Forums of the Megaverse®

If Charlie had the SA-7 in the later parts of the conflict, would it have turned Vietnam, into an Afghanistan like conflict with large numbers of aircraft being shot down?

Large numbers of aircraft were shot down and Vietnam and Afghanistan were very similar conflicts to begin with.


But I do think MANPADS in the hands of the VC (and NVA Regulars working in RVN territory) would have made life much more interesting for the helicopter pilots . . . and probably shorter.

I don't know about that. I've never got the impression that the SA-7 was really that effective of a weapon. The Iraqis had a lot of them and didn't accomplish a lot with them. Neither did the Afgan Taliban. It is just a poor knock-off of the US Redeye manpad SAM, and not a very good one.

One thing that Vietnam showed was that the age of the gun isn't over yet. The Vietnamese Communists got a lot more bang for their buck with AAA and they shot down hundreds, if not thousands, of US choppers with nothing more than AK-47s, RPD, and 12.1mm MGs.

I don't think that the SA-7 would have helped a whole lot.

tgunner91 wrote:I don't know about that. I've never got the impression that the SA-7 was really that effective of a weapon. The Iraqis had a lot of them and didn't accomplish a lot with them. Neither did the Afgan Taliban. It is just a poor knock-off of the US Redeye manpad SAM, and not a very good one.

One thing that Vietnam showed was that the age of the gun isn't over yet. The Vietnamese Communists got a lot more bang for their buck with AAA and they shot down hundreds, if not thousands, of US choppers with nothing more than AK-47s, RPD, and 12.1mm MGs.

I don't think that the SA-7 would have helped a whole lot.

Between '62-'73 approximately 4,850 choppers were downed.

The VC set up what are known as "Flak Traps" using training providing by the NVA, Chinese, and Russians (and a few others), and used them to devastating effect on US and South Vietnamese aircraft. If they had had a better MANPADS system, they could have forced low flight CAS aircraft to either fly at a higher altitude, or back off completely. In many cases CAS and/or artillery fire was the only thing that kept many US and allied units from being completely overrun.

IIRC, the NV's had a number of SAM batteries defending the north during the US bombing campaigns. The US did lose aircraft to them, but in nothing like the numbers lost to traditional AAA. I seem to remember it being said that the US lost only a couple of dozen aircraft to SAMs whereas they lost hundreds of birds to AAA.

Same with aircraft mounted missiles. The US went into the war with tons of AAMs and no cannons! It didn't take too long for the USAF to mount gatlin guns on their birds as old WWII aces complained about loosing kills that they would have easily made if they only had some GUNS!

The Falkland Campaign in '82 reinforced that point! Most Argentine aircraft were lost to Harriers and to AAA guns on the British warships, and only a few were lost to British SAMs. Some old navy types pointed out that the Argentine flyers carried out attack runs that would have been sure suside against WWII era ships with reasonable AAA batteries!

Missiles NOW (ie 2008) are probably more capable and are STARTING to be as effective as advertised back in the 60's and 70's. The US defeats AAA defences now by taking out command and control and flying above AAA range (plus using more stealthy birds).

SAMs are scary, but AAA is still the killer.

Maybe I'm a bit harsh on SAMs.

Here is some interesting Falklands data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_forces ... klands_War

Down at the bottom is a list of Argentine aircraft lost and who got them. Honors go the the Sea Harriers but it looks like missiles edged out AAA fire by maybe a bit.

15 aircraft shot down by various SAMs5 5 fr5
5 from AAA and small arms fire

Though I wonder what it would have looked like if the British had better AAA defenses. Most British warships carried only a couple of 4.5" or 76mm main guns and perhaps a few 40mm or 20mm afterthought guns.

The big thing the SA-7s would have given the VC in South Vietnam is air defence beyond the reach of their heavy machineguns.


SAM's force aicraft down low to avoid them - making them easy prey for the guns.

True, the SA-7 couldn't have reached very high - but by the tim you're flying out of SA-7 reach - yopu're probably not going to be able to accurately provide close air support strikes to the boys going toe to toe with the ground forces.