&gt; the art of dogfighting was deemed to have been lost for a brief period between WWII and the air war over Vietnam, and had to be re-engineered.<p>The air war in Vietnam was radically different from WWII so I&#x27;m not sure that&#x27;s a fair comparison.  The art wasn&#x27;t lost, the state had just changed so radically that it was no longer applicable and new strategies had to be devised.<p>In WWII the dogfighting was typically between interceptor aircraft engaging bomber escorts at high altitude.  You won the day by either out maneuvering or out gunning your opponent.  At the end of WWII, arguably the best dogfighter in service was the P-51D Mustang which was incredibly fast at the time with a top airspeed of ~430 mph and was equipped with 6x 50 caliber machine guns.  It was designed as a high altitude bomber escort and was one of the fastest and most maneuverable aircraft of the time with a high offensive yield.<p>In Vietnam with the introduction of long range air-to-air missiles and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), close air-to-air combat was thought to be a thing of the past by the US.  Tactics had shifted from bombers escorted by fighters to extremely high altitude bombers which hoped to avoid missiles by sheer range, and close ground support aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider and A-6e Intruder which utilized low altitudes, slow air speeds, and high maneuverability to avoid being engaged by SAMs.  Fighter aircraft like the F-4 would provide theater support and engage enemies at range using air-to-air missiles.  These tactics were designed around engaging the Soviet Union or other Super Powers, the Vietnamese however were utilizing Mig-17s, which still prescribed to the WWII method of air engagement, and was a natural evolution of the WWII fighter being fast, maneuverable, and heavily armed for air-to-air combat.  What you ended up with were a bunch of aircraft ill suited for engaging one another.<p>The A-1 and A-6 could fly incredibly low and slow in comparison to the Mig-17 and with much greater maneuverability at low speeds making it difficult for the Mig-17 to engage them with missles.  The Mig-17 would have to perform slicing runs with machine guns which made it vulnerable to those aircraft coming and going.  The Mig-17 could easily outpace them however making it difficult for either US aircraft to act offensively.<p>The F-4 could offensively engage the Mig-17 at range and could easily out run it if necessary but the F-4 was far less maneuverable and lacked on-board machine guns making it ill suited for a close range dogfight.  The gun pod on an F-4 was initially hampered by the fact that it couldn&#x27;t operate at low speeds because it was air turbine driven and also lacked lead sighting so the gun was inaccurate at high speeds.  F-4 pilots used a spray-and-pray approach if engaging a target in close air combat.  The F-4 though was not an easy target for the Mig-17 because it was equipped with electronic counter measures and raw engine power that dwarfed the Mig.<p>In the end completely new tactics had to be devised and lots of lessons were learned from the mistakes in Vietnam but there really wasn&#x27;t a losing and rediscovering of an art.