Seeking photos of North Vietnamese Mig-21MF’s in camouflage

[28ZComeback]

Can anyone provide a photo of a camouflaged Vietnamese Mig-21MF?  I thought I saw a profile of a MF in bare metal and green mottle but did not save it. Thank you 

[11bravo]

I'm sorry but I can't help with a picture.  That being said, take any profile with a huge grain of salt!

[Doom3r]

I am wondering if the MF profile was similar to the PFM. If so you can search for instructions for zvezda MiG-21PFM 1/72 or Eduard MiG-21 Vietnam 1/48 kits. However you can use these schemes as "suggestion" since I am not sure if there are any color photos from that era of Vietnamese machines so all these profiles either artists interpretation of bad b&w photos or even just of descriptions

[28ZComeback]

I went back and it’s actually a MF painted in PFM camouflage colors. In 1975 the Vietnamese did have MiG-21MFs in overall green schemes. I have a very poor photo of one such plane. Thank you again. 

[28ZComeback]

This is the profile. Is it correct?? Thank you. Look halfway down the review to MF 5040. Thanks! 

 

http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/books/migsovernvbookreviewkb_1.htm

[Doom3r]

By the plane number looks like following model kit might help (check out painting guide for 5040)

 

https://www.super-hobby.com/products/MiG-21PFM-Vietnam-War.html#gallery_start

 

[rossm]

For photos the best two books I can think of are from Osprey

 

Combat Aircraft 29 - MiG-21 units of the Vietnam War and

 

Aircraft of the Aces 135 - MiG-21 Aces of the Vietnam War

 

If anyone asks it wasn't me who told you pdfs can be found online 🤐

 

It's not worth much as a reference - it was built in the 1980s (?) using a Microscale sheet in the days when we (more or less) trusted decal sheets - but here is my Vietnamese MiG-21MF from the old KP kit. Sorry about the bilious background.

 

 

[JagRigger]

Not sure what colour this one actually is - looks 'distempered'

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by JagRigger

[rossm]

1 hour ago, JagRigger said:

Not sure what colour this one actually is - looks 'distempered'

 

Caption to a colour profile in the Aces book...............

 

MiG-21PFM ‘Fishbed-F’ 5066 of the 927th FR, Noi Bai, 1972
This aircraft was one of the last MiG-21PFMs delivered to the VPAF. It initially served with the 921st FR
during the late 1960s in a natural metal finish. ‘5066’ was transferred to the 927th FR in 1972, where it
received this unusual, softly dappled camouflage scheme of dark green over natural metal.

[Junchan]

11 hours ago, 28ZComeback said:

This is the profile. Is it correct?? Thank you. Look halfway down the review to MF 5040. Thanks! 

 

http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/books/migsovernvbookreviewkb_1.htm

There are only two photos of the MiG-21MF in this book, on pages 112 and 130.

 

Jun in Tokyo

https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums

[28ZComeback]

Jun, I do not have the book. Is the MF camouflaged? Wondering on whether I should spend $40 on the book for two pictures. 

[Junchan]

1 hour ago, 28ZComeback said:

Jun, I do not have the book. Is the MF camouflaged? Wondering on whether I should spend $40 on the book for two pictures. 

Yes, I meant two photos of the camouflaged MiG-21MF.

 

Jun in Tokyo

https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums

[Hook]

While on the subject - is there any conclusive evidence these days of the presence of upper / lower wing roundels on NV MiG-21's?

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[28ZComeback]

The photos I have seen of from overhead show no national insignia on the upper wing, at least with the Mig-21s. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by 28ZComeback

[YK GOH]

Many published photos of MiG-21s on display in Hanoi show no insignia on the upper wings.

 

However, I believe they were painted on during the war and also later years.

 

Here's a photo from the book "Vietnam - The War in the Air" by Rene J Francillon, published in 1987.

 

Two screenshots from this video on Youtube:  

 

 

 

 

Two of the frequently published but grainy photos of MiG-21s during the war show sign of insigina on the top wing surface (indicated by the arrows).

 

Here's the MiG-21 gifted to the RTAF Museum.

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by YK GOH

[Hook]

Thanks, great pics!

 

Unlike the MiG-17s of the NVAF, I cannot see wing insignia on a lot of wartime pictures, but all kit and aftermarket sheets do show them.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Tiger331]

 

I have only just picked up on this thread and should say right from the start that the topic is a maze to navigate through. For one reason or another I have, in recent times, conducted a fair bit of research into VPAF MiG-21 operations, particularly those during the Vietnam conflict and with an emphasis on the colour schemes and markings applied to them. As part of this research, I was also invited to complete a review of Roger Boniface's book 'MiGs over North Vietnam' for our newsletter. As has been reported elsewhere, this is an excellent book which sheds new light on a topic that had previously been dominated by evidence from one side only. There is, however, one major problem with the book and that is with regard to the captioning of quite a few of the photographs and Colour Side Profiles (CSPs), which is totally wrong !. So, the statement from one of the co-respondents above about taking CSP captioning with a quote "huge grain of salt" unquote is sound advice. The reference to 'MiG-21F' for a MiG-17 caption is pretty obvious but some of the MiG-21F-13 captions make reference to MiG-21PF, the 'MiG-21PF' profile on Page 62 is labelled at MiG-21PFM yet lacks the prominent brake parachute housing found on the latter and the same mistake is repeated on Page 94, where the profile shows a 'MiG-21PF Red '5020' sans brake parachute housing yet a photo of the same aircraft immediately above the CSP clearly shows said parachute housing. The 'MiG-21MF Red 5040' shown on Page 111 is, in fact, a MiG-21PFM with camouflage optimised for night interception duties. When checking photographs and/or profiles, a useful rule of thumb is to look at the four digit code to determine the variant but, as always, there may be anomalies.

 

4*** series for MiG-21F-13 & some -PFLs

50** for MiG-21PFM

61** for MiG-21PFM

51** for MiG-21MF

52** for MiG-21bis

53** for MiG-21bis

 

To my knowledge, none of the MiG-21MF variants received camouflage during the Vietnam War but some aircraft, of all variants, may have been delivered in camouflage. There is evidence to suggest that MiG-21PFM 'Red 6122' was operated in a three tone upper surface camouflage scheme with light blue lower surfaces, having been rapidly supplied by the Soviet Air Force as an attrition replacement. It would appear that the majority of camouflaged types (both locally, such as '5040') or as described above were MiG-21PFMs, which would make sense since this was the most numerically common variant in VPAF Service during the war. As you will have seen more contemporary (i.e. Post-War) Vietnamese Air Force MiG-21s have been observed in several colour schemes including overall light grey and a three-tone camouflage scheme.    

 

The subject is further complicated by the fact that quite a few of the large variety of references associated with both kit and aftermarket decal sheets also contradict each other, particularly with regard to the presence (or otherwise) of national insignia on the upper and lower surfaces of the wings. My research so far indicates that the application of VPAF insignia to the upper and lower wing surfaces during the war was not an exact science and may have been dictated by time and local circumstances. Some aircraft probably received a full set of national insignia while others, rushed into service almost immediately after delivery, probably only received the VPAF insignia on the fuselage sides. I would recommend that constant referencing and cross-referencing through printed media and the internet will be the only way to determine whether a particular airframe received the 'full set' or not. Care should definitely be taken in making comparisons between wartime markings and those applied Post-War. With the luxury of time and, quite possibly, a legal requirement under international aviation law to properly mark combat aircraft, the Vietnamese will have set out to apply markings to the upper or lower surfaces (or both) of their aircraft but I do not imagine this was foremost in their minds when they were combating the might of the USAF, USN, USMC and US Army during the dark days of the Vietnam War.

 

My research has not gone to waste....here is the first of my own VPAF projects

 

 

Eduard 1:48 Mikoyan MiG-21PFM 'Red 5040' with LF Models decals.

 

I have a few more VPAF MiG-21 projects pending and I hope you find the above information useful.

 

HTH       

[28ZComeback]

Tiger I agree and after careful review of the photos the green MiG-21 in green camouflage has an antenna consistent with the PFM. Further the nose configuration is not that of a MF. That being said, I am sure you have seen the photo in Topedczer’s book depicting a Mig21MF in 1975 during the spring offensive in upper surfaces green. The photo is poor and it could be any color, however it does show camouflage from the front end.  Thank you for your information and let’s keep working on this topic. The MF version in Toperczer’s book was painted at some point, before 1975. 

[Tiger331]

12 hours ago, 28ZComeback said:

Tiger I agree and after careful review of the photos the green MiG-21 in green camouflage has an antenna consistent with the PFM. Further the nose configuration is not that of a MF. That being said, I am sure you have seen the photo in Topedczer’s book depicting a Mig21MF in 1975 during the spring offensive in upper surfaces green. The photo is poor and it could be any color, however it does show camouflage from the front end.  Thank you for your information and let’s keep working on this topic. The MF version in Toperczer’s book was painted at some point, before 1975. 

 

You are correct - I am familiar with the book by Istvan Toperczer and the photo to which you refer.

 

I would also agree that the Osprey/Toperczer book and, indeed, any of Toperczer's other work on the subject of VPAF MiGs, provides much more accuracy when it comes to the research and captioning of photos and CSPs but it may not be 100% correct and I still have my 'suspicions' about the 'MiG-21MF' photo on Page 80 of the aforementioned book. The aircraft in the photo, without doubt, sports some form of camouflage on the upper surfaces and the pitot probe does appear to be offset which would likely indicate an MF variant but the angle of the photo is not absolute (i.e. head on) so it could be an illusion. I'm also concerned that there does not appear to be any clear photographic evidence anywhere else of camouflaged VPAF Mig-21MFs during the Vietnam conflict. Given both Boniface's and Toperczer's clear access to both VPAF official sources and Veterans, I find it strange that neither source can come up with any photos but like you say, I will continue in my quest to help you find one, if I can !.

 

HTH

Mark     

[28ZComeback]

Mark, I like to go on photographic evidence as well. It’s worth noting that a Vietnamese pilot could be shot for photographing an airfield or aircraft in 1960-1985. In fact the only photos coming from Vietnam were propaganda photos staged by the Government or photos staged for the foreign press. It’s worth noting that very little info on the North Vietnamese Air Force exist in the post 1973-1985  period. Why? The foreign press went home in 1973 and the Vietnamese government had no need to take photos of their Air Force.  I keep hoping that someone connected with the war museum in Hanoi will publish their Archival material at some time. 

[Hook]

Thanks, great post. 

 

Would you recommend the Boniface book?

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Tiger331]

2 hours ago, Hook said:

Thanks, great post. 

 

Would you recommend the Boniface book?

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

Andre,

 

Personally, I would although it depends what you are looking for. I bought it mainly for the photographs and the Colour Side Profiles (notwithstanding the fact that much of the captioning is plain wrong - I have enough knowledge to know what is and what isn't accurate though). Some of the photos are familiar and have been published elsewhere but I found quite a few new ones. I also found the text fascinating in parts since it provides an alternative perspective on the air war over Vietnam. Inevitably this particular aspect has not gone down well with some reviewers, particularly in the US, since they counter the US claims in certain respects. There are some obvious errors in the text but not too many to ruin it. I particularly liked the section where the author interviews some of the VPAF veterans about their experiences. I can probably dig out my original full review for you, if you PM me. 

 

If not required, then you can rely on the standard Hikoki quality publication in hardback, with nice paper and excellent photographic reproduction etc.

 

HTH

 

Mark

[28ZComeback]

Gentlemen, in Boniface’s book does he have any photos of Migs during the 1975 spring offensive? 

[Tiger331]

6 hours ago, 28ZComeback said:

Gentlemen, in Boniface’s book does he have any photos of Migs during the 1975 spring offensive? 

There are no obvious references in the Boniface book to any photos taken during the Spring 1975 offensive and a cursory check this morning suggests to me that the majority of photos were taken prior to the 1974 period. That said, there is one intriguing photograph on Page 97 of what appears to be a bare metal MiG-21MF (the aircraft code is obscured but is definitely in the 51** series) loaded with what look like US standard 250 or 500lb bombs on the wing pylons. If these are, indeed, US style bombs they were most probably acquired from the northern bases as the Viet Cong swept south in early 1975 which would date this photo around the time period.

[28ZComeback]

That is a fascinating observation. A Mig-21 with US ordinance suggests that the North had no ordinance of their own. Otherwise they would have had their own stores. Neither the Chinese nor the SSR armed the North sufficiently to conduct tactical operations against the south. Similarly, we did not arm the south we strategic weapons.  Again I know nothing about the topic. I need to buy Boniface’s book. Many thanks!