-4s. The VAST MAJORITY of F-4s were downed by Soviet made air-to-air missiles or were lost in accidents). In fact, of the 78 various planes shot down by the Vietnamese, only seven of those were Navy F-4 Phantoms... SEVEN... the remainder of, how ever many F-4s were downed were Air Force Phantoms, and I don't have the breakdown of the Air Force's F-4s downed compared to - say - the F-104 or another type of fighter or fighter bomber, like the A-4 Skyhawk for instance. So, we got 78 total U.S. planes downed in air-to-air... but Mustard, believes the F-4 was being downed at "alarming rates". Let me just tell you how shit-scared the Soviets were of the F-4 Phantoms. During the late stages of the war... the F-4 was decimating so many Mig-21s that the Soviets put out a standing order, which strictly forbid Mig-21 pilots from engaging an F-4, UNLESS, they had superior numbers against a LONE F-4. That's how absolutely badass the F-4 Phantom was during the Vietnam war. It was, unquestioningly... THE air superiority fighter of that war. The often claimed point that the F-4 "didn't have an internal cannon", which people, including Mustard, claim as though this was the constant state of the Phantom for the entire war. The F-4 entered Vietnam with the USAF in August of 1964 (with its first air-to-air victory coming in April of 1965). Both the Air Force and the Navy recognized the "lack of a cannon" problem immediately, and both the Navy and the Air Force began using the external gun pods to correct that problem. On June, 30, 1967, the F-4E entered service in Vietnam for the USAF, with a built in, internal cannon. The Navy never purchased the F-4E, they just stuck with the F-4C and its external gun pods, which worked just fine for them in a dogfight. So... yeah, both branches recognized the problem and corrected it, almost instantly. For the US Air Force, having a variant enter service with an internal cannon by mid-1967, is lightning fast for updating a frontline fighter jet variant... and a full eight years before the United States pulled out of the Vietnam War. So... for EIGHT YEARS, the USAF had an F-4, fighting in Vietnam, WITH AN INTERNAL 20MM-CANNON. << Which (you may have noticed) is the VAST MAJORITY of the war... the only period in which it didn't have an internal cannon in Vietnam was its initial two years and ten months of service.

isolwi

Hi guys, your last video was outstanding to say the least so I'm looking forward to this one! Also, although I have Nebula, I really appreciate the gesture of accommodating some who do not. As your videos gain more popularity, I have noticed more scrutiny regarding the information presented in them, however. Since I'm not an expert I can't really know if it's true or not, so I will insert it here for you to check. If their criticism is valid, then please make sure to check your script with an expert. Thank you! 😊

isolwi