"Air War: Korea or Vietnam?" Topic

Do you find Korea or Vietnam more interesting for your air-war games?

Vietnam – cruddy missiles and SAM sites add zing.

Good question, but it might be more of an apples and oranges. Korea is more of a W.W. II game, just faster, but the kill weapons are still heavy machine guns and auto cannons. Vietnam has missles, not very good missles, but missles and it's a whole lot faster.

I guess I would have to say I like Vietnam a bit more as it is something different from the standard gun fight in the clouds, but I also think Sabers/Panthers and MiG 15s are very cool.

I have aircraft for both periods, so maybe I'm not the best judge of this question.

It's really close, but Vietnam if I had to choose one.

Korea. Or the 'fifties in general.Even the lousy planes looked good.

I play both and like both for different reasons.

Vietnam, but I am a Phantom fan. That's what a fighter should look like; mean, rough and ugly.
BWW

Both are quite fun.

For more balanced air battles, Korea is better.

Vietnam is fun, since there's a lot more choice of aircraft, and AAM's suck. If you like being able to launch lots of them, and watch them go stupid, that is the era for you. Some people don't like dud weapons, but to me, it just makes those rare kills with them that much sweeter.

Many players may be frustrated if you use realistic rules for duds, so you might want to factor that into your game plans.

The 20mm's on the F-8 Crusaders are known to jam frequently too, if heavy G's are pulled getting the nose on the target.

Both

Korea

Both.

I play both and like both for different reasons too. Robert

Both, for different reasons.

Korea for balanced dogfights, Vietnam for more complicated missions (dodge AAA/SAMs, put bombs on target, "where'd HE come from?!?" missiles/dogfight, get home).

Both. I tend to regard them as totally different genres.

Korea is an extension of WW2 with jets. I find it a little dull to battle historically as Sabre vs MiG were the primary opponents and I find both rather boring compared to the F9Fs, Meteors and even the late WW2 prop aircraft around. I find Suez 1956 more interesting and a fascinating source of "what ifs".

Vietnam is more 'true' jet combat with missiles, radar and all the fittings. Along with the '67/Yom Kippur, '82 Syria and Indo-Pak wars it is the era of big aerial battles.

both

Korea. My father-in-law flew Sabers there and observation in Viet Nam.

Korea.Though I am all in for Suez '56.

Both and Arab/Israeli wars

Viet Nam.

I prefer Nam.

Both, but Korea still had old-fashioned dogfighting – with jets.

Korea many different types of jets, prop fighters, night- fighters, hunter -killer teams. british, austrailans, south aficans.

Korea is fast WWII (but with cool looking planes), and a lot of disparity in performance. Some planes really bad ass, other not so much.

Vietnam is more interesting because it includes early crappy missiles. The games plays very differently with Afterburners and Missiles.

But due to Vietnamese doctrine, I think Arab/Israeli is more interesting, as both sides came out to fight. Also the inferior side had numbers.

In Vietnam, it was a lot of ambush and run stuff, due to the Americans having numbers and technology on their side.

But there are a number of interesting fights, but less than in Arab/Israeli.