Talk:Nguyễn Văn Cốc

Untitled
Is the "so far" really necessary? 134.50.14.44 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? One day the USAF might admit to more air-to-air combat losses, who knows. Sometimes it does take a while for them to acknowledge a combat loss - only recently did they (or the US Navy, specifically) acknowledge that they lost an F/A-18 during Desert Storm in air-to-air combat with an Iraqi MiG-25.... 2Q (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If Van Coc is being credited with, or claiming credit for two UAVs (two Firebee's)...are WWII RAF pilot's recieving aerial kill credit(s) for downing German V-1 Buzz bmbs that flew over Britain? V-1's were pioneer UAVs.

Are there any confirmed WW2 RAF aces that shot down 5 or more V-1s (UAVs)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.62.58 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RAF pilots received credit for shooting down V1's. It did take a lot of skill, and it would be unfair to not give them credit for their successes just because they happened to be assigned to V1 defense duties while others were not. I don't recall if each V1 is a whole kill, or "half a kill", or if they are counted as an entirely separate type of kill, but they did get credit. Don't think they counted towards actual "ace" status, although you could be a "V1 ace" (or "Diver ace")..45Colt 22:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusing numbers
This article is confusing (or confused) about the number of kills. It says that he is credited 9 kills by the VPAF, but 10 kills are listed then. Furthermore, it says that two kills do not correspond to US losses, but it is unclear if they are included in the list: - if they are not, it would mean that the VPAF would credit him with 12, not 10 or 9 kills - if they are, how can the US pilots be named if there are no coressponding losses

I think sources should be checked again so that the article is consistent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faenglor (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Firebees and Broncos.
In addition to the other issues, I don't understand why on Earth the USAF would be operating training drones over a combat zone anyway. Makes no sense; they aren't recon "UAV's" like we have now, they can't carry any weapons. They are used for combat training pilots back at home. I also fail to understand how ANYONE could mistake a bright orange, transonic/supersonic, pointy and slim, single-jet powered drone with tiny little wings for a OV-10 Bronco, which is a low and slow, camouflaged, turboprop-powered observation aircraft with wide, low speed wings and twin engines. Seems exceedingly unlikely..45Colt 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)