Is Mig 21 Better For Fight

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Nov 18, 2020
Hello everyone I saw all the threads here I just want to know that Is Mig-21 Aircraft & t shirt for men better for fight Because there are many aircraft for fighting still Mig-21 Is better for Fighting tell me about it
Last edited:
That's true my friend. The difference is that the MiG 21 exhaust fumes were always seen while the politician's ones aren't. So you never know if you have already been blown or haven't yet.
Earlier F-4's did have some advantages over the MiG's: It's just the crews weren't as well trained as desired due to the following issues
  1. Air superiority wasn't considered essential for victory *
    • At the time (1953-1975) national policy was heavily geared around nuclear war with the USAF being built primarily around this role, with the USN able to go either way. While the USN might not have been happy about playing second-fiddle, in a strange way, it was a gift, as it gave them a versatility, the USAF could not have as easily achieved.
      • Nuclear War
        • Limited War: There were some thoughts of limited conflicts, though they weren't given much prioritization, it appears. These would involve the use of nuclear weapons to clear large formations of enemy forces on battlefields, and conflicts with nations that lacked or had small nuclear arsenals without ICBM's (and probably other ballistic-missiles that could hit US territory). Such a conflict could start out this way, or escalate to this level from a conventional war. Since such weapons are quite destructive, once the decision to use them is made, the enemy probably won't get much of a chance to learn from such mistakes, particularly if a change in tactics accompanies their use. The problem with conventional war is that it could go out of control and escalate to total war.
        • Total War: This was basically the predominant method fo thinking: Everything would be struck in rapid succession with air-bases, radar-sites, and things of that sort paved over before the larger bombers start coming through to destroy the primary targets of choice. Because of the enormous destructive capability of nuclear weapons, you'd only have to get through once (that said, targets were to be hit 2-4 times, probably in rapid succession as an insurance policy), and the war would be over in a day or two. With ICBM's and SLBM's entering the equation (late 1950's to early 1960's): The most heavily defended (and in some cases, unfortunately, the most heavily populated) targets would be taken out by these, and that would occur in 15 minutes or less for SLBM's (owing to the fact that all in our inventory used solid propellant, and had shorter range), and about 55-65 minutes early on, shortening to 24-35 minutes for ICBMs (Early ICBMs used non-storable propellant and had to be raised onto the surface prior to launch; later on, they used storable liquid, or solid propellants and could be launched out of a hardened silo). Because of the fact that strike aircraft (and eventually almost all aircraft) would come in low and fast to slip through air-defenses, there would be little warning of an impending attack, and the absolutely apocalyptic destruction to the country as a whole, and the command and control systems, would mean there'd be no ability to coordinate anything, let alone learn from mistakes made.
      • Conventional War: Whether conventional or total, there's a number of differences involved.
        • More individual sorties: After all, conventional ordinance isn't as destructive, so more bombs are needed to do the same job.
        • Different tactics are needed: At the most basic level, the requirements for accuracy is higher and/or more sorties are needed to achieve the desired/required level of destruction.
        • Lower Acceptable Losses: Since the odds of taking out every target in one fell swoop is not always guaranteed, an offensive measured in months is needed for this purpose, and during the Cold War, conventional conflicts took place in the bigger picture of escalation to nuclear war. One had to have enough equipment to maintain deterrence, or armageddon-causing destruction, while fighting the conventional war. So, losses always had to be kept low. With nuclear war, the enemy would be wiped out quickly with a small number of sorties, in a conventional conflict, you'll see wars last days to weeks if handled superbly, weeks to months if handled well, and if badly mismanaged, years. The enemy gets to learn from each battle, so they can restructure around what you're doing. With Vietnam, as an example, even if we wiped out their airfields, operations could be carried out from China. And they might learn a thing or two about how the attack was carried out and what things to do. For example in Vietnam, they had stuff dispersed everywhere from some negative experiences.
        • Summary: The longer duration of the conflict often means that slipping under the radar and delivering devastating attacks without increasingly sophisticated and hardened defenses becomes harder as they can learn from their mistakes. This makes the use of fighters useful, particularly if the decision is made to call in large bombers for the job. For low altitude attacks, there was some use for having fighter escort if an enemy can pick you out and chase you down: While the F-105 was extremely quick at low altitude, the F-100's were a bit less, and could use a higher performance fighter for the task.
    • The rationale for this decision was based around this was that, while nuclear weapons are more expensive round per round, and require more infrastructure to build them, the level of destruction produced was so extreme that a relatively small number of rounds were needed to do the job and that lowered cost. The fact that the US had sort of become the policeman of the free-world -- and that included supplying the militaries of other nations on a routine basis for a long period of time -- proved very costly. Of course it meant that we only had enough conventional ordinance for a few months at moderate intensity (during the Vietnam War, there were numerous cases where arms shortages popped up, and it required tapping into bombs that were WWII vintage or earlier).
  2. The balance between safety and effective training
    • Safety requires doing things that minimize the risk of harm or death to air-crews: Many transsonic and supersonic planes had some unforgiving handling traits which ranged from tricky to diabolical.
    • Training for combat requires getting pilots used to performing highly aggressive maneuvers that often end up pushing the airplane to the edge of its performance envelope. This kind of flying has an intrinsic danger to it. Where do you draw the line?
DISCLAIMER: Item 1: Is basically based on some information I've heard over the years, some of it's accurate, some of the conclusions derived from it appear to conform to known trends regarding policy decisions, but not all are certain. As a result, don't quote me on any of this -- I might be wrong.
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread